{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_68714/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_68714","id":"gutenberg_68714","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68714","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath","Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrines","Sunday"],"text":"HISTORY\n OF\n THE SABBATH\n AND\n FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.\n\n BY J. N. ANDREWS.\n\n SECOND EDITION\u2014ENLARGED.\n\n STEAM PRESS\n OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,\n BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:\n\n 1873.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe history of the Sabbath embraces the period of 6000 years. The seventh\nday is the Sabbath of the Lord. The acts which constituted it such were,\nfirst, the example of the Creator; secondly, his placing his blessing\nupon the day; and thirdly, the sanctification or divine appointment of\nthe day to a holy use. The Sabbath, therefore, dates from the beginning\nof our world\u2019s history. The first who Sabbatized on the seventh day is\nGod the Creator; and the first seventh day of time is the day which he\nthus honored. The highest of all possible honors does, therefore, pertain\nto the seventh day. Nor is this honor confined to the first seventh day\nof time; for so soon as God had rested upon that day, he appointed the\nseventh day to a holy use, that man might hallow it in memory of his\nCreator.\n\nThis divine appointment grows out of the nature and fitness of things,\nand must have been made directly to Adam, for himself and wife were then\nthe only beings who had the days of the week to use. As it was addressed\nto Adam while yet in his uprightness, it must have been given to him\nas the head of the human family. The fourth commandment bases all its\nauthority upon this original mandate of the Creator, and must, therefore,\nbe in substance what God commanded to Adam and Eve as the representatives\nof mankind.\n\nThe patriarchs could not possibly have been ignorant of the facts and the\nobligation which the fourth commandment shows to have originated in the\nbeginning, for Adam was present with them for a period equal to more than\nhalf the Christian dispensation. Those, therefore, who walked with God in\nthe observance of his commandments did certainly hallow his Sabbath.\n\nThe observers of the seventh day must therefore include the ancient\ngodly patriarchs, and none will deny that they include also the prophets\nand the apostles. Indeed, the entire church of God embraced within the\nrecords of inspiration were Sabbath-keepers. To this number must be added\nthe Son of God.\n\nWhat a history, therefore, has the Sabbath of the Lord! It was instituted\nin Paradise, honored by several miracles each week for the space of forty\nyears, proclaimed by the great Law-giver from Sinai, observed by the\nCreator, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the Son of God!\nIt constitutes the very heart of the law of God, and so long as that law\nendures, so long shall the authority of this sacred institution stand\nfast.\n\nSuch being the record of the seventh day, it may well be asked, How came\nit to pass that this day has been abased to the dust, and another day\nelevated to its sacred honors? The Scriptures nowhere attribute this work\nto the Son of God. They do, however, predict the great apostasy in the\nChristian church, and that the little horn, or man of sin, the lawless\none, should think to change times and laws.\n\nIt is the object of the present volume to show, 1. The Bible record of\nthe Sabbath; 2. The record of the Sabbath in secular history; 3. The\nrecord of the Sunday festival, and of the several steps by which it has\nusurped the place of the ancient Sabbath.\n\nThe writer has attempted to ascertain the exact truth in the case by\nconsulting the original authorities as far as it has been possible to\ngain access to them. The margin will show to whom he is mainly indebted\nfor the facts presented in this work, though it indicates only a very\nsmall part of the works consulted. He has given the exact words of the\nhistorians, and has endeavored, conscientiously, to present them in such\na light as to do justice to the authors quoted.\n\nIt is not the fault of the writer that the history of the Sunday festival\npresents such an array of frauds and of iniquities in its support. These\nare, in the nature of the case, essential to its very existence, for the\nclaim of a usurper is necessarily based in fraud. The responsibility for\nthese rests with those who dare commit or uphold such acts. The ancient\nSabbath of the Lord has never needed help of this kind, and never has its\nrecord been stained by fraud or falsehood.\n\n J. N. A.\n\n_Battle Creek, Mich., Nov. 14, 1873._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PART I.\u2014BIBLE HISTORY.\n\n PAGES.\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n THE CREATION, 9-13\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH, 13-32\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n THE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS, 33-44\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 44-50\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n THE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD, 51-64\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n THE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION, 64-82\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS, AND SABBATHS, OF THE HEBREWS, 82-92\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n THE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH, 92-109\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST, 109-114\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, 115-157\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES, 158-192\n\n PART II.\u2014SECULAR HISTORY.\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH, 193-203\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n THE SUNDAY-LORD\u2019S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES, 204-228\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY, 228-243\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD, 243-258\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n\n ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 258-281\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n\n THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 282-308\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 308-331\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES, 332-368\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n\n SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES, 368-398\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n\n TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES, 398-432\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n\n POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY, 432-446\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n LUTHER AND CARLSTADT, 446-459\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, 459-470\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n\n HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 470-479\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS, 479-492\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n THE SABBATH IN AMERICA, 493-512\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY OF THE SABBATH.\n\n\n\n\nPART I\u2014BIBLE HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE CREATION.\n\n Time and eternity\u2014The Creator and his work\u2014Events of the first\n day of time\u2014Of the second\u2014Of the third\u2014Of the fourth\u2014Of the\n fifth\u2014Of the sixth.\n\n\nTime, as distinguished from eternity, may be defined as that part of\nduration which is measured by the Bible. From the earliest date in the\nbook of Genesis to the resurrection of the unjust at the end of the\nmillennium, the period of about 7000 years is measured off.[1] Before the\ncommencement of this great week of time, duration without beginning fills\nthe past; and at the expiration of this period, unending duration opens\nbefore the people of God. Eternity is that word which embraces duration\nwithout beginning and without end. And that Being whose existence\ncomprehends eternity, is he who only hath immortality, the King eternal,\nimmortal, invisible, the only wise God.[2]\n\nWhen it pleased this infinite Being, he gave existence to our earth. Out\nof nothing God created all things;[3] \u201cso that things which are seen\nwere not made of things which do appear.\u201d This act of creation is that\nevent which marks the commencement of the first week of time. He who\ncould accomplish the whole work with one word chose rather to employ six\ndays, and to accomplish the result by successive steps. Let us trace the\nfootsteps of the Creator from the time when he laid the foundation of the\nearth until the close of the sixth day, when the heavens and the earth\nwere finished, \u201cand God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it\nwas very good.\u201d[4]\n\nOn the first day of time God created the heaven and the earth. The earth\nthus called into existence was without form, and void; and total darkness\ncovered the Creator\u2019s work. Then \u201cGod said, Let there be light; and there\nwas light.\u201d \u201cAnd God divided the light from the darkness,\u201d and called the\none day, and the other night.[5]\n\nOn the second day of time \u201cGod said, Let there be a firmament [margin,\nHeb., expansion] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters\nfrom the waters.\u201d The dry land had not yet appeared; consequently the\nearth was covered with water. As no atmosphere existed, thick vapors\nrested upon the face of the water; but the atmosphere being now called\ninto existence by the word of the Creator, causing those elements\nto unite which compose the air we breathe, the fogs and vapors that\nhad rested upon the bosom of the water were borne aloft by it. This\natmosphere or expansion is called heaven.[6]\n\nOn the third day of time God gathered the waters together and caused the\ndry land to appear. The gathering together of the waters God called seas;\nthe dry land, thus rescued from the waters, he called earth. \u201cAnd God\nsaid, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the\nfruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon\nthe earth: and it was so.\u201d \u201cAnd God saw that it was good.\u201d[7]\n\nOn the fourth day of time \u201cGod said, Let there be lights in the firmament\nof the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for\nsigns, and for seasons, and for days, and years.\u201d \u201cAnd God made two great\nlights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule\nthe night; he made the stars also.\u201d Light had been created on the first\nday of the week; and now on the fourth day he causes the sun and moon\nto appear as light-bearers, and places the light under their rule. And\nthey continue unto this day according to his ordinances, for all are his\nservants. Such was the work of the fourth day. And the Great Architect,\nsurveying what he had wrought, pronounced it good.[8]\n\nOn the fifth day of time \u201cGod created great whales, and every living\ncreature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after\ntheir kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was\ngood.\u201d[9]\n\nOn the sixth day of time \u201cGod made the beast of the earth after his\nkind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the\nearth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.\u201d Thus the earth,\nhaving been fitted for the purpose, was filled with every order of\nliving creature, while the air and waters teemed with animal existence.\nTo complete this noble work of creation, God next provides a ruler, the\nrepresentative of himself, and places all in subjection under him. \u201cAnd\nGod said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them\nhave dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and\nover the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing\nthat creepeth upon the earth.\u201d \u201cAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust\nof the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and\nman became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in\nEden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground\nmade the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and\ngood for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the\ntree of knowledge of good and evil.\u201d Last of all, God created Eve, the\nmother of all living. The work of the Creator was now complete. \u201cThe\nheavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.\u201d \u201cAnd God\nsaw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.\u201d Adam and\nEve were in paradise; the tree of life bloomed on earth; sin had not\nentered our world, and death was not here, for there was no sin. \u201cThe\nmorning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.\u201d\nThus ended the sixth day.[10]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH.\n\n Event on the seventh day\u2014Why the Creator rested\u2014Acts by which\n the Sabbath was made\u2014Time and order of their occurrence\u2014Meaning\n of the word _sanctified_\u2014The fourth commandment refers the\n origin of the Sabbath to creation\u2014The second mention of the\n Sabbath confirms this fact\u2014The Saviour\u2019s testimony\u2014When did\n God sanctify the seventh day\u2014Object of the Author of the\n Sabbath\u2014Testimony of Josephus and of Philo\u2014Negative argument\n from the book of Genesis considered\u2014Adam\u2019s knowledge of the\n Sabbath not difficult to be known by the patriarchs.\n\n\nThe work of the Creator was finished, but the first week of time was\nnot yet completed. Each of the six days had been distinguished by the\nCreators work upon it; but the seventh was rendered memorable in a very\ndifferent manner. \u201cAnd on the seventh[11] day God ended his work which\nhe had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he\nhad made.\u201d In yet stronger language it is written: \u201cOn the seventh day he\nrested, and was REFRESHED.\u201d[12]\n\nThus the seventh day of the week became the rest-day of the Lord. How\nremarkable is this fact! \u201cThe everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of\nthe ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary.\u201d[13] He needed\nno rest; yet it is written, \u201cOn the seventh day he rested, and was\nrefreshed.\u201d Why does not the record simply state the cessation of the\nCreator\u2019s work? Why did he at the close of that work employ a day in\nrest? The answer will be learned from the next verse. He was laying the\nfoundation of a divine institution, the memorial of his own great work.\n\n\u201cAnd God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; _because_ that in it\nhe had rested from all his work which God created and made.\u201d The fourth\ncommandment states the same fact: He \u201crested the seventh day; _wherefore_\nthe Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d[14]\n\nThe blessing and sanctification of the seventh day were because that God\nhad rested upon it. His resting upon it, then, was to lay the foundation\nfor blessing and sanctifying the day. His being refreshed with this rest,\nimplies that he delighted in the act which laid the foundation for the\nmemorial of his great work.\n\nThe second act of the Creator in instituting this memorial was to place\nhis blessing upon the day of his rest. Thenceforward it was the blessed\nrest-day of the Lord. A third act completes the sacred institution. The\nday already blessed of God is now, last of all, sanctified or hallowed\nby him. To sanctify is \u201cto separate, set apart, or appoint to a holy,\nsacred, or religious use.\u201d To hallow is \u201cto make holy; to consecrate; to\nset apart for a holy or religious use.\u201d[15]\n\nThe time when these three acts were performed is worthy of especial\nnotice. The first act was that of rest. This took place on the seventh\nday; for the day was employed in rest. The second and third acts took\nplace when the seventh day was past. \u201cGod blessed the seventh day, and\nsanctified it: because that in it he _had_ rested from all his work.\u201d\nHence it was on the first day of the second week of time that God\nblessed the seventh day, and set it apart to a holy use. The blessing and\nsanctification of the seventh day, therefore, relate not to the first\nseventh day of time, but to the seventh day of the week for time to come,\nin memory of God\u2019s rest on that day from the work of creation.\n\nWith the beginning of time, God began to count days, giving to each an\nordinal number for its _name_. Seven _different_ days receive as many\ndifferent _names_. In memory of that which he did on the last of these\ndays, he sets that day apart by _name_ to a holy use. This act gave\nexistence to weeks, or periods of seven days. For with the seventh day,\nhe ceased to count, and, by the divine appointment of that day to a holy\nuse in memory of his rest thereon, he causes man to begin the count of a\nnew week so soon as the first seventh day had ceased. And as God has been\npleased to give man, _in all_, but _seven_ different days, and has given\nto each one of these days a name which indicates its exact place in the\nweek, his act of setting apart one of these by name, which act created\nweeks and gave man the Sabbath, can never\u2014except by sophistry\u2014be made to\nrelate to an indefinite or uncertain day.\n\nThe days of the week are measured off by the revolution of _our earth_ on\nits axis; and hence our seventh day, as such, can come only to dwellers\non this globe. To Adam and Eve, therefore, as inhabitants of this earth,\nand not to the inhabitants of some other world, were the days of the week\ngiven to use. Hence, when God set apart one of these days to a holy use\nin memory of his own rest on that day of the week, the very essence of\nthe act consisted in his telling Adam that this day should be used only\nfor sacred purposes. Adam was then in the garden of God, placed there by\nthe Creator to dress it and to keep it. He was also commissioned of God\nto subdue the earth.[16] When therefore the rest-day of the Lord should\nreturn, from week to week, all this secular employment, however proper\nin itself, must be laid aside, and the day observed in memory of the\nCreator\u2019s rest.\n\nDr. Twisse quotes Martin Luther thus:\n\n \u201cAnd Martin Luther professeth as much (tome vi. in Gen. 2:3).\n \u2018It follows from hence,\u2019 saith he, \u2018that, if Adam had stood in\n his innocency, yet he should have kept the seventh day holy,\n that is, on that day he should have taught his children, and\n children\u2019s children, what was the will of God, and wherein his\n worship did consist; he should have praised God, given thanks,\n and offered. On other days he should have tilled his ground,\n looked to his cattle.\u2019\u201d[17]\n\nThe Hebrew verb, _kadash_, here rendered _sanctified_, and in the fourth\ncommandment rendered _hallowed_, is defined by Gesenius, \u201cTo pronounce\nholy, to sanctify; to institute any holy thing, to appoint.\u201d[18] It\nis repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or\nproclamation. Thus, when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel,\nit is written: \u201cThey appointed [margin, Heb., sanctified] Kedesh in\nGalilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim,\u201d &c. This\nsanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge was by a public\nannouncement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that\npurpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast,\nand for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: \u201cSanctify\n[_i. e._, appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders\nand all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.\u201d\n\u201cBlow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [_i. e._, appoint] a fast, call a\nsolemn assembly.\u201d \u201cAnd Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb., sanctify] a\nsolemn assembly for Baal.\u201d[19] This appointment for Baal was so public\nthat all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together.\nThese fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a\npublic appointment or proclamation of the fact. When therefore God set\napart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary that he should\nstate that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without\nsuch announcement the day could not be set apart from the others.\n\nBut the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be\nfound in the record of the sanctification of Mount Sinai.[20] When God\nwas about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he\nsent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to restrain the people from\ntouching the mount. \u201cAnd Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot\ncome up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about\nthe mount, and _sanctify it_.\u201d Turning back to the verse where God gave\nthis charge to Moses, we read: \u201cAnd thou shalt set bounds unto the people\nround about, _saying_, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into\nthe mount or touch the border of it.\u201d Hence to sanctify the mount was to\ncommand the people not to touch even the border of it; for God was about\nto descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart\nto a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the people that God would have\nthem treat the mountain as sacred to himself. And thus also to sanctify\nthe rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as\nholy to the Lord.\n\nThe declaration, \u201cGod blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,\u201d is not\nindeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record\nthat such a precept was given to Adam.[21] For how could the Creator \u201cset\napart to a holy use\u201d the day of his rest, when those who were to use the\nday knew nothing of his will in the case? Let those answer who are able.\n\nThis view of the record in Genesis we shall find to be sustained by all\nthe testimony in the Bible relative to the rest-day of the Lord. The\nfacts which we have examined are the basis of the fourth commandment.\nThus spake the great Law-giver from the summit of the flaming mount:\n\u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\u201d \u201cThe seventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God.\u201d \u201cFor in six days the Lord made heaven and\nearth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:\nwherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d[22]\n\nThe term Sabbath is transferred from the Hebrew language, and signifies\nrest.[23] The command, \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,\u201d is\ntherefore exactly equivalent to saying, \u201cRemember the rest-day, to keep\nit holy.\u201d The explanation which follows sustains this statement: \u201cThe\nseventh day is the Sabbath [or rest-day] of the Lord thy God.\u201d The origin\nof this rest-day is given in these words: \u201cFor in six days the Lord\nmade heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the\nseventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed\nit.\u201d That which is enjoined in the fourth commandment is to keep holy\nthe rest-day of the Lord. And this is defined to be the day on which\nhe rested from the work of creation. Moreover, the fourth commandment\ncalls the seventh day the Sabbath day at the time when God blessed and\nhallowed that day; therefore the Sabbath is an institution dating from\nthe foundation of the world. The fourth commandment points back to the\ncreation for the origin of its obligation; and when we go back to that\npoint, we find the substance of the fourth commandment given to Adam:\n\u201cGod blessed the seventh day and sanctified it;\u201d _i. e._, set it apart to\na holy use. And in the commandment itself, the same fact is stated: \u201cThe\nLord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it;\u201d _i. e._, appointed it to\na holy use. The one statement affirms that \u201cGod blessed the seventh day,\nand sanctified it;\u201d the other, that \u201cthe Lord blessed the Sabbath day,\nand hallowed it.\u201d These two statements refer to the same acts. Because\nthe word Sabbath does not occur in the first statement, it has been\ncontended that the Sabbath did not originate at creation, it being the\nseventh day merely which was hallowed. From the second statement, it has\nbeen contended that God did not bless the seventh day at all, but simply\nthe Sabbath institution. But both statements embody all the truth. God\nblessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; and this day thus blessed and\nhallowed was his holy Sabbath, or rest-day. Thus the fourth commandment\nestablishes the origin of the Sabbath at creation.\n\nThe second mention of the Sabbath in the Bible furnishes a decisive\nconfirmation of the testimonies already adduced. On the sixth day of the\nweek, Moses, in the wilderness of Sin, said to Israel, \u201cTo-morrow is\nthe rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\u201d[24] What had been done to\nthe seventh day since God blessed and sanctified it as his rest-day in\nparadise? Nothing. What did Moses do to the seventh day to make it the\nrest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord? Nothing. Moses on the sixth day\nsimply states the fact that the morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath\nunto the Lord. The seventh day had been such ever since God blessed and\nhallowed the day of his rest.\n\nThe testimony of our divine Lord relative to the origin and design of the\nSabbath is of peculiar importance. He is competent to testify, for he\nwas with the Father in the beginning of the creation.[25] \u201cThe Sabbath\nwas made for man,\u201d said he, \u201cnot man for the Sabbath.\u201d[26] The following\ngrammatical rule is worthy of notice: \u201cA noun without an adjective is\ninvariably taken in its broadest extension, as: Man is accountable.\u201d[27]\nThe following texts will illustrate this rule, and also this statement of\nour Lord\u2019s: \u201cMan lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more,\nthey shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.\u201d \u201cThere hath no\ntemptation taken you but such as is common to man.\u201d \u201cIt is appointed unto\nmen once to die.\u201d[28] In these texts man is used without restriction,\nand, therefore, all mankind are necessarily intended. The Sabbath was\ntherefore made for the whole human family, and consequently originated\nwith mankind. But the Saviour\u2019s language is even yet more emphatic in\nthe original: \u201cThe Sabbath was made for THE man, not THE man for the\nSabbath.\u201d This language fixes the mind on the man Adam, who was made of\nthe dust of the ground just before the Sabbath was made for him, of the\nseventh day.\n\nThis is a striking confirmation of the fact already pointed out that the\nSabbath was given to Adam, the head of the human family.\n\n\u201cThe seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; yet he made the\nSabbath for man. God made the Sabbath his by solemn appropriation, that\nhe might convey it back to us under the guarantee of a divine charter,\nthat none might rob us of it with impunity.\u201d\n\nBut is it not possible that God\u2019s act of blessing and sanctifying the\nseventh day did not occur at the close of the creation week? May it\nnot be mentioned then because God designed that the day of his rest\nshould be afterward observed? Or rather, as Moses wrote the book of\nGenesis long after the creation, might he not insert this account of the\nsanctification of the seventh day with the record of the first week,\nthough the day itself was sanctified in his own time?\n\nIt is very certain that such an interpretation of the record cannot be\nadmitted, unless the facts in the case demand it. For it is, to say the\nleast, a forced explanation of the language. The record in Genesis,\nunless this be an exception, is a plain narrative of events. Thus what\nGod did on each day is recorded in its order down to the seventh. It\nis certainly doing violence to the narrative to affirm that the record\nrespecting the seventh day is of a different character from that\nrespecting the other six. He rested the seventh day; he sanctified the\nseventh day because he had rested upon it. The reason why he should\nsanctify the seventh day existed when his rest was closed. To say,\ntherefore, that God did not sanctify the day at that time, but did it in\nthe days of Moses, is not only to distort the narrative, but to affirm\nthat he neglected to do that for which the reason existed at creation,\nuntil twenty-five hundred years after.[29]\n\nBut we ask that the facts be brought forward which prove that the Sabbath\nwas sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, and not at creation. And what\nare the facts that show this? It is confessed that such facts are not\nupon record. Their existence is assumed in order to sustain the theory\nthat the Sabbath originated at the fall of the manna, and not in paradise.\n\nDid God sanctify the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin? There is no\nintimation of such fact. On the contrary, it is mentioned at that time\nas something already set apart of God. On the sixth day Moses said,\n\u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\u201d[30] Surely\nthis is not the act of instituting the Sabbath, but the familiar mention\nof an existing fact. We pass on to Mount Sinai. Did God sanctify the\nSabbath when he spoke the ten commandments? No one claims that he did.\nIt is admitted by all that Moses spoke of it familiarly the previous\nmonth.[31] Does the Lord at Sinai speak of the sanctification of the\nSabbath? He does; but in the very language of Genesis he goes back for\nthe sanctification of the Sabbath, not to the wilderness of Sin, but\nto the creation of the world.[32] We ask those who hold the theory\nunder examination, this question: If the Sabbath was not sanctified at\ncreation, but was sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, why does the\nnarrative in each instance[33] record the sanctification of the Sabbath\nat creation and omit all mention of such fact in the wilderness of Sin?\nNay, why does the record of events in the wilderness of Sin show that the\nholy Sabbath was at that time already in existence? In a word, How can a\ntheory subversive of all the facts in the record, be maintained as the\ntruth of God?\n\nWe have seen the Sabbath ordained of God at the close of the creation\nweek. The object of its Author is worthy of especial attention. Why\ndid the Creator set up this memorial in paradise? Why did he set apart\nfrom the other days of the week that day which he had employed in rest?\n\u201cBecause that in it,\u201d says the record, \u201che had rested from all his\nwork which God created and made.\u201d A _rest_ necessarily implies a _work\nperformed_. And hence the Sabbath was ordained of God as a memorial\nof the work of creation. And therefore that precept of the moral law\nwhich relates to this memorial, unlike every other precept of that law,\nbegins with the word, \u201cRemember.\u201d The importance of this memorial will\nbe appreciated when we learn from the Scriptures that it is the work of\ncreation which is claimed by its Author as the great evidence of his\neternal power and Godhead, and as that great fact which distinguishes him\nfrom all false gods. Thus it is written:\n\n \u201cHe that built all things is God.\u201d \u201cThe gods that have not\n made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from\n the earth, and from under these heavens.\u201d \u201cBut the Lord is\n the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King.\u201d\n \u201cHe hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the\n world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his\n discretion.\u201d \u201cFor the invisible things of him from the creation\n of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things\n that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.\u201d \u201cFor he\n spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.\u201d Thus\n \u201cthe worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things\n which are seen were not made of things which do appear.\u201d[34]\n\nSuch is the estimate which the Scriptures place upon the work of creation\nas evincing the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. The Sabbath\nstands as the memorial of this great work. Its observance is an act of\ngrateful acknowledgment on the part of his intelligent creatures that he\nis their Creator, and that they owe all to him; and that for his pleasure\nthey are and were created. How appropriate this observance for Adam! And\nwhen man had fallen, how important for his well-being that he should\n\u201cremember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\u201d He would thus have been\npreserved from atheism and from idolatry; for he could never forget that\nthere was a God from whom all things derived their being; nor could he\nworship as God any other being than the Creator.\n\nThe seventh day, as hallowed by God in Eden, was not Jewish, but divine;\nit was not the memorial of the flight of Israel from Egypt, but of\nthe Creator\u2019s rest. Nor is it true that the most distinguished Jewish\nwriters deny the primeval origin of the Sabbath, or claim it as a Jewish\nmemorial We cite the historian Josephus and his learned cotemporary,\nPhilo Jud\u00e6us. Josephus, whose \u201cAntiquities of the Jews\u201d run parallel with\nthe Bible from the beginning, when treating of the wilderness of Sin,\nmakes no allusion whatever to the Sabbath, a clear proof that he had no\nidea that it originated in that wilderness. But when giving the account\nof creation, he bears the following testimony:\n\n \u201cMoses says that in just six days the world and all that is\n therein was made. And that the seventh day was a rest and a\n release from the labor of such operations; WHENCE it is that we\n celebrate a rest from our labor on that day, and call it the\n Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.\u201d[35]\n\nAnd Philo bears an emphatic testimony relative to the character of the\nSabbath as a memorial. Thus he says:\n\n \u201cBut after the whole world had been completed according to the\n perfect nature of the number six, the Father hallowed the day\n following, the seventh, praising it and calling it holy. For\n that day is the festival, not of one city or one country, but\n of all the earth; a day which alone it is right to call the day\n of festival for all people, and the birth-day of the world.\u201d[36]\n\nNor was the rest-day of the Lord a shadow of man\u2019s rest after his\nrecovery from the fall. God will ever be worshiped in an understanding\nmanner by his intelligent creatures. When therefore he set apart his\nrest-day to a holy use, if it was not as a memorial of his work, but\nas a shadow of man\u2019s redemption from the fall, the real design of the\ninstitution must have been stated, and, as a consequence, man in his\nunfallen state could never observe the Sabbath as a delight, but ever\nwith deep distress, as reminding him that he was soon to apostatize from\nGod. Nor was the holy of the Lord and honorable, one of the \u201ccarnal\nordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation;\u201d[37] for there\ncould be no reformation with unfallen beings.\n\nBut man did not continue in his uprightness. Paradise was lost, and Adam\nwas excluded from the tree of life. The curse of God fell upon the earth,\nand death entered by sin, and passed upon all men.[38] After this sad\napostasy, no further mention of the Sabbath occurs until Moses on the\nsixth day said, \u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\u201d\n\nIt is objected that there is no precept in the book of Genesis for the\nobservance of the Sabbath, and consequently no obligation on the part\nof the patriarchs to observe it. There is a defect in this argument not\nnoticed by those who use it. The book of Genesis was not a rule given\nto the patriarchs to walk by. On the contrary, it was written by Moses\n2500 years after creation, and long after the patriarchs were dead.\nConsequently the fact that certain precepts were not found in Genesis\nis no evidence that they were not obligatory upon the patriarchs. Thus\nthe book does not command men to love God with all their hearts, and\ntheir neighbors as themselves; nor does it prohibit idolatry, blasphemy,\ndisobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness or covetousness.\nWho will affirm from this that the patriarchs were under no restraint\nin these things? As a mere record of events, written long after their\noccurrence, it was not necessary that the book should contain a moral\ncode. But had the book been given to the patriarchs as a rule of life,\nit must of necessity have contained such a code. It is a fact worthy of\nespecial notice that as soon as Moses reaches his own time in the book of\nExodus, the whole moral law is given. The record and the people were then\ncotemporary, and ever afterward the written law is in the hands of God\u2019s\npeople, as a rule of life, and a complete code of moral precepts.\n\nThe argument under consideration is unsound, 1. Because based upon\nthe supposition that the book of Genesis was the rule of life for the\npatriarchs; 2. Because if carried out it would release the patriarchs\nfrom every precept of the moral law except the sixth.[39] 3. Because\nthe act of God in setting apart his rest-day to a holy use, as we have\nseen, necessarily involves the fact that he gave a precept concerning\nit to Adam, in whose time it was thus set apart. And hence, though the\nbook of Genesis contains no precept concerning the Sabbath, it does\ncontain direct evidence that such precept was given to the head and\nrepresentative of the human family.\n\nAfter giving the institution of the Sabbath, the book of Genesis, in its\nbrief record of 2370 years, does not again mention it. This has been\nurged as ample proof that those holy men, who, during this period, were\nperfect, and walked with God in the observance of his commandments,\nstatutes and laws,[40] all lived in open profanation of that day which\nGod had blessed and set apart to a holy use. But the book of Genesis also\nomits any distinct reference to the doctrine of future punishment, the\nresurrection of the body, the revelation of the Lord in flaming fire,\nand the Judgment of the great day. Does this silence prove that the\npatriarchs did not believe these great doctrines? Does it make them any\nthe less sacred?\n\nBut the Sabbath is not mentioned from Moses to David, a period of five\nhundred years, during which it was enforced by the penalty of death.\nDoes this prove that it was not observed during this period?[41] The\njubilee occupied a very prominent place in the typical system, yet in the\nwhole Bible a single instance of its observance is not recorded. What is\nstill more remarkable, there is not on record a single instance of the\nobservance of the great day of atonement, notwithstanding the work in the\nholiest on that day was the most important service connected with the\nworldly sanctuary. And yet the observance of the other and less important\nfestivals of the seventh month, which are so intimately connected with\nthe day of atonement, the one preceding it by ten days, the other\nfollowing it in five, is repeatedly and particularly recorded.[42] It\nwould be sophistry to argue from this silence respecting the day of\natonement, when there were so many instances in which its mention was\nalmost demanded, that that day was never observed; and yet it is actually\na better argument than the similar one urged against the Sabbath from the\nbook of Genesis.\n\nThe reckoning of time by weeks is derived from nothing in nature, but\nowes its existence to the divine appointment of the seventh day to\na holy use in memory of the Lord\u2019s rest from the six days\u2019 work of\ncreation.[43] This period of time is marked only by the recurrence of the\nsanctified rest-day of the Creator. That the patriarchs reckoned time by\nweeks and by sevens of days, is evident from several texts.[44] That they\nshould retain the week and forget the Sabbath by which alone the week is\nmarked, is not a probable conclusion. That the reckoning of the week was\nrightly kept is evident from the fact that in the wilderness of Sin on\nthe sixth day the people, of their own accord, gathered a double portion\nof manna. And Moses said to them, \u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the holy\nSabbath unto the Lord.\u201d[45]\n\nThe brevity of the record in Genesis causes us to overlook many facts of\nthe deepest interest. Adam lived 930 years. How deep and absorbing the\ninterest that must have existed in the human family to see the first man!\nTo converse with one who had himself talked with God! To hear from his\nlips a description of that paradise in which he had lived! To learn from\none created on the sixth day the wondrous events of the creation week! To\nhear from his lips the very words of the Creator when he set apart his\nrest-day to a holy use! And to learn, alas! the sad story of the loss of\nparadise and the tree of life![46]\n\nIt was therefore not difficult for the facts respecting the six days of\ncreation and the sanctification of the rest-day to be diffused among\nmankind in the patriarchal age. Nay, it was impossible that it should be\notherwise, especially among the godly. From Adam to Abraham a succession\nof men\u2014probably inspired of God\u2014preserved the knowledge of God upon\nearth. Thus Adam lived till Lamech, the father of Noah, was 56 years of\nage; Lamech lived till Shem, the son of Noah, was 93; Shem lived till\nAbraham was 150 years of age. Thus are we brought down to Abraham, the\nfather of the faithful. Of him it is recorded that he obeyed God\u2019s voice\nand kept his charge, his commandments, his statutes, and his laws. And\nof him the Most High bears the following testimony: \u201cI know him, that he\nwill command his children and his household after him, and they shall\nkeep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment.\u201d[47] The knowledge\nof God was preserved in the family of Abraham; and we shall next find\nthe Sabbath familiarly mentioned among his posterity, as an existing\ninstitution.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS.\n\n Object of this chapter\u2014Total apostasy of the human family in\n the antediluvian age\u2014Destruction of mankind\u2014The family of Noah\n spared\u2014Second apostasy of mankind in the patriarchal age\u2014The\n apostate nations left to their own ways\u2014The family of Abraham\n chosen\u2014Separated from the rest of mankind\u2014Their history\u2014Their\n relation to God\u2014The Sabbath in existence when they came forth\n from Egypt\u2014Analysis of Ex. 16\u2014The Sabbath committed to the\n Hebrews.\n\n\nWe are now to trace the history of divine truth for many ages in almost\nexclusive connection with the family of Abraham. That we may vindicate\nthe truth from the reproach of pertaining only to the Hebrews\u2014a reproach\noften urged against the Sabbath\u2014and justify the dealings of God with\nmankind in leaving to their own ways the apostate nations, let us\ncarefully examine the Bible for the reasons which directed divine\nProvidence in the choice of Abraham\u2019s family as the depositaries of\ndivine truth.\n\nThe antediluvian world had been highly favored of God. The period of\nlife extended to each generation was twelve-fold that of the present age\nof man. For almost one thousand years, Adam, who had conversed with God\nin paradise, had been with them. Before the death of Adam, Enoch began\nhis holy walk of three hundred years, and then he was translated that he\nshould not see death. This testimony to the piety of Enoch was a powerful\ntestimony to the antediluvians in behalf of truth and righteousness.\nMoreover the Spirit of God strove with mankind; but the perversity of\nman triumphed over all the gracious restraints of the Holy Spirit. \u201cAnd\nGod saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every\nimagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.\u201d Even\nthe sons of God joined in the general apostasy. At last a single family\nwas all that remained of the worshipers of the Most High.[48]\n\nThen came the deluge, sweeping the world of its guilty inhabitants with\nthe besom of destruction.[49] So terrible a display of divine justice\nmight well be thought sufficient to restrain impiety for ages. Surely the\nfamily of Noah could not soon forget this awful lesson. But alas, revolt\nand apostasy speedily followed, and men turned from God to the worship\nof idols. Against the divine mandate separating the human family into\nnations,[50] mankind united in one great act of rebellion in the plain\nof Shinar. \u201cAnd they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,\nwhose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be\nscattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.\u201d Then God confounded\nthem in their impiety and scattered them abroad from thence upon the face\nof all the earth.[51] Men did not like to retain God in their knowledge;\nwherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind, and suffered them to\nchange the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the creature\nrather than the Creator. Such was the origin of idolatry and of the\napostasy of the Gentiles.[52]\n\nIn the midst of this wide-spread apostasy one man was found whose heart\nwas faithful with God. Abraham was chosen from an idolatrous family, as\nthe depositary of divine truth, the father of the faithful, the heir of\nthe world, and the friend of God.[53] When the worshipers of God were\nfound alone in the family of Noah, God gave up the rest of mankind to\nperish in the flood. Now that the worshipers of God are again reduced\nalmost to a single family, God gives up the idolatrous nations to their\nown ways, and takes the family of Abraham as his peculiar heritage.\n\u201cFor I know him,\u201d said God, \u201cthat he will command his children and his\nhousehold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do\njustice and judgment.\u201d[54] That they might preserve in the earth the\nknowledge of divine truth and the memory and worship of the Most High,\nthey were to be a people walled off from all mankind, and dwelling in a\nland of their own. That they might thus be separated from the heathen\naround, God gave to Abraham the rite of circumcision, and afterward to\nhis posterity the whole ceremonial law.[55] But they could not possess\nthe land designed for them until the iniquity of the Amorites, its\ninhabitants, was full, that they should be thrust out before them. The\nhorror of great darkness, and the smoking furnace seen by Abraham in\nvision, foreshadowed the iron furnace and the bitter servitude of Egypt.\nThe family of Abraham must go down thither. Brief prosperity and long and\nterrible oppression follow.[56]\n\nAt length the power of the oppressor is broken, and the people of God\nare delivered. The expiration of four hundred and thirty years from the\npromise to Abraham marks the hour of deliverance to his posterity.[57]\nThe nation of Israel is brought forth from Egypt as God\u2019s peculiar\ntreasure, that he may give them his Sabbath, and his law, and himself.\nThe psalmist testifies that God \u201cbrought forth his people with joy, and\nhis chosen with gladness: and gave them the lands of the heathen: and\nthey inherited the labor of the people: that they might observe his\nstatutes, and keep his laws. And the Most High says, \u201cI am the Lord\nwhich hallow you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt, _to be your\nGod_.\u201d[58] Not that the commandments of God, his Sabbath and himself, had\nno prior existence, nor that the people were ignorant of the true God and\nhis law; for the Sabbath was appointed to a holy use before the fall of\nman; and the commandments of God, his statutes and his laws, were kept by\nAbraham; and the Israelites themselves, when some of them had violated\nthe Sabbath, were reproved by the question, \u201cHow long refuse ye to keep\nmy commandments and my laws?\u201d[59] And as to the Most High, the psalmist\nexclaims, \u201dBefore the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst\nformed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting,\nthou art God.\u201d[60] But there must be a formal public espousal of the\npeople by God, and of his law and Sabbath and himself by the people.[61]\nBut neither the Sabbath, nor the law, nor the great Law-giver, by their\nconnection with the Hebrews, became Jewish. The Law-giver indeed became\nthe God of Israel,[62] and what Gentile shall refuse him adoration for\nthat reason? but the Sabbath still remained the Sabbath of the Lord,[63]\nand the law continued to be the law of the Most High.\n\nIn the month following their passage through the Red Sea, the Hebrews\ncame into the wilderness of Sin. It is at this point in his narrative\nthat Moses for the second time mentions the sanctified rest-day of the\nCreator. The people murmured for bread:\n\n \u201cThen said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread\n from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a\n certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they\n will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that\n on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in;\n and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.... I have\n heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto\n them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning\n ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the\n Lord your God. And it came to pass, that at even the quails\n came up, and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay\n round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up,\n behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round\n thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the\n children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is\n manna; for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them,\n This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat. This is\n the thing which the Lord hath commanded, Gather of it every\n man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according\n to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them\n which are in his tents. And the children of Israel did so, and\n gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with\n an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that\n gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according\n to his eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the\n morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but\n some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms,\n and stank; and Moses was wroth with them. And they gathered\n it every morning, every man according to his eating; and when\n the sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass, that on the\n sixth day they gathered twice as much bread,[64] two omers for\n one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told\n Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath\n said,[65] To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the\n Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye\n will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up to be kept\n until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as\n Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm\n therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a\n Sabbath unto the Lord:[66] to-day ye shall not find it in the\n field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day,\n which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came\n to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh\n day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto\n Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?\n See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore\n he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye\n every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the\n seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.\u201d[67]\n\nThis narrative shows, 1. That God had a law and commandments prior to\nthe giving of the manna. 2. That God in giving his people bread from\nheaven designed to prove them respecting his law. 3. That in this law was\nthe holy Sabbath; for the test relative to walking in the law pertained\ndirectly to the Sabbath; and when God said, \u201cHow long refuse ye to\nkeep my commandments and my laws?\u201d it was the Sabbath which they had\nviolated. 4. That in proving the people respecting this existing law,\nMoses gave no new precept respecting the Sabbath, but remained silent\nrelative to the preparation for the Sabbath until after the people, of\ntheir own accord, had gathered a double portion on the sixth day. 5. That\nby this act the people proved not only that they were not ignorant of\nthe Sabbath, but that they were disposed to observe it.[68] 6. That the\nreckoning of the week, traces of which appear through the patriarchal\nage,[69] had been rightly kept, for the people knew when the sixth day\nhad arrived. 7. That had there been any doubt existing on that point, the\nfall of the manna on the six days, the withholding of it on the seventh,\nand the preservation of that needed for the Sabbath over that day, must\nhave settled that point incontrovertibly.[70] 8. That there was no act\nof instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin; for God did not\nthen make it his rest-day, nor did he then bless and sanctify the day.\nOn the contrary, the record shows that the seventh day was already the\nsanctified rest-day of the Lord.[71] 9. That the obligation to observe\nthe Sabbath existed and was known before the fall of the manna. For the\nlanguage used implies the existence of such an obligation, but does not\ncontain a new enactment until after some of the people had violated the\nSabbath. Thus God says to Moses, \u201cOn the sixth day they shall prepare\nthat which they bring in,\u201d but he does not speak of the seventh. And on\nthe sixth day Moses says, \u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto\nthe Lord,\u201d but he does not command them to observe it. On the seventh day\nhe says that it is the Sabbath, and that they should find no manna in the\nfield. \u201cSix days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the\nSabbath, in it there shall be none.\u201d But in all this there is no precept\ngiven, yet the existence of such a precept is plainly implied. 10. That\nwhen some of the people violated the Sabbath they were reproved in\nlanguage which plainly implies a previous transgression of this precept.\n\u201cHow long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?\u201d 11. And that\nthis rebuke of the Law-giver restrained for the time the transgression of\nthe people.\n\n\u201cSee, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth\nyou on the sixth day the bread of two days:[72] abide ye every man in\nhis place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.\u201d[73] As a\nspecial trust, God committed the Sabbath to the Hebrews. It was now given\nthem, not now made for them. It was made for man at the close of the\nfirst week of time; but all other nations having turned from the Creator\nto the worship of idols, it is given to the Hebrew people. Nor does this\nprove that all the Hebrews had hitherto disregarded it. For Christ uses\nthe same language respecting circumcision. Thus he says, \u201cMoses therefore\ngave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the\nfathers.\u201d[74] Yet God had enjoined that ordinance upon Abraham and his\nfamily four hundred years previous to this gift of it by Moses, and it\nhad been retained by them.[75]\n\nThe language, \u201cThe Lord hath given you the Sabbath,\u201d implies a solemn\nact of committing a treasure to their trust. How was this done? No act\nof instituting the Sabbath here took place. No precept enjoining its\nobservance was given until some of the people violated it, when it was\ngiven in the form of a reproof; which evinced a previous obligation, and\nthat they were transgressing an existing law. And this view is certainly\nstrengthened by the fact that no explanation of the institution was given\nto the people; a fact which indicates that some knowledge of the Sabbath\nwas already in their possession.\n\nBut how then did God give them the Sabbath? He did this, first, by\ndelivering them from the abject bondage of Egypt, where they were a\nnation of slaves. And second, by providing them food in such a manner as\nto impose the strongest obligation to keep the Sabbath. Forty years did\nhe give them bread from heaven, sending it for six days, and withholding\nit on the seventh, and preserving food for them over the Sabbath. Thus\nwas the Sabbath especially intrusted to them.\n\nAs a gift to the Hebrews, the Creator\u2019s great memorial became a sign\nbetween God and themselves. \u201cI gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign\nbetween me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that\nsanctify them.\u201d As a sign, its object is stated to be, to make known\nthe true God; and we are told why it was such a sign. \u201cIt is a sign\nbetween me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the\nLord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was\nrefreshed.\u201d[76] The institution itself signified that God created\nthe heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Its\nobservance by the people signified that the Creator was their God. How\nfull of meaning was this sign!\n\nThe Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel, because\nthey alone were the worshipers of the Creator. All other nations had\nturned from him to \u201cthe gods that have not made the heavens and the\nearth.\u201d[77] For this reason the memorial of the great Creator was\ncommitted to the Hebrews, and it became a sign between the Most High and\nthemselves. Thus was the Sabbath a golden link uniting the Creator and\nhis worshipers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.\n\n The Holy One upon Mount Sinai\u2014Three great gifts bestowed upon\n the Hebrews\u2014The Sabbath proclaimed by the voice of God\u2014Position\n assigned it in the moral law\u2014Origin of the Sabbath\u2014Definite\n character of the commandment\u2014Revolution of the earth upon\n its axis\u2014Name of the Sabbatic institution\u2014Seventh day of the\n commandment identical with the seventh day of the New Testament\n week\u2014Testimony of Nehemiah\u2014Moral obligation of the fourth\n commandment.\n\n\nAnd now we approach the record of that sublime event, the personal\ndescent of the Lord upon Mount Sinai.[78] The sixteenth chapter of\nExodus, as we have seen, is remarkable for the fact that God gave to\nIsrael the Sabbath; the nineteenth chapter, for the fact that God gave\nhimself to that people in solemnly espousing them as a holy nation unto\nhimself; while the twentieth chapter will be found remarkable for the act\nof the Most High in giving to Israel his law.\n\nIt is customary to speak against the Sabbath and the law as Jewish,\nbecause thus given to Israel. As well might the Creator be spoken\nagainst, who brought them out of Egypt to be _their_ God, and who styles\nhimself the God of Israel.[79] The Hebrews were honored by being thus\nintrusted with the Sabbath and the law, not the Sabbath and the law and\nthe Creator rendered Jewish by this connection. The sacred writers speak\nof the high exaltation of Israel in being thus intrusted with the law of\nGod.\n\n \u201cHe showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments\n unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for\n his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord!\u201d\n \u201cWhat advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of\n circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them\n were committed the oracles of God.\u201d \u201cWho are Israelites; to\n whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,\n and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the\n promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning\n the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.\n Amen.\u201d[80]\n\nAfter the Most High had solemnly espoused the people unto himself, as\nhis peculiar treasure in the earth,[81] they were brought forth out of\nthe camp to meet with God. \u201cAnd Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke,\nbecause the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof\nascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.\u201d\nOut of the midst of this fire did God proclaim the ten words of his\nlaw.[82] The fourth of these precepts is the grand law of the Sabbath.\nThus spake the great Law-giver:\u2014\n\n \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt\n 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 thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy\n maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within\n thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,\n the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:\n wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d\n\nThe estimate which the Law-giver placed upon his Sabbath is seen in that\nhe deemed it worthy of a place in his code of ten commandments, thus\ncausing it to stand in the midst of nine immutable moral precepts. Nor\nis this to be thought a small honor that the Most High, naming one by\none the great principles of morality until all are given, and he adds no\nmore,[83] should include in their number the observance of his hallowed\nrest-day. This precept is expressly given to enforce the observance of\nthe Creator\u2019s great memorial; and unlike all the others, this one traces\nits obligation back to the creation, where that memorial was ordained.\n\nThe Sabbath is to be remembered and kept holy because that God hallowed\nit, _i.e._, appointed it to a holy use, at the close of the first week.\nAnd this sanctification or hallowing of the rest-day, when the first\nseventh day of time was past, was the solemn act of setting apart the\nseventh day for time to come in memory of the Creator\u2019s rest. Thus\nthe fourth commandment reaches back and embraces the institution of\nthe Sabbath in paradise, while the sanctification of the Sabbath in\nparadise extends forward to all coming time. The narrative respecting\nthe wilderness of Sin admirably cements the union of the two. Thus in\nthe wilderness of Sin, before the fourth commandment was given, stands\nthe Sabbath, holy to the Lord, with an existing obligation to observe\nit, though no commandment in that narrative creates the obligation. This\nobligation is derived from the same source as the fourth commandment,\nnamely, the sanctification of the Sabbath in paradise, showing that it\nwas an existing duty, and not a new precept. For it should never be\nforgotten that the fourth commandment does not trace its obligation to\nthe wilderness of Sin, but to the creation; a decisive proof that the\nSabbath did not originate in the wilderness of Sin.\n\nThe fourth commandment is remarkably definite. It embraces, first,\na precept: \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;\u201d second, an\nexplanation of this precept: \u201cSix days shalt thou labor, and do all thy\nwork; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it\nthou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy\nman-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that\nis within thy gates;\u201d third, the reasons on which the precept is based,\nembracing the origin of the institution, and the very acts by which it\nwas made, and enforcing all by the example[84] of the Law-giver himself:\n\u201cfor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that\nin them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the\nSabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d\n\nThe rest-day of the Lord is thus distinguished from the six days on\nwhich he labored. The blessing and sanctification pertain to the day of\nthe Creator\u2019s rest. There can be, therefore, no indefiniteness in the\nprecept. It is not merely one day in seven, but that day in the seven on\nwhich the Creator rested, and upon which he placed his blessing, namely,\nthe seventh day.[85] And this day is definitely pointed out in the name\ngiven it by God: \u201cThe seventh day is the Sabbath [_i. e._, the rest-day]\nof the Lord thy God.\u201d\n\nThat the seventh day in the fourth commandment is the seventh day of the\nNew-Testament week may be plainly proved. In the record of our Lord\u2019s\nburial, Luke writes thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.\n And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed\n after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid.\n And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and\n rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon\n the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they\n came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had\n prepared, and certain others with them.\u201d[86]\n\nLuke testifies that these women kept \u201cthe Sabbath day according to the\ncommandment.\u201d The commandment says, \u201cThe seventh day is the Sabbath of\nthe Lord thy God.\u201d This day thus observed was the last or seventh day\nof the week, for the following[87] day was the first day of the week.\nHence the seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the\nNew-Testament week.\n\nThe testimony of Nehemiah is deeply interesting. \u201cThou camest down also\nupon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them\nright judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and\nmadest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts,\nstatutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.\u201d[88] It is\nremarkable that God is said to have made known the Sabbath when he thus\ncame down upon the mount; for the children of Israel had the Sabbath in\npossession when they came to Sinai. This language must therefore refer\nto that complete unfolding of the Sabbatic institution which is given in\nthe fourth commandment. And mark the expression: \u201cMadest known[89] unto\nthem thy holy Sabbath;\u201d not madest the Sabbath for them: language which\nplainly implies its previous existence, and which cites the mind back to\nthe Creator\u2019s rest for the origin of the institution.[90]\n\nThe moral obligation of the fourth commandment which is so often denied\nmay be clearly shown by reference to the origin of all things. God\ncreated the world and gave existence to man upon it. To him he gave life\nand breath, and all things. Man therefore owes everything to God. Every\nfaculty of his mind, every power of his being, all his strength and all\nhis time belong of right to the Creator. It was therefore the benevolence\nof the Creator that gave to man six days for his own wants. And in\nsetting apart the seventh day to a holy use in memory of his own rest,\nthe Most High was reserving unto himself one of the seven days, when he\ncould rightly claim all as his. The six days therefore are the gift of\nGod to man, to be rightly employed in secular affairs, not the seventh\nday, the gift of man to God. The fourth commandment, therefore, does not\nrequire man to give something of his own to God, but it does require that\nman should not appropriate to himself that which God has reserved for his\nown worship. To observe this day then is to render to God of the things\nthat are his; to appropriate it to ourselves is simply to rob God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD.\n\n Classification of the precepts given through Moses\u2014The Sabbath\n renewed\u2014Solemn ratification of the covenant between God and\n Israel\u2014Moses called up to receive the law which God had written\n upon stone\u2014The ten commandments probably proclaimed upon the\n Sabbath\u2014Events of the forty days\u2014The Sabbath becomes a sign\n between God and Israel\u2014The penalty of death\u2014The tables of\n testimony given to Moses\u2014And broken when he saw the idolatry of\n the people\u2014The idolaters punished\u2014Moses goes up to renew the\n tables\u2014The Sabbath again enjoined\u2014The tables given again\u2014The\n ten commandments were the testimony of God\u2014Who wrote them\u2014Three\n distinguished honors which pertain to the Sabbath\u2014The ten\n commandments a complete code\u2014Relation of the fourth commandment\n to the atonement\u2014Valid reason why God himself should write that\n law which was placed beneath the mercy-seat.\n\n\nWhen the voice of the Holy One had ceased, \u201cthe people stood afar off,\nand Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.\u201d A brief\ninterview follows[91] in which God gives to Moses a series of precepts,\nwhich, as a sample of the statutes given through him, may be classified\nthus: Ceremonial precepts, pointing to the good things to come; judicial\nprecepts, intended for the civil government of the nation; and moral\nprecepts, stating anew in other forms the ten commandments. In this brief\ninterview the Sabbath is not forgotten:\u2014\n\n \u201cSix days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou\n shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son\n of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.\u201d[92]\n\nThis scripture furnishes incidental proof that the Sabbath was made\nfor mankind, and for those creatures that share the labors of man.\nThe stranger and the foreigner must keep it, and it was for their\nrefreshment.[93] But the same persons could not partake of the passover\nuntil they were made members of the Hebrew church by circumcision.[94]\n\nWhen Moses had returned unto the people, he repeated all the words of\nthe Lord. With one voice all the people exclaim, \u201cAll the words which\nthe Lord hath said will we do.\u201d Then Moses wrote all the words of the\nLord. \u201cAnd he took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of\nthe people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and\nbe obedient.\u201d Then Moses \u201csprinkled both the book and all the people,\nsaying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto\nyou.\u201d[95]\n\nThe way was thus prepared for God to bestow a second signal honor upon\nhis law:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount,\n and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law,\n and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach\n them.... And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered\n the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai,\n and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he\n called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.[96] And the\n sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the\n top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And\n Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into\n the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty\n nights.\u201d[97]\n\nDuring this forty days God gave to Moses a pattern of the ark in which to\nplace the law that he had written upon stone, and of the mercy-seat to\nplace over that law, and of the sanctuary in which to deposit the ark.\nHe also ordained the priesthood, which was to minister in the sanctuary\nbefore the ark.[98] These things being ordained, and the Law-giver about\nto commit his law as written by himself into the hands of Moses, he again\nenjoins the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak thou also unto\n the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall\n keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your\n generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth\n sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is\n holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put\n to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall\n be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done;\n but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord:\n whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be\n put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the\n Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations,\n for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the\n children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made\n heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was\n refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of\n communing with him upon Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables\n of stone, written with the finger of God.\u201d[99]\n\nThis should be compared with the testimony of Ezekiel, speaking in the\nname of God:\u2014\n\n \u201cI gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which\n if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave\n them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they\n might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.... I am the\n Lord your God: walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments,\n and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign\n between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your\n God.\u201d[100]\n\nIt will be observed that neither of these scriptures teach that the\nSabbath was made _for_ Israel, nor yet do they teach that it was made\n_after_ the Hebrews came out of Egypt. In neither of these particulars\ndo they even _seem_ to contradict those texts that place the institution\nof the Sabbath at creation. But we do learn, 1. That it was God\u2019s act\nof giving to the Hebrews his Sabbath that made it a sign between _them_\nand himself. \u201cI gave them my Sabbaths TO BE a sign between me and them.\u201d\nThis act of committing to them the Sabbath has been noticed already.[101]\n2. That it was to be a sign between God and the Hebrews, \u201cthat they\nmight know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.\u201d Wherever the word\nLORD in the Old Testament is in small capitals, as in the texts under\nconsideration, it is in the Hebrew, Jehovah. The Sabbath then as a sign\nsignified that it was Jehovah, _i. e._, the infinite, self-existent\nGod, who had sanctified them. To sanctify is to separate, set apart, or\nappoint, to a holy, sacred or religious use.[102] That the Hebrew nation\nhad thus been set apart in the most remarkable manner from all mankind,\nwas sufficiently evident. But who was it that had thus separated them\nfrom all other people? As a gracious answer to this important question,\nGod gave to the Hebrews his own hallowed rest-day. But how could the\ngreat memorial of the Creator determine such a question? Listen to the\nwords of the Most High: \u201cVerily my Sabbaths,\u201d _i. e._, my rest-days, \u201cye\nshall keep; for it is a sign between me and you.... It is a sign between\nme and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made\nheaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.\u201d\nThe Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel, was a perpetual testimony\nthat he who had separated them from all mankind as his peculiar treasure\nin the earth, was that Being who had created the heavens and the earth\nin six days and rested on the seventh. It was therefore the strongest\npossible assurance that he who sanctified them was indeed Jehovah.\n\nFrom the days of Abraham God had set apart the Hebrews. He who had\npreviously borne no local, national or family name, did from that time\nuntil the end of his covenant relation with the Hebrew race, take to\nhimself such titles as seemed to show him to be their God alone. From\nhis choice of Abraham and his family forward he designates himself as\nthe God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; the God of the Hebrews,\nand the God of Israel.[103] He brought Israel out of Egypt to be _their\nGod_,[104] and at Sinai did join himself to them in solemn espousal. He\ndid thus set apart or sanctify unto himself the Hebrews, because that\nall other nations had given themselves to idolatry. Thus the God of\nHeaven and earth condescended to give himself to a single race, and to\nset them apart from all mankind. It should be observed that it was not\nthe Sabbath which had set Israel apart from all other nations, but it\nwas the idolatry of all other nations that caused God to set the Hebrews\napart for himself; and that God gave to Israel the Sabbath which he had\nhallowed for mankind at creation as the most expressive sign that he who\nthus sanctified them was indeed the living God.\n\nIt was the act of God in giving his Sabbath to the Israelites that\nrendered it a sign _between them and himself_. But the Sabbath did not\nderive its existence from being thus given to the Hebrews; for it was the\nancient Sabbath of the Lord when given to them, and we have seen[105]\nthat it was not given by a new commandment. On the contrary, it rested at\nthat time upon existing obligation. But it was the providence of God in\nbehalf of the Hebrews, first in rescuing them from abject servitude, and\nsecond, in sending them bread from heaven for six days, and preserving\nfood for the Sabbath, that constituted the Sabbath a gift to that\npeople. And mark the significancy of the _manner_ in which this gift was\nbestowed, as showing who it was that sanctified them. It became a gift\nto the Hebrews by the wonderful providence of the manna: a miracle that\nceased not openly to declare the Sabbath every week for the space of\nforty years; thus showing incontrovertibly that He who led them was the\nauthor of the Sabbath, and therefore the Creator of heaven and earth.\nThat the Sabbath which was made for man should thus be given to the\nHebrews is certainly not more remarkable than that the God of the whole\nearth should give his oracles and himself to that people. The Most High\nand his law and Sabbath did not become Jewish; but the Hebrews were made\nthe honored depositaries of divine truth; and the knowledge of God and of\nhis commandments was preserved in the earth.\n\nThe reason on which this sign is based, points unmistakably to the true\norigin of the Sabbath. It did not originate from the fall of the manna\nfor six days and its cessation on the seventh\u2014for the manna was given\nthus because the Sabbath was in existence\u2014but because that \u201cin six days\nthe Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was\nrefreshed.\u201d Thus the Sabbath is shown to have originated with the rest\nand refreshment of the Creator, and not at the fall of the manna. As an\nINSTITUTION, the Sabbath declared its Author to be the Creator of heaven\nand earth; as a _sign[106] between God and Israel_, it declared that he\nwho had set them apart was indeed Jehovah.\n\nThe last act of the Law-giver in this memorable interview was to place in\nthe hands of Moses the \u201ctwo tables of testimony, tables of stone, written\nwith the finger of God.\u201d Then he revealed to Moses the sad apostasy of\nthe people of Israel, and hastened him down to them.\n\n \u201cAnd Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two\n tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were\n written on both their sides: on the one side and on the other\n were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the\n writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.... And\n it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he\n saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses\u2019 anger waxed hot, and\n he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the\n mount.\u201d\n\nThen Moses inflicted retribution upon the idolaters, \u201cand there fell of\nthe people that day about three thousand men.\u201d And Moses returned unto\nGod and interceded in behalf of the people. Then God promised that his\nangel should go with them, but that he himself would not go up in their\nmidst lest he should consume them.[107] Then Moses presented an earnest\nsupplication to the Most High that he might see his glory. This petition\nwas granted, saving that the face of God should not be seen.[108]\n\nBut before Moses ascended that he might behold the majesty of the\ninfinite Law-giver, the Lord said unto him:\u2014\n\n \u201cHew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will\n write upon these tables the words that were in the first\n tables, which thou brakest.... And he hewed two tables of stone\n like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning,\n and went up unto Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded\n him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. And the\n Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and\n proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before\n him.\u201d\n\nThen Moses beheld the glory of the Lord, and he \u201cmade haste and bowed his\nhead toward the earth and worshiped.\u201d This interview lasted forty days\nand forty nights, as did the first, and seems to have been spent by Moses\nin intercession that God would not destroy the people for their sin.[109]\nThe record of this period is very brief, but in this record the Sabbath\nis mentioned. \u201cSix days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou\nshalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.\u201d[110] Thus\nadmonishing them not to forget in their busiest season the Sabbath of\nthe Lord.\n\nThis second period of forty days ends like the first with the act of\nGod in placing the tables of stone in the hands of Moses. \u201cAnd he was\nthere with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat\nbread, nor drink water. And he[111] wrote upon the tables the words of\nthe covenant, the ten commandments.\u201d Thus it appears that the tables of\ntestimony were two tables of stone with the ten commandments written upon\nthem by the finger of God. Thus the testimony of God is shown to be the\nten commandments. The writing on the second tables was an exact copy of\nthat on the first. \u201cHew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and\nI will write,\u201d said God, \u201cupon these tables the words that were in the\nfirst tables, which thou brakest.\u201d And of the first tables Moses says:\n\u201cHe declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform,\neven ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.\u201d[112]\n\nThus did God commit to his people the ten commandments. Without human\nor angelic agency he proclaimed them himself; and not trusting his most\nhonored servant Moses, or even an angel of his presence, himself wrote\nthem with his own finger. \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,\u201d\nis one of the ten words thus honored by the Most High. Nor are these two\nhigh honors the only ones conferred upon this precept. While it shares\nthem in common with the other nine commandments, it stands in advance of\nthem in that it is established by the EXAMPLE of the Law-giver himself.\nThese precepts were given upon two tables with evident reference to the\ntwo-fold division of the law of God; supreme love to God, and the love\nof our neighbor as ourselves. The Sabbath commandment, placed at the\nclose of the first table, forms the golden clasp that binds together both\ndivisions of the moral law. It guards and enforces that day which God\nclaims as his; it follows man through the six days which God has given\nhim to be properly spent in the various relations of life, thus extending\nover the whole of human life, and embracing in its loan of six days to\nman all the duties of the second table, while itself belonging to the\nfirst.\n\nThat these ten commandments form a complete code of moral law is proved\nby the language of the Law-giver when he called Moses up to himself\nto receive them. \u201cCome up to me into the mount, and be there: and I\nwill give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I\nhave written.\u201d[113] This law and commandments was the testimony of God\nengraven upon stone. The same great fact is presented by Moses in his\nblessing pronounced upon Israel: \u201cAnd he said, The Lord came from Sinai,\nand rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from Mount Paran, and\nhe came with ten thousands of saints: _from his right hand_ went a fiery\nlaw for them.\u201d[114] There can be no dispute that in this language the\nMost High is represented as personally present with ten thousands of his\nholy ones, or angels. And that which he wrote with his own right hand is\ncalled by Moses \u201ca fiery law,\u201d or as the margin has it, \u201ca fire of law.\u201d\nAnd now the man of God completes his sacred trust. And thus he rehearses\nwhat God did in committing his law to him, and what he himself did in its\nfinal disposition: \u201cAnd he wrote on the tables, according to the first\nwriting, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount\nout of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord\ngave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and\nput the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the\nLord commanded me.\u201d Thus was the law of God deposited in the ark beneath\nthe mercy-seat.[115] Nor should this chapter close without pointing out\nthe important relation of the fourth commandment to the atonement.\n\nThe top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because all those who had\nbroken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat, could find\npardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon it.\n\nThe law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the\nceremonial law which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices\nfor sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The\nbroken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was\nsprinkled upon its top, and pardon was extended to the penitent sinner.\nThere was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but\nthere was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype\nto the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement when it is made must\nrelate to that law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth.\nIn other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut\nup in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by that\nlaw. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that\nits transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault\nwould in part at least rest with the Law-giver, and not wholly with the\nsinner. Hence, the atonement when made does not take away the broken\nlaw, for that is perfect, but is expressly designed to take away the\nguilt of the transgressor.[116] Let it be remembered then that the fourth\ncommandment is one of the ten precepts of God\u2019s broken law; one of the\nimmutable holy principles that made the death of God\u2019s only Son necessary\nbefore pardon could be extended to guilty man. These facts being borne\nin mind, it will not be thought strange that the Law-giver should reserve\nthe proclamation of such a law to himself; and that he should intrust\nto no created being the writing of that law which should demand as its\natonement the death of the Son of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION.\n\n General history of the Sabbath in the wilderness\u2014Its violation\n one cause of excluding that generation from the promised\n land\u2014Its violation by their children in the wilderness one of\n the causes of their final dispersion from their own land\u2014The\n statute respecting fires upon the Sabbath\u2014Various precepts\n relative to the Sabbath\u2014The Sabbath not a Jewish feast\u2014The man\n who gathered sticks upon the Sabbath\u2014Appeal of Moses in behalf\n of the decalogue\u2014The Sabbath not derived from the covenant\n at Horeb\u2014Final appeal of Moses in behalf of the Sabbath\u2014The\n original fourth commandment\u2014The Sabbath not a memorial of the\n flight from Egypt\u2014What words were engraven upon stone\u2014General\n summary from the books of Moses.\n\n\nThe history of the Sabbath during the provocation in the day of\ntemptation in the wilderness when God was grieved for forty years with\nhis people may be stated in few words. Even under the eye of Moses,\nand with the most stupendous miracles in their memory and before their\neyes, they were idolaters,[117] neglecters of sacrifices, neglecters of\ncircumcision,[118] murmurers against God, despisers of his law[119] and\nviolators of his Sabbath. Of their treatment of the Sabbath while in the\nwilderness, Ezekiel gives us the following graphic description:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:\n they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments,\n which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths\n they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury\n upon them in the wilderness, to consume them. But I wrought\n for my name\u2019s sake, that it should not be polluted before the\n heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.\u201d[120]\n\nThis language shows a general violation of the Sabbath, and evidently\nrefers to the apostasy of Israel during the first forty days that Moses\nwas absent from them. God did then purpose their destruction; but at the\nintercession of Moses, spared them for the very reason assigned by the\nprophet.[121] A further probation being granted them they signally failed\na second time, so that God lifted up his hand to them that they should\nnot enter the promised land. Thus the prophet continues:\u2014\n\n \u201cYet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness,\n that I would not bring them into the land which I had given\n them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all\n lands; BECAUSE they despised my judgments, and walked not in my\n statutes, but polluted my Sabbaths: for their heart went after\n their idols. Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying\n them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness.\u201d\n\nThis language has undoubted reference to the act of God in excluding all\nthat were over twenty years of age from entering the promised land.[122]\nIt is to be noticed that the violation of the Sabbath is distinctly\nstated as one of the reasons for which that generation were excluded from\nthe land of promise. God spared the people so that the nation was not\nutterly cut off; for he extended to the younger part a further probation.\nThus the prophet continues:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye\n not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their\n judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: I am the\n Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments,\n and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a\n sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord\n your God. Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me:\n they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments\n to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them;\n they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my\n fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the\n wilderness. Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for\n my name\u2019s sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight\n of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. I lifted\n up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would\n scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the\n countries; because they had not executed my judgments, but had\n despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their\n eyes were after their father\u2019s idols.\u201d\n\nThus it appears that the younger generation, which God spared when he\nexcluded their fathers from the land of promise, did, like their fathers,\ntransgress God\u2019s law, pollute his Sabbath, and cleave to idolatry. God\ndid not see fit to exclude them from the land of Canaan, but he did\nlift up his hand to them in the wilderness, that he would give them up\nto dispersion among their enemies after they had entered the land of\npromise. Thus it is seen that the Hebrews while in the wilderness laid\nthe foundation for their subsequent dispersion from their own land; and\nthat one of the acts which led to their final ruin as a nation was the\nviolation of the Sabbath before they had entered the promised land. Well\nmight Moses say to them in the last month of his life: \u201cYe have been\nrebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you.\u201d[123] In Caleb\nand Joshua was another spirit, for they followed the Lord fully.[124]\n\nSuch is the general history of Sabbatic observance in the wilderness.\nEven the miracle of the manna, which every week for forty years bore\npublic testimony to the Sabbath,[125] became to the body of the Hebrews\na mere ordinary event, so that they dared to murmur against the bread\nthus sent from heaven;[126] and we may well believe that those who were\nthus hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, had little regard for\nthe testimony of the manna in behalf of the Sabbath.[127] In the Mosaic\nrecord we next read of the Sabbath as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of\n Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which\n the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall\n work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an\n holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work\n therein shall be put to death.[128] Ye shall kindle no fire\n throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.\u201d[129]\n\nThe chief feature of interest in this text relates to the prohibition\nof fires on the Sabbath. As this is the only prohibition of the kind in\nthe Bible, and as it is often urged as a reason why the Sabbath should\nnot be kept, a brief examination of the difficulty will not be out of\nplace. It should be observed, 1. That this language does not form part\nof the fourth commandment, the grand law of the Sabbath. 2. That as there\nwere laws pertaining to the Sabbath, that were no part of the Sabbatic\ninstitution, but that grew out of its being intrusted to the Hebrews,\nsuch as the law respecting the presentation of the shew-bread on the\nSabbath; and that respecting the burnt-offering for the Sabbath:[130] so\nit is at least possible that this is a precept pertaining only to that\nnation, and not a part of the original institution. 3. That as there were\nlaws peculiar only to the Hebrews, so there were many that pertained to\nthem only while they were in the wilderness. Such were all those precepts\nthat related to the manna, the building of the tabernacle and the setting\nof it up, the manner of encamping about it, &c. 4. That of this class\nwere all the statutes given from the time that Moses brought down the\nsecond tables of stone until the close of the book of Exodus, unless the\nwords under consideration form an exception. 5. That the prohibition\nof fires was a law of this class, _i. e._, a law designed only for the\nwilderness, is evident from several decisive facts.\n\n1. That the land of Palestine during a part of the year is so cold that\nfires are necessary to prevent suffering.[131]\n\n2. That the Sabbath was not designed to be a cause of distress and\nsuffering, but of refreshment, of delight, and of blessing.[132]\n\n3. That in the wilderness of Sinai, where this precept respecting fires\non the Sabbath was given, it was not a cause of suffering, as they were\ntwo hundred miles south of Jerusalem, in the warm climate of Arabia.\n\n4. That this precept was of a temporary character, is further implied\nin that while other laws are said to be perpetual statutes and precepts\nto be kept after they should enter the land,[133] no hint of this kind\nhere appears. On the contrary, this seems to be similar in character to\nthe precept respecting the manna,[134] and to be co-existent with, and\nadapted to, it.\n\n5. If the prohibition respecting fires did indeed pertain to the promised\nland, and not merely to the wilderness, it would every few years conflict\ndirectly with the law of the passover. For the passover was to be roasted\nby each family of the children of Israel on the evening following the\nfourteenth day of the first month,[135] which would fall occasionally\nupon the Sabbath. The prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath would not\nconflict with the passover while the Hebrews were in the wilderness; for\nthe passover was not to be observed until they reached that land.[136]\nBut if that prohibition did extend forward to the promised land, where\nthe passover was to be regularly observed, these two statutes would often\ncome in direct conflict. This is certainly a strong confirmation of the\nview that the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath was a temporary\nstatute, relating only to the wilderness.[137]\n\nFrom these facts it follows that the favorite argument drawn from the\nprohibition of fires, that the Sabbath was a local institution, adapted\nonly to the land of Canaan, must be abandoned; for it is evident that\nthat prohibition was a temporary statute not even adapted to the land of\npromise, and not designed for that land. We next read of the Sabbath as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the\n congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye\n shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye shall fear\n every man his mother, and his father, and keep my Sabbaths:\n I am the Lord your God.... Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and\n reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.\u201d[138]\n\nThese constant references to the Sabbath contrast strikingly with the\ngeneral disobedience of the people. And thus God speaks again:\u2014\n\n \u201cSix days shall work be done; but the seventh day is the\n Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no\n work therein: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your\n dwellings.\u201d[139]\n\nThus does God solemnly designate his rest-day as a season of holy\nworship, and as the day of weekly religious assemblies. Again the great\nLaw-giver sets forth his Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cYe shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you\n up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone\n in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God.\n Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the\n Lord.\u201d[140]\n\nHappy would it have been for the people of God had they thus refrained\nfrom idolatry and sacredly regarded the rest-day of the Creator. Yet\nidolatry and Sabbath-breaking were so general in the wilderness that the\ngeneration which came forth from Egypt were excluded from the promised\nland.[141] After God had thus cut off from the inheritance of the land\nthe men who had rebelled against him,[142] we next read of the Sabbath as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they\n found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they\n that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and\n Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward,\n because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the\n Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;\n all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the\n camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp,\n and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded\n Moses.\u201d[143]\n\nThe following facts should be considered in explaining this text: 1. That\nthis was a case of peculiar guilt; for the whole congregation before\nwhom this man stood in judgment, and by whom he was put to death, were\nthemselves guilty of violating the Sabbath, and had just been excluded\nfrom the promised land for this and other sins.[144] 2. That this was\nnot a case which came under the existing penalty of death for work upon\nthe Sabbath; for the man was put in confinement that the mind of the\nLord respecting his guilt might be obtained. The peculiarity of his\ntransgression may be learned from the context. The verses which next\nprecede the case in question read thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be\n born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord;\n and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because\n he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his\n commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity\n shall be upon him.\u201d[145]\n\nThese words being followed by this remarkable case were evidently\ndesigned to be illustrated by it. It is manifest, therefore, that this\nwas an instance of presumptuous sin, in which the transgressor intended\ndespite to the Spirit of grace and to the statutes of the Most High. This\ncase cannot therefore be quoted as evidence of extraordinary strictness\non the part of the Hebrews in observing the Sabbath; for we have direct\nevidence that they did greatly pollute it during the whole forty\nyears of their sojourn in the wilderness.[146] It stands therefore as\nan instance of transgression in which the sinner intended to show his\ncontempt for the Law-giver, and in this consisted his peculiar guilt.[147]\n\nIn the last month of his long and eventful life Moses rehearsed all the\ngreat acts of God in behalf of his people, with the statutes and precepts\nthat he had given them. This rehearsal is contained in the book of\nDeuteronomy, a name which signifies second law, and which is applied to\nthat book, because it is a second writing of the law. It is the farewell\nof Moses to a disobedient and rebellious people; and he endeavors to\nfasten upon them the strongest possible sense of personal obligation to\nobey. Thus, when he is about to rehearse the ten commandments, he uses\nlanguage evidently designed to impress upon the minds of the Hebrews a\nsense of their individual obligation to do what God had commanded. Thus\nhe says:\u2014\n\n \u201cHear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in\n your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do\n them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The\n Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even\n us, who are all of us here alive this day.\u201d[148]\n\nIt was not the act of your fathers that placed this responsibility upon\nyou, but your own individual acts that brought you into the bond of this\ncovenant. You have personally pledged yourselves to the Most High to\nkeep these precepts.[149] Such is the obvious import of this language;\nyet it has been gravely adduced as proof that the Sabbath of the Lord\nwas made for the Hebrews, and was not obligatory upon the patriarchs.\nThe singularity of this deduction appears in that it is brought to bear\nagainst the fourth commandment alone; whereas, if it is a just and\nlogical argument, it would show that the ancient patriarchs were under no\nobligation in respect to any precept of the moral law. But it is certain\nthat the covenant at Horeb was simply an embodiment of the precepts of\nthe moral law, with mutual pledges respecting them between God and the\npeople, and that that covenant did not give existence to either of the\nten commandments. At all events, we find the Sabbath ordained of God\nat the close of creation[150] and obligatory upon the Hebrews in the\nwilderness before God had given them a new precept on the subject.[151]\nAs this was before the covenant at Horeb it is conclusive proof that the\nSabbath did no more originate from that covenant than did the prohibition\nof idolatry, theft or murder.\n\nThe man of God then repeats the ten commandments. And thus he gives the\nfourth:\u2014\n\n \u201cKeep the Sabbath day, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God\n hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy\n work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God:\n in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy\n daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine\n ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that\n is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant\n may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant\n in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee\n out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm:\n therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath\n day.\u201d[152]\n\nIt is a singular fact that this scripture is uniformly quoted by those\nwho write against the Sabbath, as the original fourth commandment;\nwhile the original precept itself is carefully left out. Yet there is\nthe strongest evidence that this is not the original precept; for Moses\nrehearses these words at the end of the forty years\u2019 sojourn, whereas the\noriginal commandment was given in the third month after the departure\nfrom Egypt.[153] The commandment itself, as here given, contains direct\nproof on the point. Thus it reads: \u201cKeep the Sabbath day, to sanctify\nit, As the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee;\u201d thus citing elsewhere for\nthe original statute. Moreover the precept as here given is evidently\nincomplete. It contains no clue to the origin of the Sabbath of the Lord,\nnor does it show the acts by which the Sabbath came into existence.\nThis is why those who represent the Sabbath as made in the wilderness\nand not at creation quote this as the fourth commandment, and omit the\noriginal precept, which God himself proclaimed, where all these facts are\ndistinctly stated.[154]\n\nBut while Moses in this rehearsal omits a large part of the fourth\ncommandment, he refers to the original precept for the whole matter, and\nthen appends to this rehearsal a powerful plea of obligation on the part\nof the Hebrews to keep the Sabbath. It should be remembered that many of\nthe people had steadily persisted in the violation of the Sabbath, and\nthat this is the last time that Moses speaks in its behalf. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,\n and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a\n mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy\n God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.\u201d\n\nThese words are often cited as proof that the Sabbath originated at the\ndeparture of Israel from Egypt, and that it was ordained at that time as\na memorial of their deliverance from thence. But it will be observed, 1.\nThat this text says not one word respecting the origin of the Sabbath\nor rest-day of the Lord. 2. That the facts on this point are all given\nin the original fourth commandment, and are there referred to creation.\n3. That there is no reason to believe that God rested upon the seventh\nday at the time of this flight from Egypt; nor did he then bless and\nhallow the day. 4. That the Sabbath has nothing in it of a kind to\ncommemorate the deliverance from Egypt, as that was a flight and this\nis a rest; and that flight was upon the fifteenth of the first month,\nand this rest, upon the seventh day of each week. Thus one would occur\nannually; the other, weekly. 5. But God did ordain a fitting memorial\nof that deliverance to be observed by the Hebrews: the passover, on the\nfourteenth day of the first month, in memory of God\u2019s passing over them\nwhen he smote the Egyptians; and the feast of unleavened bread, in memory\nof their eating this bread when they fled out of Egypt.[155]\n\nBut what then do these words imply? Perhaps their meaning may be more\nreadily perceived by comparing them with an exact parallel found in the\nsame book and from the pen of the same writer:\u2014\n\n \u201cThou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of\n the fatherless; nor take a widow\u2019s raiment to pledge; but thou\n shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord\n thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do\n this thing.\u201d[156]\n\nIt will be seen at a glance that this precept was not given to\ncommemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; nor could\nthat deliverance give existence to the moral obligation expressed in\nit. If the language in the one case proves that men were not under\nobligation to keep the Sabbath before the deliverance of Israel from\nEgypt, it proves with equal conclusiveness in the other that before that\ndeliverance they were not under obligation to treat with justice and\nmercy the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. And if the Sabbath\nis shown in the one case to be Jewish, in the other, the statute of the\ngreat Law-giver in behalf of the needy and the helpless must share the\nsame fate. It is manifest that this language is in each case an appeal\nto their sense of gratitude. You were slaves in Egypt, and God rescued\nyou; therefore remember others who are in distress, and oppress them not.\nYou were bondmen in Egypt, and God redeemed you; therefore sanctify unto\nthe Lord the day which he has reserved unto himself; a most powerful\nappeal to those who had hitherto persisted in polluting it. Deliverance\nfrom abject servitude was necessary, indeed, in each case, in order that\nthe things enjoined might be fully observed; but that deliverance did not\ngive existence to either of these duties. It was indeed one of the acts\nby which the Sabbath of the Lord was given to that nation, but it was\nnot one of the acts by which God made the Sabbath, nor did it render the\nrest-day of the Lord a Jewish institution.\n\nThat the words engraven upon stone were simply the ten commandments is\nevident.\n\n1. It is said of the first tables:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye\n heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye\n heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he\n commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote\n them upon two tables of stone.\u201d[157]\n\n2. Thus the first tables of stone contained the ten commandments alone.\nThat the second tables were an exact copy of what was written upon the\nfirst, is plainly stated:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone\n like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the\n words that were in the first tables, which thou breakest.\u201d \u201cAnd\n I will write on the tables the words that were in the first\n tables which thou breakest, and thou shalt put them in the\n ark.\u201d[158]\n\n3. This is confirmed by the following decisive testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the\n ten commandments,\u201d margin, Heb., \u201cwords.\u201d \u201cAnd he wrote on the\n tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments\n [margin, words], which the Lord spake unto you in the mount,\n out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and\n the Lord gave them unto me.\u201d[159]\n\nThese texts will explain the following language: \u201cAnd the Lord delivered\nunto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them\nwas written according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in\nthe mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.\u201d[160]\nThus God is said to have written upon the tables according to all the\nwords which he spoke in the day of the assembly; and these words which\nhe thus wrote, are said to have been TEN WORDS. But the preface to the\ndecalogue was not one of these ten words, and hence was not written by\nthe finger of God upon stone. That this distinction must be attended to,\nwill be seen by examining the following text and its connection:\u2014\n\n \u201cTHESE WORDS the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the\n mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the\n thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And\n he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto\n me.\u201d[161]\n\nTHESE WORDS here brought to view as written by the finger of God after\nhaving been uttered by him in the hearing of all the people, must be\nunderstood as one of two things. 1. They are simply the ten words of\nthe law of God; or, 2. They are all the words used by Moses in this\nrehearsal of the decalogue. But they cannot refer to the words used in\nthis rehearsal; for, 1. Moses omits an important part of the fourth\nprecept as given by God in its proclamation from the mount. 2. In this\nrehearsal of that precept he cites back to the original for that which\nis omitted.[162] 3. He appends to this precept an appeal in its behalf\nto their gratitude which was not made by God in giving it. 4. This\nlanguage only purports to be a rehearsal and not the original itself;\nand this is further evinced by many verbal deviations from the original\ndecalogue.[163] These facts are decisive as to what was placed upon the\ntables of stone. It was not an incomplete copy, citing elsewhere for the\noriginal, but the original code itself. And hence when Moses speaks of\nTHESE WORDS as engraven upon the tables, he refers not to the words used\nby himself in this rehearsal, but to the TEN WORDS of the law of God, and\nexcludes all else.\n\nThus have we traced the Sabbath through the books of Moses. We have found\nits origin in paradise when man was in his uprightness; we have seen the\nHebrews set apart from all mankind as the depositaries of divine truth;\nwe have seen the Sabbath and the whole moral law committed as a sacred\ntrust to them; we have seen the Sabbath proclaimed by God as one of the\nten commandments; we have seen it written by the finger of God upon\nstone in the bosom of the moral law; we have seen that law possessing\nno Jewish, but simply moral and divine, features, placed beneath the\nmercy-seat in the ark of God\u2019s testament; we have seen that various\nprecepts pertaining to the Sabbath were given to the Hebrews and designed\nonly for them; we have seen that the Hebrews did greatly pollute the\nSabbath during their sojourn in the wilderness; and we have heard the\nfinal appeal made in its behalf by Moses to that rebellious people.\n\nWe rest the foundation of the Sabbatic institution upon its\nsanctification before the fall of man; the fourth commandment is its\ngreat citadel of defense; its place in the midst of the moral law beneath\nthe mercy-seat shows its relation to the atonement and its immutable\nobligation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE FEASTS, NEW MOONS AND SABBATHS OF THE HEBREWS.\n\n Enumeration of the Hebrew festivals\u2014The passover\u2014The\n pentecost\u2014The feast of tabernacles\u2014The new moons\u2014The first and\n second annual sabbaths\u2014The third\u2014The fourth\u2014The fifth\u2014The sixth\n and seventh\u2014The sabbath of the land\u2014The jubilee\u2014None of these\n festivals in force until the Hebrews entered their own land\u2014The\n contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and the sabbaths of\n the Hebrews\u2014Testimony of Isaiah\u2014Of Hosea\u2014Of Jeremiah\u2014Final\n cessation of these festivals.\n\n\nWe have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the books of Moses. A\nbrief survey of the Jewish festivals is necessary to the complete view of\nthe subject before us. Of these there were three feasts: the passover,\nthe Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; each new moon, that is,\nthe first day of each month throughout the year; then there were seven\nannual sabbaths, namely, 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The\nseventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of\nthe seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day\nof that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. In addition to all\nthese, every seventh year was to be the sabbath of the land, and every\nfiftieth year the year of jubilee.\n\nThe passover takes its name from the fact that the angel of the Lord\npassed over the houses of the Hebrews on that eventful night when the\nfirstborn in every Egyptian family was slain. This feast was ordained in\ncommemoration of the deliverance of that people from Egyptian bondage.\nIt began with the slaying of the paschal lamb on the fourteenth day of\nthe first month, and extended through a period of seven days, in which\nnothing but unleavened bread was to be eaten. Its great antitype was\nreached when Christ our passover was sacrificed for us.[164]\n\nThe Pentecost was the second of the Jewish feasts, and occupied but a\nsingle day. It was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first-fruits\nof barley harvest had been waved before the Lord. At the time of this\nfeast the first-fruits of wheat harvest were offered unto God. The\nantitype of this festival was reached on the fiftieth day after the\nresurrection of Christ, when the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost took\nplace.[165]\n\nThe feast of tabernacles was the last of the Jewish feasts. It was\ncelebrated in the seventh month when they had gathered in the fruit\nof the land, and extended from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day\nof that month. It was ordained as a festival of rejoicing before the\nLord; and during this period the children of Israel dwelt in booths\nin commemoration of their dwelling thus during their sojourn in the\nwilderness. It probably typifies the great rejoicing after the final\ngathering of all the people of God into his kingdom.[166]\n\nIn connection with these feasts it was ordained that each new moon,\nthat is, the first day of every month, should be observed with certain\nspecified offerings, and with tokens of rejoicing.[167] The annual\nsabbaths of the Hebrews have been already enumerated. The first two of\nthese sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the feast of unleavened\nbread, that is, the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month.\nThey were thus ordained by God:\u2014\n\n \u201cSeven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first\n day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses.... And in\n the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the\n seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no\n manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man\n must eat, that only may be done of you.\u201d[168]\n\nThe third in order of the annual sabbaths was the day of Pentecost. This\nfestival was ordained as a rest-day in the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an\n holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein;\n it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout\n your generations.\u201d[169]\n\nThe first day of the seventh month was the fourth annual sabbath of the\nHebrews. It was thus ordained:\u2014\n\n \u201cSpeak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh\n month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath,\n a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye\n shall do no servile work therein; but ye shall offer an\n offering made by fire unto the Lord.\u201d[170]\n\nThe great day of atonement was the fifth of these sabbaths. Thus spake\nthe Lord unto Moses:\u2014\n\n \u201cAlso on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a\n day of atonement; it shall be an holy convocation unto you....\n Ye shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever\n throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be\n unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in\n the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall\n ye celebrate your sabbath.\u201d[171]\n\nThe sixth and seventh of these annual sabbaths were the fifteenth and\ntwenty-second days of the seventh month, that is, the first day of the\nfeast of tabernacles, and the day after its conclusion. Thus were they\nenjoined by God:\u2014\n\n \u201cAlso in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have\n gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto\n the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a sabbath, and\n on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.\u201d[172]\n\nBesides all these, every seventh year was a sabbath of rest unto the\nland. The people might labor as usual in other business, but they were\nforbidden to till the land, that the land itself might rest.[173]\nAfter seven of these sabbaths, the following or fiftieth year was to\nbe the year of jubilee, in which every man was to be restored unto\nhis inheritance.[174] There is no evidence that the jubilee was ever\nobserved, and it is certain that the sabbatical year was almost entirely\ndisregarded.[175]\n\nSuch were the feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the Hebrews. A few\nwords will suffice to point out the broad distinction between them and\nthe Sabbath of the Lord. The first of the three feasts was ordained in\nmemory of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and was to be observed\nwhen they should enter their own land.[176] The second feast, as we have\nseen, could not be observed until after the settlement of the Hebrews\nin Canaan; for it was to be celebrated when the first fruits of wheat\nharvest should be offered before the Lord. The third feast was ordained\nin memory of their sojourn in the wilderness, and was to be celebrated\nby them each year after the ingathering of the entire harvest. Of course\nthis feast, like the others, could not be observed until the settlement\nof the people in their own land. The new moons, as has been already\nseen, were not ordained until after these feasts had been instituted.\nThe annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, and could\nhave no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had\nbeen instituted. Thus the first and second of these sabbaths were the\nfirst and seventh days of the paschal feast. The third annual sabbath\nwas identical with the feast of Pentecost. The fourth of these sabbaths\nwas the same as the new moon in the seventh month. The fifth one was\nthe great day of atonement. The sixth and the seventh of these annual\nsabbaths were the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month,\nthat is, the first day of the feast of tabernacles, and the next day\nafter the close of that feast. As these feasts were not to be observed\nuntil the Hebrews should possess their own land, the annual sabbaths\ncould have no existence until that time. And so of the sabbaths of the\nland. These could have no existence until after the Hebrews should\npossess and cultivate their own land; after six years of cultivation, the\nland should rest the seventh year, and remain untilled. After seven of\nthese sabbaths of the land came the year of jubilee.\n\nThe contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and these sabbaths of\nthe Hebrews[177] is strongly marked. 1. The Sabbath of the Lord was\ninstituted at the close of the first week of time; while these were\nordained in connection with the Jewish feasts. 2. The one was blessed\nand hallowed by God, because that he had rested upon it from the work\nof creation; the others have no such claim to our regard. 3. When the\nchildren of Israel came into the wilderness, the Sabbath of the Lord\nwas an existing institution, obligatory upon them; but the annual\nsabbaths then came into existence. It is easy to point to the very\nact of God, while leading that people, that gave existence to these\nsabbaths; while every reference to the Sabbath of the Lord shows that\nit had been ordained before God chose that people. 4. The children of\nIsrael were excluded from the promised land for violating the Sabbath\nof the Lord in the wilderness; but the annual sabbaths were not to\nbe observed until they should enter that land. This contrast would\nbe strange indeed were it true that the Sabbath of the Lord was not\ninstituted until the children of Israel came into the wilderness of\nSin; for it is certain that two of the annual sabbaths were instituted\nbefore they left the land of Egypt.[178] 5. The Sabbath of the Lord was\nmade for man; but the annual sabbaths were designed only for residents\nin the land of Palestine. 6. The one was weekly, a memorial of the\nCreator\u2019s rest; the others were annual, connected with the memorials\nof the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. 7. The one is termed\n\u201cthe Sabbath of the Lord,\u201d \u201cmy Sabbaths,\u201d \u201cmy holy day,\u201d and the like;\nwhile the others are designated as \u201cyour sabbaths,\u201d \u201cher sabbaths,\u201d and\nsimilar expressions.[179] 8. The one was proclaimed by God as one of\nthe ten commandments, and was written with his finger in the midst of\nthe moral law upon the tables of stone, and was deposited in the ark\nbeneath the mercy-seat; the others did not pertain to the moral law, but\nwere embodied in that handwriting of ordinances that was a shadow of\ngood things to come. 9. The distinction between these festivals and the\nSabbaths of the Lord was carefully marked by God when he ordained the\nfestivals and their associated sabbaths. Thus he said: \u201cThese are the\nfeasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, ...\nBESIDE the Sabbaths of the Lord.\u201d[180]\n\nThe annual sabbaths are presented by Isaiah in a very different light\nfrom that in which he presents the Sabbath of the Lord. Of the one he\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cBring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto\n me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I\n cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your\n new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a\n trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.\u201d[181]\n\nIn striking contrast with this, the same prophet speaks of the Lord\u2019s\nSabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my\n salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.\n Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that\n layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it,\n and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son\n of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak,\n saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people;\n neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus\n saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and\n choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;\n even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a\n place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will\n give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also\n the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord,\n to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his\n servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting\n it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to\n my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer;\n their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted\n upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of\n prayer for all people.\u201d[182]\n\nHosea carefully designates the annual sabbaths in the following\nprediction:\u2014\n\n \u201cI will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her\n new moons, and HER sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.\u201d[183]\n\nThis prediction was uttered about B. C. 785. It was fulfilled in part\nabout two hundred years after this, when Jerusalem was destroyed by\nNebuchadnezzar. Of this event, Jeremiah, about B. C. 588, speaks as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cHer people fell into the hand of the enemy, and none did help\n her: the adversaries saw her, and did mock at HER sabbaths....\n The Lord was as an enemy; he hath swallowed up Israel, he\n hath swallowed up all her palaces; he hath destroyed his\n strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah\n mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his\n tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his\n places of the assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts\n and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the\n indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath\n cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath\n given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces;\n they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day\n of a solemn feast.\u201d[184]\n\nThe feasts of the Lord were to be holden in the place which the Lord\nshould choose, namely, Jerusalem;[185] and when that city, the place\nof their solemn assemblies, was destroyed and the people themselves\ncarried into captivity, the complete cessation of their feasts, and, as a\nconsequence, of the annual sabbaths, which were specified days in those\nfeasts, must occur. The adversaries mocked at her sabbaths, by making a\n\u201cnoise in the house of the Lord as in the day of a solemn feast.\u201d But\nthe observance of the Lord\u2019s Sabbath did not cease with the dispersion of\nthe Hebrews from their own land; for it was not a local institution, like\nthe annual sabbaths. Its violation was one chief cause of the Babylonish\ncaptivity;[186] and their final restoration to their own land was made\nconditional upon their observing it in their dispersion.[187] The feasts,\nnew moons, and annual sabbaths, were restored when the Hebrews returned\nfrom captivity, and with some interruptions, were kept up until the\nfinal destruction of their city and nation by the Romans. But ere the\nprovidence of God thus struck out of existence these Jewish festivals,\nthe whole typical system was abolished, having reached the commencement\nof its antitype, when our Lord Jesus Christ expired upon the cross. The\nhandwriting of ordinances being thus abolished, no one is to be judged\nrespecting its meats, or drinks, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths,\n\u201cwhich are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.\u201d But\nthe Sabbath of the Lord did not form a part of this handwriting of\nordinances; for it was instituted before sin had entered the world, and\nconsequently before there was any shadow of redemption; it was written\nby the finger of God, not in the midst of types and shadows, but in the\nbosom of the moral law; and the day following that on which the typical\nsabbaths were nailed to the cross, the Sabbath commandment of the moral\nlaw is expressly recognized. Moreover, when the Jewish festivals were\nutterly extinguished with the final destruction of Jerusalem, even then\nwas the Sabbath of the Lord brought to the minds of his people.[188]\nThus have we traced the annual sabbaths until their final cessation, as\npredicted by Hosea. It remains that we trace the Sabbath of the Lord\nuntil we reach the endless ages of the new earth, when we shall find the\nwhole multitude of the redeemed assembling before God for worship on each\nsuccessive Sabbath.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH.\n\n Silence of six successive books of the Bible relative to\n the Sabbath\u2014This silence compared to that of the book of\n Genesis\u2014The siege of Jericho\u2014The standing still of the\n sun\u2014David\u2019s act of eating the shew-bread\u2014The Sabbath of the\n Lord, how connected with and how distinguished from the annual\n sabbaths\u2014Earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of\n Moses\u2014Incidental allusions to the Sabbath\u2014Testimony of Amos\u2014Of\n Isaiah\u2014The Sabbath a blessing to MANKIND\u2014The condition of being\n gathered to the holy land\u2014Not a local institution\u2014Commentary\n on the fourth commandment\u2014Testimony of Jeremiah\u2014Jerusalem to\n be saved if she would keep the Sabbath\u2014This gracious offer\n despised\u2014The Sabbath distinguished from the other days of the\n week\u2014The Sabbath after the Babylonish captivity\u2014Time for the\n commencing of the Sabbath\u2014The violation of the Sabbath caused\n the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\n\nWhen we leave the books of Moses there is a long-continued break in the\nhistory of the Sabbath. No mention of it is found in the book of Joshua,\nnor in that of Judges, nor in the book of Ruth, nor in that of first\nSamuel, nor in the book of second Samuel, nor in that of first Kings.\nIt is not until we reach the book of second Kings[189] that the Sabbath\nis even mentioned. In the book of first Chronicles, however, which as\na narrative is parallel to the two books of Samuel, the Sabbath is\nmentioned[190] with reference to the events of David\u2019s life. Yet this\nleaves a period of five hundred years, which the Bible passes in silence\nrespecting the Sabbath.\n\nDuring this period we have a circumstantial history of the Hebrew people\nfrom their entrance into the promised land forward to the establishment\nof David as their king, embracing many particulars in the life of Joshua,\nof the elders and judges of Israel, of Gideon, of Barak, of Jephthah,\nof Samson, of Eli, of Naomi and Ruth, of Hannah and Samuel, of Saul, of\nJonathan and of David. Yet in all this minute record we have no direct\nmention of the Sabbath.\n\nIt is a favorite argument with anti-Sabbatarians in proof of the total\nneglect of the Sabbath in the patriarchal age, that the book of Genesis,\nwhich does give a distinct view of the origin of the Sabbath in Paradise,\nat the close of the first week of time, does not in recording the lives\nof the patriarchs, say anything relative to its observance. Yet in that\none book are crowded the events of two thousand three hundred and seventy\nyears. What then should they say of the fact that six successive books\nof the Bible, relating with comparative minuteness the events of five\nhundred years, and involving many circumstances that would call out a\nmention of the Sabbath, do not mention it at all? Does the silence of\none book, which nevertheless does give the institution of the Sabbath\nat its very commencement, and which brings into its record almost\ntwenty-four hundred years, prove that there were no Sabbath-keepers prior\nto Moses? What then is proved by the fact that six successive books of\nthe Bible, confining themselves to the events of five hundred years, an\naverage of less than one hundred years apiece, the whole period covered\nby them being about one-fifth that embraced in the book of Genesis, do\nnevertheless preserve total silence respecting the Sabbath?\n\nNo one will adduce this silence as evidence of total neglect of the\nSabbath during this period; yet why should they not? Is it because that\nwhen the narrative after this long silence brings in the Sabbath again,\nit does this incidentally and not as a new institution? Precisely such\nis the case with the second mention of the Sabbath in the Mosaic record,\nthat is, with its mention after the silence in Genesis.[191] Is it\nbecause the fourth commandment had been given to the Hebrews whereas no\nsuch precept had previously been given to mankind? This answer cannot be\nadmitted, for we have seen that the substance of the fourth commandment\nwas given to the head of the human family; and it is certain that when\nthe Hebrews came out of Egypt they were under obligation to keep the\nSabbath in consequence of existing law.[192] The argument therefore is\ncertainly more conclusive that there were no Sabbath-keepers from Moses\nto David, than that there were none from Adam to Moses; yet no one will\nattempt to maintain the first position, however many there will be to\naffirm the latter.\n\nSeveral facts are narrated in the history of this period of five\ncenturies that have a claim to our notice. The first of these is found\nin the record of the siege of Jericho.[193] By the command of God the\ncity was encompassed by the Hebrews each day for seven days; on the\nlast day of the seven they encompassed it seven times, when by divine\ninterposition the walls were thrown down before them and the city taken\nby assault. One day of this seven must have been the Sabbath of the\nLord. Did not the people of God therefore violate the Sabbath in their\nacting thus? Let the following facts answer: 1. That which they did in\nthis case was by direct command of God. 2. That which is forbidden in\nthe fourth commandment is OUR OWN work: \u201cSix days shalt thou labor, and\ndo ALL THY WORK; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy\nGod.\u201d He who reserved the seventh day unto himself, had the right to\nrequire its appropriation to his service as he saw fit. 3. The act of\nencompassing the city was strictly as a _religious_ procession. The ark\nof the covenant of the Lord was borne before the people; and before the\nark went seven priests blowing with trumpets of rams\u2019 horns. 4. Nor could\nthe city have been very extensive, else the going round it seven times on\nthe last day, and their having time left for its complete destruction,\nwould have been impossible. 5. Nor can it be believed that the Hebrews,\nby God\u2019s command carrying the ark before them, which contained simply the\nten words of the Most High, were violating the fourth of those words,\n\u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\u201d It is certain that one of\nthose seven days on which they encompassed Jericho was the Sabbath; but\nthere is no necessity for supposing this to have been the day in which\nthe city was taken. Nor is this a reasonable conjecture when all the\nfacts in the case are considered. On this incident Dr. Clarke remarks as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt does not appear that there could be any breach in the\n Sabbath by the people simply going round the city, the ark in\n company, and the priests sounding the sacred trumpets. This was\n a mere religious procession, performed at the command of God,\n in which no servile work was done.\u201d[194]\n\nAt the word of Joshua it pleased God to arrest the earth in its\nrevolution, and thus to cause the sun to remain stationary for a season,\nthat the Canaanites might be overthrown before Israel.[195] Did not this\ngreat miracle derange the Sabbath? Not at all; for the lengthening of\none of the six days by God\u2019s intervention could not prevent the actual\narrival of the seventh day, though it would delay it; nor could it\ndestroy its identity. The case involves a difficulty for those who hold\nthe theory that God sanctified the seventh part of time, and not the\nseventh day; for in this case the seventh part of time was not allotted\nto the Sabbath; but there is no difficulty involved for those who believe\nthat God set apart the seventh day to be kept as it arrives, in memory\nof his own rest. One of the six days was allotted a greater length than\never before or since; yet this did not in the slightest degree conflict\nwith the seventh day, which nevertheless did come. Moreover all this\nwas while inspired men were upon the stage of action; and it was by the\ndirect providence of God; and what is also to be particularly remembered,\nit was at a time when no one will deny that the fourth commandment was in\nfull force.\n\nThe case of David\u2019s eating the shew-bread is worthy of notice, as it\nprobably took place upon the Sabbath, and because it is cited by our\nLord in a memorable conversation with the Pharisees.[196] The law of the\nshew-bread enjoined the setting forth of twelve loaves in the sanctuary\nupon the pure table before the Lord EVERY Sabbath.[197] When new bread\nwas thus placed before the Lord each Sabbath, the old was taken away to\nbe eaten by the priests.[198] It appears that the shew-bread which was\ngiven to David had that day been taken from before the Lord to put hot\nbread in its place, and consequently that day was the Sabbath. Thus,\nwhen David asked bread, the priest said, \u201cThere is no common bread under\nmine hand, but there is hallowed bread.\u201d And David said, \u201cThe bread is\nin a manner common, especially [as the margin has it] when THIS DAY\nthere is other sanctified in the vessel.\u201d And so the sacred writer adds:\n\u201cThe priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but\nthe shew-bread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread\nin the day when it was taken away.\u201d The circumstances of this case all\nfavor the view that this was upon the Sabbath. 1. There was NO COMMON\nbread with the priest. This is not strange when it is remembered that\nthe shew-bread was to be taken from before the Lord each Sabbath and\neaten by the priests. 2. That the priest did not offer to _prepare_ other\nbread is not singular if it be understood that this was the Sabbath. 3.\nThe surprise of the priest in meeting David may have been in part owing\nto the fact that it was the Sabbath. 4. This also may account for the\ndetention of Doeg that day before the Lord. 5. When our Lord was called\nupon to pronounce upon the conduct of his disciples who had plucked and\neaten the ears of corn upon the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger, he cited\nthis case of David, and that of the priests offering sacrifices in the\ntemple upon the Sabbath as justifying the disciples. There is a wonderful\npropriety and fitness in this citation, if it be understood that this act\nof David\u2019s took place upon the Sabbath. It will be found to present the\nmatter in a very different light from that in which anti-Sabbatarians\npresent it.[199]\n\nA distinction may be here pointed out, which should never be lost\nsight of. The presentation of the shew-bread and the offering of burnt\nsacrifices upon the Sabbath as ordained in the ceremonial law, formed\nno part of the original Sabbatic institution. For the Sabbath was made\nbefore the fall of man; while burnt-offerings and ceremonial rites in the\nsanctuary were introduced in consequence of the fall. While these rites\nwere in force they necessarily, to some extent, connected the Sabbath\nwith the festivals of the Jews in which the like offerings were made.\nThis is seen only in those scriptures which record the provision made for\nthese offerings.[200] When the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross,\nall the Jewish festivals ceased to exist; for they were ordained by\nit;[201] but the abrogation of that law could only take away those rites\nwhich it had appended to the Sabbath, leaving the original institution\nprecisely as it came at first from its author.\n\nThe earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of Moses is found in\nwhat David and Samuel ordained respecting the offices of the priests and\nLevites at the house of God. It is as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd other of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites,\n were over the shew-bread, to prepare it every Sabbath.\u201d[202]\n\nIt will be observed that this is only an incidental mention of the\nSabbath. Such an allusion, occurring after so long a silence, is decisive\nproof that the Sabbath had not been forgotten or lost during the five\ncenturies in which it had not been mentioned by the sacred historians.\nAfter this no direct mention of the Sabbath is found from the days of\nDavid to those of Elisha the prophet, a period of about one hundred and\nfifty years. Perhaps the ninety-second psalm is an exception to this\nstatement, as its title, both in Hebrew and English, declares that it was\nwritten for the Sabbath day;[203] and it is not improbable that it was\ncomposed by David, the sweet singer of Israel.\n\nThe son of the Shunammite woman being dead, she sought the prophet\nElisha. Her husband not knowing that the child was dead said to her:\u2014\n\n \u201cWherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon,\n nor Sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.\u201d[204]\n\nIt is probable that the Sabbath of the Lord is here intended, as it is\nthrice used in a like connection.[205] If this be correct, it shows\nthat the Hebrews were accustomed to visit the prophets of God upon that\nday for divine instruction; a very good commentary upon the words used\nrelative to gathering the manna: \u201cLet no man go out of his place on the\nseventh day.\u201d[206] Incidental allusion is made to the Sabbath at the\naccession of Jehoash to the throne of Judah,[207] about B. C. 778. In the\nreign of Uzziah, the grandson of Jehoash, the prophet Amos, B. C. 787,\nuses the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cHear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the\n poor of the land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be\n gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set\n forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and\n falsifying the balances by deceit? that we may buy the poor for\n silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the\n refuse of the wheat?\u201d[208]\n\nThese words were spoken more directly concerning the ten tribes, and\nindicate the sad state of apostasy which soon after resulted in their\noverthrow as a people. About fifty years after this, at the close of the\nreign of Ahaz, another allusion to the Sabbath is found.[209] In the\ndays of Hezekiah, about B. C. 712, the prophet Isaiah uses the following\nlanguage in enforcing the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice; for my\n salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.\n Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that\n layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it,\n and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son\n of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak,\n saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people;\n neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus\n saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and\n choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant,\n even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls,\n a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I\n will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut\n off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to\n the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord,\n to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from\n polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will\n I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house\n of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall\n be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a\n house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth\n the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him,\n beside those that are gathered unto him.\u201d[210]\n\nThis prophecy presents several features of peculiar interest. 1. It\npertains to a time when the salvation of God is near at hand.[211] 2. It\nmost distinctly shows that the Sabbath is not a Jewish institution; for\nit pronounces a blessing upon that man without respect of nationality\nwho shall keep the Sabbath; and it then particularizes the son of the\nstranger, that is, the Gentile,[212] and makes a peculiar promise to him\nif he will keep the Sabbath. 3. And this prophecy relates to Israel when\nthey are outcasts, that is, when they are in their dispersion, promising\nto gather them, and _others_, that is, the Gentiles, with them. Of course\nthe condition of being gathered to God\u2019s holy mountain must be complied\nwith, namely, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, and to\nkeep the Sabbath from polluting it. 4. And hence it follows that the\nSabbath is not a local institution, susceptible of being observed in the\npromised land alone, like the annual sabbaths,[213] but one made for\nmankind and capable of being observed by the outcasts of Israel when\nscattered in every land under heaven.[214]\n\nIsaiah again presents the Sabbath; and this he does in language most\nemphatically distinguishing it from all ceremonial institutions. Thus he\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy\n pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the\n holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing\n thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking\n thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord;\n and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the\n earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father;\n for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.\u201d[215]\n\nThis language is an evangelical commentary upon the fourth commandment.\nIt appends to it an exceeding great and precious promise that takes hold\nupon the land promised to Jacob, even the new earth.[216]\n\nIn the year B. C. 601, thirteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem\nby Nebuchadnezzar, God made to the Jewish people through Jeremiah the\ngracious offer, that if they would keep his Sabbath, their city should\nstand forever. At the same time he testified unto them that if they\nwould not do this, their city should be utterly destroyed. Thus said the\nprophet:\u2014\n\n \u201cHear ye the word of the Lord, ye kings of Judah, and all\n Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by\n these gates: Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves,\n and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the\n gates of Jerusalem;[217] neither carry forth a burden[218]\n out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any\n work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your\n fathers. But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ears,\n but made their necks stiff, that they might not hear, nor\n receive instruction.[219] And it shall come to pass, if ye\n diligently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no\n burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but\n hallow the Sabbath day, to do no work therein; then shall\n there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes\n sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on\n horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the\n inhabitants of Jerusalem; and this city shall REMAIN FOREVER.\n And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the\n places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and\n from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south,\n bringing burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and meat-offerings,\n and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house\n of the Lord. But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the\n Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the\n gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a\n fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of\n Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.\u201d[220]\n\nThis gracious offer of the Most High to his rebellious people was not\nregarded by them; for eight years after this Ezekiel testifies thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst\n of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in\n thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast\n despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my Sabbaths....\n Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine\n holy things: they have put no difference between the holy\n and profane, neither have they showed difference between\n the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my\n Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.... Moreover this they\n have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same\n day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain\n their children to their idols, then they came the same day into\n my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the\n midst of mine house.\u201d[221]\n\nIdolatry and Sabbath-breaking, which were besetting sins with the\nHebrews in the wilderness, and which there laid the foundation for their\ndispersion from their own land,[222] had ever cleaved unto them. And now\nwhen their destruction was impending from the overwhelming power of the\nking of Babylon, they were so deeply attached to these and kindred sins,\nthat they would not regard the voice of warning. Before entering the\nsanctuary of God upon his Sabbath, they first slew their own children in\nsacrifice to their idols![223] Thus iniquity came to its hight, and wrath\ncame upon them to the uttermost.\n\n \u201cThey mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and\n misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against\n his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought\n upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men\n with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no\n compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that\n stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. And all the\n vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures\n of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of\n his princes; all these he brought to Babylon, and they burnt\n the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and\n burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the\n goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the\n sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to\n him and his sons until the reign of the king of Persia.\u201d[224]\n\nWhile the Hebrews were in captivity at Babylon, God made to them an offer\nof restoring them to their own land and giving them again a city and a\ntemple under circumstances of wonderful glory.[225] The condition of that\noffer being disregarded,[226] the offered glory was never inherited by\nthem. In this offer were several allusions to the Sabbath of the Lord,\nand also to the festivals of the Hebrews.[227] One of these allusions\nis worthy of particular notice for the distinctness with which it\ndiscriminates between the Sabbath and the other days of the week:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus saith the Lord God: The gate of the inner court that\n looketh toward the east, shall be shut THE SIX WORKING DAYS;\n but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the\n new moon it shall be opened.\u201d[228]\n\nSix days of the week are by divine inspiration called \u201cthe six working\ndays;\u201d the seventh is called the Sabbath of the Lord. Who shall dare\nconfound this marked distinction?\n\nAfter the Jews had returned from their captivity in Babylon, and had\nrestored their temple and city, in a solemn assembly of the whole people\nthey recount in an address to the Most High all the great events of\nGod\u2019s providence in their past history. Thus they testify respecting the\nSabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cThou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them\n from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws,\n good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy\n holy Sabbath, and commandest them precepts, statutes, and laws,\n by the hand of Moses thy servant.\u201d[229]\n\nThus were all the people reminded of the great events of Mount Sinai\u2014the\ngiving of the ten words of the law of God, and the making known of his\nholy Sabbath. So deeply impressed was the whole congregation with the\neffect of their former disobedience, that they entered into a solemn\ncovenant to obey God.[230] They pledged themselves to each other thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on\n the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on\n the Sabbath, or on the holy day; and that we would leave the\n seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.\u201d[231]\n\nIn the absence of Nehemiah at the Persian court, this covenant was in\npart, at least, forgotten. Eleven years having elapsed, Nehemiah thus\ntestifies concerning things at his return about B. C. 434:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the\n Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also\n wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they\n brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified\n against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt\n men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner\n of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah,\n and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah,\n and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and\n profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did\n not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?\n yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath.\n And it came to pass, that, when the gates of Jerusalem began\n to be dark before the Sabbath,[232] I commanded that the gates\n should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened\n till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the\n gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath\n day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged\n without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them,\n and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so\n again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they\n no more on the Sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they\n should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep\n the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day. Remember me, O my God,\n concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness\n of thy mercy.\u201d[233]\n\nThis scripture is an explicit testimony that the destruction of Jerusalem\nand the captivity of the Jews at Babylon were in consequence of their\nprofanation of the Sabbath. It is a striking confirmation of the language\nof Jeremiah, already noticed, in which he testified to the Jews that if\nthey would hallow the Sabbath their city should stand forever; but that\nit should be utterly destroyed if they persisted in its profanation.\nNehemiah bears testimony to the accomplishment of Jeremiah\u2019s prediction\nconcerning the violation of the Sabbath; and with his solemn appeal in\nits behalf ends the history of the Sabbath in the Old Testament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST.\n\n Great change in the Jewish people respecting idolatry and\n Sabbath-breaking after their return from Babylon\u2014Decree\n of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Sabbath\u2014Massacre of a\n thousand Sabbath-keepers in the wilderness\u2014Similar massacre at\n Jerusalem\u2014Decree of the Jewish elders relative to resisting\n attacks upon the Sabbath\u2014Other martyrdoms\u2014Victories of Judas\n Maccabeus\u2014How Pompey captured Jerusalem\u2014Teaching of the\n Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath\u2014State of the Sabbatic\n institution at the first advent of the Saviour.\n\n\nThe period of almost five centuries intervenes between the time\nof Nehemiah and the commencement of the ministry of the Redeemer.\nDuring this time an extraordinary change came over the Jewish people.\nPreviously, they had been to an alarming extent idolaters, and\noutbreaking violators of the Sabbath. But after their return from Babylon\nthey were never guilty of idolatry to any extent, the chastisement of\nthat captivity effecting a cure of this evil.[234] In like manner did\nthey change their conduct relative to the Sabbath; and during this\nperiod they loaded the Sabbatic institution with the most burdensome and\nrigorous ordinances. A brief survey of this period must suffice. Under\nthe reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, B. C. 170, the Jews\nwere greatly oppressed.\n\n \u201cKing Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be\n one people, and every one should leave his laws: so all the\n heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea,\n many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and\n sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath.\u201d[235]\n\nThe greater part of the Hebrews remained faithful to God, and, as a\nconsequence, were obliged to flee for their lives. Thus the historian\ncontinues:\u2014\n\n \u201cThen many that sought after justice and judgment went\n down into the wilderness, to dwell there: both they, and\n their children, and their wives, and their cattle; because\n afflictions increased sore upon them. Now when it was told\n the king\u2019s servants, and the host that was at Jerusalem,\n in the city of David, that certain men, who had broken the\n king\u2019s commandment, were gone down into the secret places in\n the wilderness, they pursued after them a great number, and\n having overtaken them, they camped against them, and made war\n against them on the Sabbath day. And they said unto them, Let\n that which ye have done hitherto suffice; come forth, and do\n according to the commandment of the king, and ye shall live.\n But they said, We will not come forth, neither will we do the\n king\u2019s commandment, to profane the Sabbath day. So then they\n gave them the battle with all speed. Howbeit they answered them\n not, neither cast they a stone at them, nor stopped the places\n where they lay hid. But said, Let us die all in our innocency:\n heaven and earth shall testify for us, that ye put us to death\n wrongfully. So they rose up against them in battle on the\n Sabbath, and they slew them, with their wives and children, and\n their cattle, to the number of a thousand people.\u201d[236]\n\nIn Jerusalem itself a like massacre took place. King Antiochus sent\nAppollonius with an army of twenty-two thousand,\n\n \u201cWho, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear\n till the holy day of the Sabbath, when taking the Jews keeping\n holy day, he commanded his men to arm themselves. And so\n he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the\n Sabbath, and running through the city with weapons, slew great\n multitudes.\u201d[237]\n\nIn view of these dreadful acts of slaughter, Mattathias, \u201can honorable\nand great man,\u201d the father of Judas Maccabeus, with his friends decreed\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath\n day we will fight against him; neither will we die all, as our\n brethren that were murdered in the secret places.\u201d[238]\n\nYet were some martyred after this for observing the Sabbath. Thus we\nread:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd others, that had run together into caves near by, to keep\n the Sabbath day secretly, being discovered to Philip, were\n all burnt together, because they made a conscience to help\n themselves for the honor of the most sacred day.\u201d[239]\n\nAfter this, Judas Maccabeus did great exploits in defense of the Hebrews,\nand in resisting the dreadful oppression of the Syrian government. Of one\nof these battles we read:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen he had given them this watchword, _The help of God_,\n himself leading the first band, he joined battle with Nicanor.\n And by the help of the Almighty they slew above nine thousand\n of their enemies, and wounded and maimed the most part of\n Nicanor\u2019s host, and so put all to flight; and took their money\n that came to buy them, and pursued them far; but lacking\n time, they returned: for it was the day before the Sabbath,\n and therefore they would no longer pursue them. So when they\n had gathered their armor together, and spoiled their enemies,\n they occupied themselves about the Sabbath, yielding exceeding\n praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them unto that\n day, which was the beginning of mercy distilling upon them.\n And after the Sabbath, when they had given part of the spoils\n to the maimed, and the widows, and orphans, the residue they\n divided among themselves and their servants.\u201d[240]\n\nAfter this the Hebrews being attacked upon the Sabbath by their enemies,\ndefeated them with much slaughter.[241]\n\nAbout B. C. 63, Jerusalem was besieged and taken by Pompey, the general\nof the Romans. To do this, it was necessary to fill an immense ditch,\nand to raise against the city a bank on which to place the engines of\nassault. Thus Josephus relates the event:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd had it not been our practice, from the days of our\n forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could\n never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the\n Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then\n to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with\n us, and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with\n our enemies while they do anything else. Which thing when the\n Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths, they\n threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with\n them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their\n engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the\n next days.\u201d[242]\n\nFrom this it is seen that Pompey carefully refrained from any attack upon\nthe Jews on each Sabbath during the siege, but spent that day in filling\nthe ditch and raising the bank, that he might attack them on the day\nfollowing each Sabbath, that is, upon Sunday. Josephus further relates\nthat the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations\nby the stones thrown among them from the engines of Pompey, even \u201cif\nany melancholy accident happened;\u201d and that when the city was taken and\nthe enemy fell upon them, and cut the throats of those that were in the\ntemples, yet did not the priests run away or desist from the offering of\nthe accustomed sacrifices.\n\nThese quotations from Jewish history are sufficient to indicate the\nextraordinary change that came over that people concerning the Sabbath,\nafter the Babylonish captivity. A brief view of the teaching of the\nJewish doctors respecting the Sabbath at the time when our Lord began his\nministry will conclude this chapter:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey enumerated about forty primary works, which they said\n were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath. Under each of these\n were numerous secondary works, which they said were also\n forbidden.... Among the primary works which were forbidden,\n were ploughing, sowing, reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding,\n etc. Under the head of grinding, was included the breaking\n or dividing of things which were before united.... Another\n of their traditions was, that, as threshing on the Sabbath\n was forbidden, the bruising of things, which was a species of\n threshing, was also forbidden. Of course, it was violation of\n the Sabbath to walk on green grass, for that would bruise or\n thresh it. So, as a man might not hunt on the Sabbath, he\n might not catch a flea; for that was a species of hunting. As a\n man might not carry a burden on the Sabbath, he might not carry\n water to a thirsty animal, for that was a species of burden;\n but he might pour water into a trough, and lead the animal to\n it.... Yet should a sheep fall into a pit, they would readily\n lift him out, and bear him to a place of safety.... They said\n a man might minister to the sick for the purpose of relieving\n their distress, but not for the purpose of healing their\n diseases. He might put a covering on a diseased eye, or anoint\n it with eye-salve for the purpose of easing the pain, but not\n to cure the eye.\u201d[243]\n\nSuch was the remarkable change in the conduct of the Jewish people toward\nthe Sabbath; and such was the teaching of their doctors respecting it.\nThe most merciful institution of God for mankind had become a source\nof distress; that which God ordained as a delight and a source of\nrefreshment had become a yoke of bondage; the Sabbath, made for man in\nparadise, was now a most oppressive and burdensome institution. It was\ntime that God should interfere. Next upon the scene of action appears the\nLord of the Sabbath.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS.\n\n Mission of the Saviour\u2014His qualifications as a judge of\n Sabbatic observance\u2014State of the institution at his advent\u2014The\n Saviour at Nazareth\u2014At Capernaum\u2014His discourse in the\n corn-field\u2014Case of the man with a withered arm\u2014The Saviour\n among his relatives\u2014Case of the impotent man\u2014Of the man born\n blind\u2014Of the woman bound by Satan\u2014Of the man who had the\n dropsy\u2014Object of our Lord\u2019s teaching and miracles relative to\n the Sabbath\u2014Unfairness of many anti-Sabbatarians\u2014Examination of\n Matt. 24:20\u2014The Sabbath not abrogated at the crucifixion\u2014Fourth\n commandment after that event\u2014Sabbath not changed at the\n resurrection of Christ\u2014Examination of John 20:26\u2014Of Acts\n 2:1, 2\u2014Redemption furnishes no argument for the change of\n the Sabbath\u2014Examination of Ps. 118:22-24\u2014The Sabbath neither\n abolished nor changed as late as the close of the seventy weeks.\n\n\nIn the fullness of time God sent forth his Son to be the Saviour of the\nworld. He who fulfilled this mission of infinite benevolence was both the\nSon of God and the Son of man. He was with the Father before the world\nwas, and by him God created all things.[244] The Sabbath being ordained\nat the close of that great work as a memorial to keep it in lasting\nremembrance, the Son of God, by whom all things were created, could not\nbe otherwise than a perfect judge of its true design, and of its proper\nobservance. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel\u2019s prophecy being accomplished,\nthe Redeemer began to preach, saying, \u201cThe time is fulfilled.\u201d[245] The\nministry of the Saviour was at a time when the Sabbath of the Lord had\nbecome utterly perverted from its gracious design, by the teaching of\nthe Jewish doctors. As we have seen in the previous chapter, it was to\nthe people no longer a source of refreshment and delight, but a cause of\nsuffering and distress. It had been loaded down with traditions by the\ndoctors of the law until its merciful and beneficent design was utterly\nhidden beneath the rubbish of men\u2019s inventions. It being impracticable\nfor Satan, after the Babylonish captivity, to cause the Jewish people,\neven by bloody edicts, to relinquish the Sabbath and openly to profane\nit as before that time, he turned their doctors so to pervert it, that\nits real character should be utterly changed and its observance entirely\nunlike that which would please God. We shall find that the Saviour never\nmissed an opportunity to correct their false notions respecting the\nSabbath; and that he selected, with evident design, the Sabbath as the\nday on which to perform many of his merciful works. It will be found that\nno small share of his teaching through his whole ministry was devoted\nto a determination of what was lawful on the Sabbath, a singular fact\nfor those to explain who think that he designed its abrogation. At the\nopening of our Lord\u2019s ministry, we read thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee;\n and there went out a fame of him through all the region round\n about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of\n all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up;\n and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the\n Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.\u201d[246]\n\nSuch was the manner of the Saviour relative to the Sabbath. It is evident\nthat in this he designed to show his regard for that day; for it was not\nnecessary thus to do in order to gain a congregation, as vast multitudes\nwere ever ready to throng his steps. His testimony being rejected, our\nLord left Nazareth for Capernaum. Thus the sacred historian says:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut he, passing through the midst of them, went his way, and\n came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on\n the Sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for\n his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man\n which had a spirit of an unclean devil; and he cried out with\n a loud voice, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with\n thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth; art thou come to destroy us? I\n know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked\n him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the\n devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt\n him not. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves,\n saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he\n commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. And the fame\n of him went out into every place of the country round about.\n And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon\u2019s\n house. And Simon\u2019s wife\u2019s mother was taken with a great fever;\n and they besought him for her. And he stood over her, and\n rebuked the fever; and it left her; and immediately she arose\n and ministered unto them.\u201d[247]\n\nThese miracles are the first which stand upon record as performed by the\nSaviour upon the Sabbath. But the strictness of Jewish views relative to\nthe Sabbath is seen in that they waited till sunset, that is, till the\nSabbath was passed,[248] before they brought the sick to be healed. Thus\nit is added:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd at even when the sun did set, they brought unto him all\n that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.\n And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he\n healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out\n many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they\n knew him.\u201d[249]\n\nThe next mention of the Sabbath is of peculiar interest:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn;\n and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears\n of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said\n unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful\n to do upon the Sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye\n not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they\n that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and\n did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat,\n neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?\n Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath day the\n priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?\n But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than\n the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will\n have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the\n guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath\n day.\u201d[250]\n\nThe parallel text in Mark has an important addition to the conclusion as\nstated by Matthew:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not\n man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of\n the Sabbath.\u201d[251]\n\nThe following points should be noted in examining this text:\u2014\n\n1. That the question at issue did not relate to the act of passing\nthrough the corn on the Sabbath; for the Pharisees themselves were in the\ncompany; and hence it may be concluded that the Saviour and those with\nhim were either going to, or returning from, the synagogue.\n\n2. That the question raised by the Pharisees was this: Whether the\ndisciples, in satisfying their hunger from the corn through which they\nwere passing, were not violating the law of the Sabbath.\n\n3. That he to whom this question was proposed was in the highest degree\ncompetent to answer it; for he was with the Father when the Sabbath was\nmade.[252]\n\n4. That the Saviour was pleased to appeal to scriptural precedents for\nthe decision of this question, rather than to assert his own independent\njudgment.\n\n5. That the first case cited by the Saviour was peculiarly appropriate.\nDavid, fleeing for his life, entered the house of God upon the\nSabbath,[253] and ate the shew-bread to satisfy his hunger. The\ndisciples, to relieve their hunger, simply ate of the corn through which\nthey were passing upon the Sabbath. If David did right, though eating\nin his necessity of that which belonged only to the priests, how little\nof blame could be attached to the disciples who had not even violated a\nprecept of the ceremonial law? Thus much for the disciples\u2019 satisfying\ntheir hunger as they did upon the Sabbath. Our Lord\u2019s next example is\ndesigned to show what labor upon the Sabbath is not a violation of its\nsacredness.\n\n6. And hence the case of the priests is cited. The same God who had said\nin the fourth commandment, \u201cSix days shalt thou labor and do all THY\nwork,\u201d had commanded that the priests upon the Sabbath should offer\ncertain sacrifices in his temple.[254]\n\nHerein was no contradiction; for the labor performed by the priests upon\nthe Sabbath was simply the maintenance of the appointed worship of God\nin his temple, and was not doing what the commandment calls \u201cTHY WORK.\u201d\nLabor of this kind, therefore, the Saviour being judge, was not, and\nnever had been, a violation of the Sabbath.\n\n7. But it is highly probable that the Saviour, in this reference to the\npriests, had his mind not merely upon the sacrifices which they offered\nupon the Sabbath, but upon the fact that they were required to prepare\nnew shew-bread every Sabbath; when the old was to be removed from the\ntable before the Lord and eaten by them.[255] This view of the matter\nwould connect the case of the priests with that of David, and both would\nbear with wonderful distinctness upon the act of the disciples. Then\nour Lord\u2019s argument could be appreciated when he adds: \u201cBut I say unto\nyou, That in this place is one greater than the temple.\u201d So that if the\nshew-bread was to be prepared each Sabbath for the use of those who\nministered in the temple, and those who did this were guiltless, how free\nfrom guilt also must be the disciples who, in following HIM that was\ngreater than the temple, but who had not where to lay his head, had eaten\nof the standing corn upon the Sabbath to relieve their hunger?\n\n8. But our Lord next lays down a principle worthy of the most serious\nattention. Thus he adds: \u201cBut if ye had known what this meaneth, I\nwill have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the\nguiltless.\u201d The Most High had ordained certain labor to be performed upon\nthe Sabbath, in order that sacrifices might be offered to himself. But\nChrist affirms upon the authority of the Scriptures,[256] that there is\nsomething far more acceptable to God than sacrifices, and that this is\nacts of mercy. If God held those guiltless who offered sacrifices upon\nthe Sabbath, how much less would he condemn those who extend mercy and\nrelief to the distressed and suffering, upon that day.\n\n9. Nor does the Saviour even leave the subject here; for he adds: \u201cThe\nSabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son\nof man is Lord also of the Sabbath.\u201d If the Sabbath was _made_, certain\nacts were necessary in order to give existence to it. What were those\nacts? (1) God rested upon the seventh day. This made the seventh day the\nrest-day or Sabbath of the Lord. (2) He blessed the day; thus it became\nhis holy day. (3) He sanctified it, or set it apart to a holy use; thus\nits observance became a part of man\u2019s duty toward God. There must be a\ntime when these acts were performed. And on this point there is really\nno room for controversy. They were not performed at Sinai, nor in the\nwilderness of Sin, but in paradise. And this is strikingly confirmed by\nthe language here used by the Saviour: \u201cThe Sabbath was made for THE man,\nnot THE man for the Sabbath;\u201d[257] thus citing our minds to the man Adam\nthat was made of the dust of the ground, and affirming that the Sabbath\nwas made for him; a conclusive testimony that the Sabbath originated in\nparadise. This fact is happily illustrated by a statement of the apostle\nPaul: \u201cNeither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the\nman.\u201d[258] It will not be denied that this language has direct reference\nto the creation of Adam and Eve. If then we turn back to the beginning,\nwe shall find Adam made of the dust of the ground, Eve taken from his\nside, and the Sabbath made of the seventh day.[259] Thus the Saviour,\nto complete the solution of the question raised by the Pharisees,\ntraces the Sabbath back to the beginning, as he does the institution of\nmarriage when the same class proposed for his decision the lawfulness of\ndivorce.[260] His careful statement of the design of the Sabbath and of\nmarriage, tracing each to the beginning, in the one case striking down\ntheir perversion of the Sabbath, in the other, that of marriage, is the\nmost powerful testimony in behalf of the sacredness of each institution.\nThe argument in the one case stands thus: In the beginning God created\n_one_ man and _one_ woman, designing that they two should be one flesh.\nThe marriage relation therefore was designed to unite simply two persons,\nand this union _should_ be sacred and indissoluble. Such was the bearing\nof his argument upon the question of divorce. In relation to the Sabbath,\nhis argument is this: God made the Sabbath for the man that he made of\nthe dust of the ground; and being thus made for an unfallen race, it can\nonly be a merciful and beneficent institution. He who made the Sabbath\nfor man before the fall saw what man needed, and knew how to supply that\nwant. It was given to him for rest, refreshment, and delight; a character\nthat it sustained after the fall,[261] but which the Jews had wholly lost\nsight of.[262] And thus our Lord lays open his whole heart concerning\nthe Sabbath. He carefully determines what works are not a violation of\nthe Sabbath; and this he does by Old-Testament examples, that it may be\nevident that he is introducing no change in the institution; he sets\naside their rigorous and burdensome traditions concerning the Sabbath,\nby tracing it back to its merciful origin in paradise; and having thus\ndisencumbered the Sabbath of Pharisaic rigor, he leaves it upon its\nparadisiacal foundation, enforced by all the authority and sacredness\nof that law which he came not to destroy, but to magnify and make\nhonorable.[263]\n\n10. Having thus divested the Sabbath of all Pharisaic additions, our Lord\nconcludes with this remarkable declaration: \u201cTherefore the Son of man is\nLord also of the Sabbath.\u201d (1) It was not a disparagement to the Sabbath,\nbut an honor, that God\u2019s only Son should claim to be its Lord. (2) Nor\nwas it derogatory to the character of the Redeemer to be the Lord of the\nSabbath; with all the high honors pertaining to his messiahship he is\nALSO Lord of the Sabbath. Or, if we take the expression in Matthew, he is\n\u201cLord EVEN of the Sabbath day,\u201d it implies that it is not a small honor\nto possess such a title. (3) This title implies that the Messiah should\nbe the _protector_, and not the _destroyer_, of the Sabbath. And hence\nthat he was the rightful being to decide the proper nature of Sabbatic\nobservance. With these memorable words ends our Lord\u2019s first discourse\nconcerning the Sabbath.\n\nFrom this time the Pharisees watched the Saviour to find an accusation\nagainst him of violating the Sabbath. The next example will show the\nmalignity of their hearts, their utter perversion of the Sabbath, the\nurgent need of an authoritative correction of their false teachings\nrespecting it, and the Saviour\u2019s unanswerable defense:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:\n and behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And\n they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath\n days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What\n man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and\n if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold\n on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than\n a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath\n days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And\n he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the\n other. Then the Pharisees went out and held a council against\n him, how they might destroy him.\u201d[264]\n\nWhat was the act that caused this madness of the Pharisees? On the part\nof the Saviour, it was a word; on the part of the man, it was the act of\nstretching out his arm. Did the law of the Sabbath forbid either of these\nthings? No one can affirm such a thing. But the Saviour had publicly\ntransgressed that tradition of the Pharisees that forbade the doing\nof anything whatever toward the healing of the sick upon the Sabbath.\nAnd how necessary that such a wicked tradition should be swept away,\nif the Sabbath itself was to be preserved for man. But the Pharisees\nwere filled with such madness that they went out of the synagogue and\nconsulted how they might destroy the Saviour. Yet Jesus only acted in\nbehalf of the Sabbath in setting aside those traditions by which they had\nperverted it.\n\nAfter this, our Lord returned into his own country, and thus we read of\nhim:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the\n synagogue; and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From\n whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this\n which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are\n wrought by his hands?\u201d[265]\n\nNot far from this time we find the Saviour at Jerusalem, and the\nfollowing miracle was performed upon the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd a certain man was there which had an infirmity thirty\n and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had\n been there now a long time in that case, he saith unto him,\n Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir,\n I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the\n pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.\n Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And\n immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and\n walked; and on the same day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore\n said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: It is\n not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He\n that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed,\n and walk. Then asked they him, What man is that which said\n unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?... The man departed and\n told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And\n therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay\n him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. But\n Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.\n Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not\n only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his\n Father, making himself equal with God.\u201d[266]\n\nOur Lord here stands charged with two crimes: 1. He had broken the\nSabbath. 2. He had made himself equal with God. The first accusation is\nbased on these particulars: (1) By his word he had healed the impotent\nman. But this violated no law of God; it only set at naught that\ntradition which forbade anything to be done for curing diseases upon the\nSabbath. (2) He had directed the man to carry his bed. But this as a\nburden was a mere trifle,[267] like a cloak or mat, and was designed to\nshow the reality of his cure, and thus to honor the Lord of the Sabbath\nwho had healed him. Moreover, it was not such a burden as the Scriptures\nforbid upon the Sabbath.[268] (3) Jesus justified what he had done by\ncomparing his present act of healing to that work which his Father had\ndone HITHERTO, _i. e._, from the beginning of the creation. Ever since\nthe Sabbath was sanctified in paradise, the Father, by his providence,\nhad continued to mankind, even upon the Sabbath, all the merciful acts\nby which the human race has been preserved. This work of the Father was\nof precisely the same nature as that which Jesus had now done. These\nacts did not argue that the Father had _hitherto_ lightly esteemed the\nSabbath, for he had most solemnly enjoined its observance in the law\nand in the prophets;[269] and as our Lord had most expressly recognized\ntheir authority,[270] there was no ground to accuse him of disregarding\nthe Sabbath, when he had only followed the example of the Father from\nthe beginning. The Saviour\u2019s answer to these two charges will remove all\ndifficulty:\u2014\n\n \u201cThen answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say\n unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth\n the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also\n doeth the Son likewise.\u201d[271]\n\nThis answer involves two points: 1. That he was following his Father\u2019s\nperfect example, who had ever laid open to him all his works; and hence\nas he was doing that only which had ever been the pleasure of the Father\nto do, he was not engaged in the overthrow of the Sabbath. 2. And by the\nmeek humility of this answer\u2014\u201cThe Son can do nothing of himself, but what\nhe seeth the Father do\u201d\u2014he showed the groundlessness of their charge of\nself-exaltation. Thus, in nothing was there left a chance to answer him\nagain.\n\nSeveral months after this, the same case of healing was under discussion:\n\n \u201cJesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and\n ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision\n (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on\n the Sabbath-day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day\n receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be\n broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every\n whit whole on the Sabbath day?\u201d[272]\n\nThis Scripture contains our Lord\u2019s second answer relative to healing the\nimpotent man upon the Sabbath. In his first answer he rested his defense\nupon the fact that what he had done was precisely the same as that which\nhis Father had done _hitherto_, that is, from the beginning of the\nworld; which implies that the Sabbath had existed from the same point,\nelse the example of the Father during this time would not be relevant.\nIn this, his second answer, a similar point is involved relative to the\norigin of the Sabbath. His defense this time rests upon the fact that\nhis act of healing no more violated the Sabbath than did the act of\ncircumcising upon the Sabbath. But if circumcision, which was ordained\nin the time of Abraham, was older than the Sabbath\u2014as it certainly was\nif the Sabbath originated in the wilderness of Sin\u2014there would be an\nimpropriety in the allusion; for circumcision would be entitled to the\npriority as the more ancient institution. It would be strictly proper\nto speak of the more recent institution as involving no violation of an\nolder one; but it would be otherwise to speak of an ancient institution\nas involving no violation of one more recent. The language therefore\nimplies that the Sabbath was older than circumcision; in other words,\nmore ancient than the days of Abraham. These two answers of the Saviour\nare certainly in harmony with the unanimous testimony of the sacred\nwriters, that the Sabbath originated with the sanctification of the\nrest-day of the Lord in Eden.\n\nWhat had the Saviour done to justify the hatred of the Jewish people\ntoward him? He had healed upon the Sabbath, with one word, a man who had\nbeen helpless thirty-eight years. Was not this act in strict accordance\nwith the Sabbatic institution? Our Lord has settled this point in the\naffirmative by weighty and unanswerable arguments,[273] not in this case\nalone, but in others already noticed, and also in those which remain to\nbe noticed. Had he left the man in his wretchedness because it was the\nSabbath, when a word would have healed him, he would have dishonored the\nSabbath, and thrown reproach upon its Author. We shall find the Lord of\nthe Sabbath still further at work in its behalf in rescuing it from the\nhands of those who had so utterly perverted its design; a work quite\nunnecessary, had he designed to nail the institution to his cross.\n\nThe next incident to be noticed is the case of the man that was born\nblind. Jesus seeing him said:\u2014\n\n \u201cI must work the works of him that sent me whilst it is day;\n the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the\n world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken\n he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he\n anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto\n him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation,\n Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came\n seeing.... And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay\n and opened his eyes.\u201d[274]\n\nHere is the record of another of our Lord\u2019s merciful acts upon the\nSabbath day. He saw a man blind from his birth; moved with compassion\ntoward him, he moistened clay and anointed his eyes, and sent him to\nthe pool to wash; and when he had washed he received sight. The act was\nalike worthy of the Sabbath and of its Lord: and it pertains only to\nthe opponents of the Sabbath _now_, as it pertained only to the enemies\nof its Lord _then_, to see in this even the slightest violation of the\nSabbath.\n\nAfter this we read as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.\n And behold there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity\n eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise\n lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him,\n and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.\n And he laid his hands on her; and immediately she was made\n straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue\n answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on\n the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days\n in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be\n healed, and not on the Sabbath day. The Lord then answered\n him and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the\n Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him\n away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of\n Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be\n loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? And when he had said\n these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the\n people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by\n him.\u201d[275]\n\nThis time a daughter of Abraham, that is, a pious woman,[276] who had\nbeen bound by Satan eighteen years, was loosed from that bond upon the\nSabbath day. Jesus silenced the clamor of his enemies by an appeal\nto their own course of action in loosing the ox and leading him to\nwater upon the Sabbath. With this answer our Lord made ashamed all his\nadversaries, and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things\nthat were done by him. The last of these glorious acts with which Jesus\nhonored the Sabbath is thus narrated:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd it came to pass as he went into the house of one of\n the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that\n they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before\n him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the\n lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the\n Sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and\n healed him, and let him go; and answered them, saying, Which of\n you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not\n straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not\n answer him again to these things.\u201d[277]\n\nIt is evident that the Pharisees and lawyers durst not answer the\nquestion, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? If they said, \u201cYes,\u201d\nthey condemned their own tradition. If they said, \u201cNo,\u201d they were unable\nto sustain their answer by fair argument. Hence they remained silent.\nAnd when Jesus had healed the man, he asked a second question equally\nembarrassing: Which of you shall have an ox fall into a pit and will\nnot straightway pull him out on the Sabbath? They could not answer him\nagain to these things. It is apparent that our Lord\u2019s argument with the\nPharisees from time to time relative to the Sabbath had satisfied them\nat last that silence relative to their traditions was wiser than speech.\nIn his public teaching the Saviour declared that the weightier matters\nof the law were judgment, MERCY, and faith;[278] and his long-continued\nand powerful effort in behalf of the Sabbath, was to vindicate it as a\nMERCIFUL institution, and to rid it of Pharisaic traditions, by which it\nwas perverted from its original purpose. Those who oppose the Sabbath are\nhere guilty of unfairness in two particulars: 1. They represent these\nPharisaic rigors as actually belonging to the Sabbatic institution. By\nthis means they turn the minds of men against the Sabbath. 2. And having\ndone this they represent the effort of the Saviour to set aside those\ntraditions as directed to the overthrow of the Sabbath itself.\n\nAnd now we come to the Saviour\u2019s memorable discourse upon the mount of\nOlives, on the very eve of his crucifixion, in which for the last time he\nmentions the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,\n spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso\n readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea\n flee into the mountains: let him which is on the house-top\n not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let\n him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.\n And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give\n suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the\n winter, neither on the Sabbath day; for then shall be great\n tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world\n to this time, no, nor ever shall be.\u201d[279]\n\nIn this language our Lord brings to view the dreadful calamities of the\nJewish people, and the destruction of their city and temple as predicted\nby Daniel the prophet;[280] and his watchful care over his people as\ntheir Lord leads him to point out their means of escape.\n\n1. He gives them a token by which they should know when this terrible\noverthrow was immediately impending. It was \u201cthe abomination of\ndesolation\u201d standing \u201cin the holy place;\u201d or, as expressed by Luke, the\ntoken was \u201cJerusalem compassed with armies.\u201d[281] The fulfillment of this\nsign is recorded by the historian Josephus. After stating that Cestius,\nthe Roman commander, at the commencement of the contest between the Jews\nand the Romans, encompassed the city of Jerusalem with an army, he adds:\u2014\n\n \u201cWho, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had\n certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the\n aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that\n he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.\n It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the\n besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people\n were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place,\n and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without\n having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without\n any reason in the world.\u201d[282]\n\n2. This sign being seen, the disciples were to know that the desolation\nof Jerusalem was nigh. \u201cThen,\u201d says Christ, \u201clet them which be in Judea\nflee into the mountains.\u201d Josephus records the fulfillment of this\ninjunction:\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most\n eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship\n when it was going to sink.\u201d[283]\n\nEusebius also relates its fulfillment:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having\n been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved\n piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt\n at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those\n that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if\n holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and\n the whole land of Judea; the divine justice for their crimes\n against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally\n destroying the whole generation of these evil-doers from the\n earth.\u201d[284]\n\n3. So imminent was the danger when this sign should be seen that not a\nmoment was to be lost. He that was upon the house-top could not even\ncome down to take a single article from his house. The man that was in\nthe field was forbidden to return to the house for his clothes. Not a\nmoment was to be lost; they must flee as they were, and flee for life.\nAnd pitiable indeed was the case of those who could not flee.\n\n4. In view of the fact that the disciples must flee the moment that the\npromised token should appear, our Lord directed them to pray for two\nthings: 1. That their flight should not be in the winter. 2. That it\nshould not be upon the Sabbath day. Their pitiable situation should they\nbe compelled to flee to the mountains in the depth of winter, without\ntime to even take their clothes, sufficiently attests the importance\nof the first of these petitions, and the tender care of Jesus as the\nLord of his people. The second of these petitions will be found equally\nexpressive of his care as Lord of the Sabbath.\n\n5. But it is replied that this last petition has reference only to the\nfact that the Jews would then be keeping the Sabbath strictly, and as\na consequence the city gates would be closed that day, and those be\npunished with death who should attempt to flee; and hence this petition\nindicates nothing in proof of Christ\u2019s regard for the Sabbath. An\nassertion so often and so confidently uttered should be well founded in\ntruth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case. 1.\nThe Saviour\u2019s language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not\nto Jerusalem only: \u201cLet them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.\u201d\nThe closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of\nbut a part of the disciples. 2. Josephus states the remarkable fact that\nwhen Cestius was marching upon Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Saviour\u2019s\ntoken, and had reached Lydda, not many miles from Jerusalem, \u201che found\nthe city empty of its men; for the whole multitude were gone up to\nJerusalem to the feast of tabernacles.\u201d[285] The law of Moses required\nthe presence of every male in Israel at this feast in Jerusalem;[286]\nand thus, in the providence of God, the disciples had no Jewish enemies\nleft in the country to hinder their flight. 3. The Jewish nation being\nthus assembled at Jerusalem did most openly violate the Sabbath a few\ndays prior to the flight of the disciples; a singular commentary on their\nsupposed strictness in keeping it at that time.[287] Thus Josephus says\nof the march of Cestius upon Jerusalem that,\n\n \u201cHe pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty\n furlongs distant from Jerusalem. But as for the Jews, when they\n saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the\n feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage\n greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly\n manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any\n consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the\n Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but\n that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of\n the Sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight;\n with such violence therefore did they fall upon the Romans, as\n to break into their ranks, and to march through the midst of\n them, making a great slaughter as they went,\u201d[288] etc.\n\nThus it is seen that on the eve of the disciples\u2019 flight the rage of the\nJews toward their enemies made them utterly disregard the Sabbath! 4.\nBut after Cestius encompassed the city with his army, thus giving the\nSaviour\u2019s signal, he suddenly withdrew it, as Josephus says, \u201cwithout any\nreason in the world.\u201d This was the moment of flight for the disciples,\nand mark how the providence of God opened the way for those in Jerusalem:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his,\n they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of\n his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their\n horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp\n which was at Scopus, and as he went off farther next day, he\n thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon\n the hindmost and destroyed them.\u201d[289]\n\nThis sally of the excited multitude in pursuit of the Romans was at the\nvery moment when the disciples were commanded to flee, and could not but\nafford them the needed facility of escape. Had the flight of Cestius\nhappened upon the Sabbath, undoubtedly the Jews would have pursued him\nupon that day, as under less exciting circumstances they had a few days\nbefore gone out several miles to attack him upon the Sabbath. It is seen,\ntherefore, that whether in city or country, the disciples were not in\ndanger of being attacked by their enemies, even had their flight been\nupon the Sabbath day.\n\n6. There is therefore but one view that can be taken relative to the\nmeaning of these words of our Lord, and that is that he thus spake,\nout of sacred regard for the Sabbath. For in his tender care for his\npeople he had given them a precept that would require them to violate\nthe Sabbath, should the moment for flight happen upon that day. For the\ncommand to flee was imperative the instant the promised signal should\nbe seen, and the distance to Pella, where they found a place of refuge,\nwas at least sixty miles. This prayer which the Saviour left with the\ndisciples would cause them to remember the Sabbath whenever they should\ncome before God. It was therefore impossible that the apostolic church\nshould forget the day of sacred rest. Such a prayer, that they might not\nat a future time be compelled to violate the Sabbath, was a sure and\ncertain means of perpetuating its sacred observance for the coming forty\nyears, until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and was never forgotten\nby that early church, as we shall hereafter see.[290] The Saviour, who\nhad taken unwearied pains during his whole ministry to show that the\nSabbath was a merciful institution and to set aside those traditions by\nwhich it had been perverted from its true design, did, in this his last\ndiscourse, most tenderly commend the Sabbath to his people, uniting in\nthe same petition their own safety and the sacredness of the rest-day of\nthe Lord.[291]\n\nA few days after this discourse, the Lord of the Sabbath was nailed to\nthe cross as the great sacrifice for the sins of men.[292] The Messiah\nwas thus cut off in the midst of the seventieth week; and by his death he\ncaused the sacrifice and oblation to cease.[293]\n\nPaul thus describes the abrogation of the typical system at the\ncrucifixion of the Lord Jesus:\u2014\n\n \u201cBlotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against\n us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,\n nailing it to his cross.... Let no man therefore judge you in\n meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new\n moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to\n come; but the body is of Christ.\u201d[294]\n\nThe object of this action is declared to be the handwriting of\nordinances. The manner of its abrogation is thus stated: 1. Blotted out;\n2. Nailed to the cross; 3. Taken out of the way. Its nature is shown in\nthese words: \u201cAgainst us\u201d and \u201ccontrary to us.\u201d The things contained in\nit were meats, drinks, holy days [Gr. \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 a feast day], new moons and\nsabbaths.[295] The whole is declared a shadow of good things to come;\nand the body which casts this shadow is of Christ. That law which was\nproclaimed by the voice of God and written by his own finger upon the\ntables of stone, and deposited beneath the mercy-seat, was altogether\nunlike that system of carnal ordinances that was written by Moses in a\nbook, and placed in the side of the ark.[296] It would be absurd to speak\nof the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross; or to speak of BLOTTING\nout what was ENGRAVED in STONE. It would be blasphemous to represent\nthe Son of God as pouring out his blood to blot out what the finger\nof his Father had written. It would be to confound all the immutable\nprinciples of morality, to represent the ten commandments as \u201ccontrary\u201d\nto man\u2019s moral nature. It would be to make Christ the minister of sin, to\nrepresent him as dying to utterly destroy the moral law. Nor does that\nman keep truth on his side who represents the ten commandments as among\nthe things contained in Paul\u2019s enumeration of what was abolished. Nor is\nthere any excuse for those who would destroy the ten commandments with\nthis statement of Paul; for he shows, last of all, that what was thus\nabrogated was a shadow of good things to come\u2014an absurdity if applied to\nthe moral law. The feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the ceremonial\nlaw, which Paul declared to be abolished in consequence of the abrogation\nof that code, have been particularly noticed already.[297] That the\nSabbath of the Lord is not included in their number, the following facts\nevince:\u2014\n\n1. The Sabbath of the Lord was made before sin entered our world. It is\nnot therefore one of those things that shadow redemption from sin.[298]\n\n2. Being made FOR man before the fall it is not one of those things that\nare AGAINST him and CONTRARY to him.[299]\n\n3. When the ceremonial sabbaths were ordained they were carefully\ndistinguished from the Sabbath of the Lord.[300]\n\n4. The Sabbath of the Lord does not owe its existence to the handwriting\nof ordinances, but is found in the very bosom of that law which Jesus\ncame not to destroy. The abrogation of the ceremonial law could not\ntherefore abolish the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.[301]\n\n5. The effort of our Lord through his whole ministry to redeem the\nSabbath from the thralldom of the Jewish doctors, and to vindicate it as\na merciful institution, is utterly inconsistent with the idea that he\nnailed it to his cross, as one of those things against man and contrary\nto him.\n\n6. Our Lord\u2019s petition respecting the flight of the disciples from Judea,\nrecognizes the sacredness of the Sabbath many years after the crucifixion\nof the Saviour.\n\n7. The perpetuity of the Sabbath in the new earth is not easily\nreconciled with the idea that it was blotted out and nailed to our\nLord\u2019s cross as one of those things that were contrary to man.[302]\n\n8. Because the authority of the fourth commandment is expressly\nrecognized after the Saviour\u2019s crucifixion.[303]\n\n9. And finally, because the royal law which is unabolished embodies the\nten commandments, and consequently embraces and enforces the Sabbath of\nthe Lord.[304]\n\nWhen the Saviour died upon the cross the whole typical system which\nhad pointed forward to that event as the commencement of its antitype,\nexpired with him. The Saviour being dead, Joseph of Arimathea went in\nunto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus, and with the assistance of\nNicodemus, buried it in his own new tomb.[305]\n\n \u201cAnd that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.\n And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed\n after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid.\n And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and\n rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon\n the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they\n came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had\n prepared, and certain others with them.\u201d[306]\n\nThis text is worthy of special attention. 1. Because it is an express\nrecognition of the fourth commandment after the crucifixion of the Lord\nJesus. 2. Because it is the most remarkable case of Sabbatic observance\nin the whole Bible. The Lord of the Sabbath was dead; preparation being\nmade for his embalming, when the Sabbath drew on it was suspended, and\nthey rested, says the sacred historian, according to the commandment. 3.\nBecause it shows that the Sabbath day according to the commandment is the\nday before the first day of the week; thus identifying the seventh day\nin the commandment with the seventh day of the New-Testament week. 4.\nBecause it is a direct testimony that the knowledge of the true seventh\nday was preserved as late as the crucifixion; for they observed the day\nenjoined in the commandment; and that was the day on which the Most High\nhad rested from the work of creation.\n\nIn the course of the day following this Sabbath, that is, upon the first\nday of the week, it was ascertained that Jesus was risen from the dead.\nIt appears that this event must have taken place upon that day, though it\nis not thus stated in express terms. At this point of time it is supposed\nby many that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of\nthe week; and that the sacredness of the seventh day was then transferred\nto the first day of the week, which thenceforth was the Christian\nSabbath, enforced by all the authority of the fourth commandment. To\njudge of the truthfulness of these positions, let us read with care each\nmention of the first day found in the four evangelists. Thus writes\nMatthew:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the\n first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary\n to see the sepulcher.\u201d\n\nThus also Mark writes:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the\n mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that\n they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning,\n the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the\n rising of the sun.... Now when Jesus was risen early the first\n day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.\u201d\n\nLuke uses the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and\n rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon\n the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they\n came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had\n prepared, and certain others with them.\u201d\n\nJohn bears the following testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when\n it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken\n away from the sepulcher.... Then the same day at evening, being\n the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the\n disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus\n and stood in their midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto\n you.\u201d[307]\n\nIn these texts the foundation of the \u201cChristian Sabbath\u201d must be\nsought\u2014if indeed such an institution actually exists\u2014for there are no\nother records of the first day which relate to the time when it is\nsupposed to have become sacred. These texts are supposed to prove that at\nthe resurrection of the Saviour, the first day absorbed the sacredness\nof the seventh, elevating itself from the rank of a secular to that of\na sacred day, and abasing the Sabbath of the Lord to the rank of \u201cthe\nsix working days.\u201d[308] Yet the following facts must be regarded as very\nextraordinary indeed if this supposed change of the Sabbath here took\nplace:\u2014\n\n1. That these texts should contain no mention of this change of the\nSabbath. 2. That they should carefully discriminate between the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment and the first day of the week. 3. That they\nshould apply no sacred title to that day; particularly that they should\nomit the title of Christian Sabbath. 4. That they should not mention the\nfact that Christ rested upon that day; an act essential to its becoming\nhis Sabbath.[309] 5. That they do not relate the act of taking the\nblessing of God from the seventh day, and placing it upon the first;\nand indeed that they do not mention any act whatever of blessing and\nhallowing the day. 6. That they omit to mention anything that Christ did\nto the first day; and that they even neglect to inform us that Christ so\nmuch as took up the first day of the week into his lips! 7. That they\ngive no precept in support of first-day observance, nor do they contain a\nhint of the manner in which the first day of the week can be enforced by\nthe authority of the fourth commandment.\n\nShould it be asserted, however, from the words of John, that the\ndisciples were on this occasion convened for the purpose of honoring the\nday of the resurrection, and that Jesus sanctioned this act by meeting\nwith them, thus accomplishing the change of the Sabbath, it is sufficient\nto cite in reply the words of Mark in which the same interview is\nnarrated:\u2014\n\n \u201cAfterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,\n and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,\n because they believed not them which had seen him after he was\n risen.\u201d[310]\n\nThis testimony of Mark shows that the inference so often drawn from the\nwords of John is utterly unfounded. 1. The disciples were assembled\nfor the purpose of eating supper. 2. Jesus came into their midst and\nupbraided them for their unbelief respecting his resurrection.\n\nThe Scriptures declare that \u201cwith God all things are possible;\u201d yet this\nstatement is limited by the declaration that God cannot lie.[311] Does\nthe change of the Sabbath pertain to those things that are possible with\nGod, or is it excluded by that important limitation, _God cannot lie_?\nThe Law-giver is the God of truth, and his law is the truth.[312] Whether\nit would still remain the truth if changed to something else, and whether\nthe Law-giver would still continue to be the God of truth after he had\nthus changed it, remains to be seen. The fourth commandment, which is\naffirmed to have been changed, is thus expressed:\u2014\n\n \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.... The seventh day\n is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For in six days the Lord\n made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and\n rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath\n day, and hallowed it.\u201d\n\nIf now we insert \u201cfirst day\u201d in place of the seventh, we shall bring the\nmatter to a test:\u2014\n\n \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.... The first day is\n the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For in six days the Lord\n made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and\n rested the first day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath\n day, and hallowed it.\u201d\n\nThis changes the truth of God into a lie;[313] for it is false that God\nrested upon the first day of the week and blessed and hallowed it. Nor\nis it possible to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day on\nwhich he rested to one of the six days on which he did not rest.[314] To\nchange a part of the commandment, and to leave the rest unchanged, will\nnot therefore answer, as the truth which is left is still sufficient to\nexpose the falsehood which is inserted. A more radical change is needed,\nlike the following:\u2014\n\n \u201cRemember the Christian Sabbath, to keep it holy. The first day\n is the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ. For on that day he\n arose from the dead; wherefore he blessed the first day of the\n week, and hallowed it.\u201d\n\nAfter such a change, no part of the original Sabbatic institution\nremains. Not only is the rest-day of the Lord left out, but even the\nreasons on which the fourth commandment is based are of necessity\nomitted also. But does such an edition of the fourth commandment as\nthis exist? Not in the Bible, certainly. Is it true that such titles\nas these are applied to the first day? Never, in the Holy Scriptures.\nDid the Law-giver bless and hallow that day? Most assuredly not. He did\nnot even take the name of it into his lips. Such a change of the fourth\ncommandment on the part of the God of truth is impossible; for it not\nmerely affirms that which is false and denies that which is true, but it\nturns the truth of God itself into a lie. It is simply the act of setting\nup a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord, which, having neither sacredness\nnor authority of its own, has contrived to absorb that of the Bible\nSabbath itself. Such is the FOUNDATION of the first-day Sabbath. The\ntexts which are employed in rearing the institution upon this foundation\nwill be noticed in their proper order and place. Several of these texts\nproperly pertain to this chapter:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd after eight days again his disciples were within, and\n Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and\n stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.\u201d[315]\n\nIt is not asserted that on this occasion our Lord hallowed the first\nday of the week; for that act is affirmed to date from the resurrection\nitself on the authority of the texts already quoted. But the sacredness\nof the first day being assumed as the foundation, this text furnishes the\nfirst stone for the superstructure; the first pillar in the first-day\ntemple. The argument drawn from it may be thus stated: Jesus selected\nthis day as the one in which to manifest himself to his disciples; and\nby this act strongly attested his regard for the day. But it is no small\ndefect in this argument that his next meeting with them was on a fishing\noccasion,[316] and his last and most important manifestation, when he\nascended into Heaven, was upon Thursday.[317] The act of the Saviour in\nmeeting with his disciples must therefore be yielded as insufficient\nof itself to show that any day is sacred; for it would otherwise prove\nthe sacredness of several of the working days. But a still more serious\ndefect in this argument is found in the fact that this meeting of Jesus\nwith his disciples does not appear to have been upon the first day of\nthe week. It was \u201cafter eight days\u201d from the previous meeting of Jesus\nand the disciples, which, coming at the very close of the resurrection\nday, could not but have extended into the second day of the week.[318]\n\u201cAfter eight days\u201d from this meeting, if made to signify only one week,\nnecessarily carries us to the second day of the week. But a different\nexpression is used by the Spirit of inspiration when simply one week is\nintended. \u201cAfter seven days\u201d is the chosen term of the Holy Spirit when\ndesignating just one week.[319] \u201cAfter eight days\u201d most naturally implies\nthe ninth or tenth day;[320] but allowing it to mean the eighth day, it\nfails to prove that this appearance of the Saviour was upon the first\nday of the week. To sum up the argument: The first meeting of Jesus\nwith his disciples in the evening at the close of the first day of the\nweek was mainly if not wholly upon the second day of the week;[321] the\nsecond meeting could not have been earlier in the week than the second or\nthird day, and the day seems to have been selected simply because that\nThomas was present; the third meeting was upon a fishing occasion; and\nthe fourth, was upon Thursday, when he ascended into Heaven. The argument\nfor first-day sacredness drawn from this text is eminently fitted to\nthe foundation of that sacredness already examined; and the institution\nof the first-day Sabbath itself, unless formed of more substantial\nframe-work than enters into its foundation, is at best only a castle in\nthe air.\n\nThe text which next enters into the fabric of first-day sacredness is the\nfollowing:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all\n with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound\n from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the\n house where they were sitting.\u201d[322]\n\nThis text is supposed to contribute an important pillar for the first-day\ntemple. On this wise it is furnished: The disciples were convened on this\noccasion to celebrate the first-day Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit was\npoured out at that time in honor of that day. To this deduction there\nare, however, the most serious objections. 1. That there is no evidence\nthat a first-day Sabbath was then in existence. 2. That there is no\nintimation that the disciples came together on this occasion for its\ncelebration. 3. Nor that the Holy Spirit was then poured out in honor of\nthe first day of the week. 4. That from the ascension of Jesus until the\nday of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring, the disciples had continued in prayer\nand supplication, so that their being convened on this day was nothing\nmaterially different from what had been the case for the past ten or more\ndays.[323] 5. That had the sacred writer designed to show that a certain\nday of the week was honored by the events narrated, he would doubtless\nhave stated that fact, and named that day. 6. That Luke was so far from\nnaming the day of the week that it is even now a disputed point; eminent\nfirst-day authors[324] even asserting that the day of Pentecost that year\ncame upon the _seventh_ day. 7. That the one great event which the Holy\nSpirit designed to mark was the antitype of the feast of Pentecost; the\nday of the week on which that should occur being wholly immaterial. How\nwidely, therefore, do those err who reverse this order, making the day\nof the week, which the Holy Spirit has not even named, but which they\nassume to be the first day, the thing of chief importance, and passing in\nsilence over that fact which the Holy Spirit has so carefully noted, that\nthis event took place upon the day of Pentecost. The conclusion to which\nthese facts lead is inevitable; viz., that the pillar furnished from this\ntext for the first-day temple is like the foundation of that edifice,\nsimply a thing of the imagination, and quite worthy of a place beside\nthe pillar furnished from the record of our Lord\u2019s second appearance to\nhis disciples.\n\nA third pillar for the first-day edifice is the following: Redemption\nis greater than creation; therefore the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection\nshould be observed instead of the day of the Creator\u2019s rest. But this\nproposition is open to the fatal objection that the Bible says nothing\nof the kind.[325] Who then knows that it is true? When the Creator\ngave existence to our world, did he not foresee the fall of man? And,\nforeseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man?\nAnd does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained in\nthat of creation? Who then can affirm that redemption is greater than\ncreation?\n\nBut as the Scriptures do not decide this point, let it be assumed that\nredemption is the greater. Who knows that a day should be set apart for\nits commemoration? The Bible says nothing on the point. But granting\nthat a day should be set apart for this purpose, what day should have\nthe preference? Is it said, That day on which redemption was finished?\nIt is not true that redemption is finished; the resurrection of the\nsaints and the redemption of our earth from the curse are included in\nthat work.[326] But granting that redemption should be commemorated\nbefore it is finished, by setting apart a day in its honor, the question\nagain arises, What day shall it be? The Bible is silent in reply. If\nthe most memorable day in the history of redemption should be selected,\nundoubtedly the day of the crucifixion, on which the price of human\nredemption was paid, must have the preference. Which is the more\nmemorable day, that on which the infinite Law-giver gave up his only and\nwell-beloved Son to die an ignominious death for a race of rebels who\nhad broken his law, or that day on which he restored that beloved Son to\nlife? The latter event, though of thrilling interest, is the most natural\nthing in the world; the crucifixion of the Son of God for sinful men may\nbe safely pronounced the most wonderful event in the annals of eternity.\nThe crucifixion day is therefore beyond all comparison the more memorable\nday. And that redemption itself is asserted of the crucifixion rather\nthan of the resurrection is an undoubted fact. Thus it is written:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn whom we have redemption through his blood;\u201d \u201cChrist hath\n redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for\n us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a\n tree;\u201d \u201cThou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy\n blood.\u201d[327]\n\nIf, therefore, any day should be observed in memory of redemption,\nunquestionably the day of the crucifixion should have the preference.\nBut it is needless to pursue this point further. Whether the day of the\ncrucifixion or the day of the resurrection should be preferred is quite\nimmaterial. The Holy Spirit has said nothing in behalf of either of these\ndays, but it has taken care that the _event_ in each case should have\nits own appropriate memorial. Would you commemorate the crucifixion of\nthe Redeemer? You need not change the Sabbath to the crucifixion day.\nIt would be a presumptuous sin in you to do this. Here is the divinely\nappointed memorial of the crucifixion:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took\n bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,\n Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in\n remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup,\n when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my\n blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.\n For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do\n shew the Lord\u2019s death till he come.\u201d[328]\n\nIt is the death of the Redeemer, therefore, and not the day of his death\nthat the Holy Spirit has thought worthy of commemoration. Would you also\ncommemorate the resurrection of the Redeemer? You need not change the\nSabbath of the Bible for that purpose. The great Law-giver has never\nauthorized such an act. But an appropriate memorial of that event has\nbeen ordained:\u2014\n\n \u201cKnow ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus\n Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried\n with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised\n up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also\n should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted\n together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the\n likeness of his resurrection.\u201d[329]\n\nTo be buried in the watery grave as our Lord was buried in the tomb,\nand to be raised from the water to walk in newness of life, as our Lord\nwas raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, is the divinely\nauthorized memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And let it be\nobserved, it is not the day of the resurrection, but the resurrection\nitself, that was thought worthy of commemoration. The events which lie at\nthe foundation of redemption are the death, burial, and resurrection, of\nthe Redeemer. Each of these has its appropriate memorial; while the days\non which they severally occurred have no importance attached to them. It\nwas the death of the Redeemer, and not the day of his death, that was\nworthy of commemoration; and hence the Lord\u2019s supper was appointed for\nthat purpose. It was the resurrection of the Saviour, and not the day of\nthe resurrection, that was worthy of commemoration; and hence burial in\nbaptism was ordained as its memorial. It is the change of this memorial\nto sprinkling that has furnished so plausible a plea for first-day\nobservance in memory of the resurrection.\n\nTo celebrate the work of redemption by resting from labor on the first\nday of the week after six days of toil, it should be true that our\nLord accomplished the work of human redemption in the six days prior\nto that of his resurrection, and that he rested on that day from the\nwork, blessing it, and setting it apart for that reason. Yet not one of\nthese particulars is true. Our Lord\u2019s whole life was devoted to this\nwork. He rested temporarily from it indeed over the Sabbath following\nhis crucifixion, but resumed the work on the morning of the first day of\nthe week, which he has never since relinquished, and never will, until\nits perfect accomplishment in the resurrection of the saints and the\nredemption of the purchased possession. Redemption, therefore, furnishes\nno plea for a change of the Sabbath; its own memorials being quite\nsufficient, without destroying that of the great Creator. And thus the\nthird pillar in the temple of first-day sacredness, like the other parts\nof that structure which have been already examined, is found to be a\nthing of the imagination only.\n\nA fourth pillar in this temple is taken from an ancient prophecy in which\nit is claimed that the Christian Sabbath was foretold:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe stone which the builders refused is become the head stone\n of the corner. This is the Lord\u2019s doing; it is marvelous in our\n eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice\n and be glad in it.\u201d[330]\n\nThis text is considered one of the strongest testimonies in support of\nthe Christian Sabbath. Yet it is necessary to assume the very points\nthat this text is supposed to prove. 1. It is assumed that the Saviour\nbecame the head of the corner by his resurrection. 2. That the day of\nhis resurrection was made the Christian Sabbath in commemoration of\nthat event. 3. And that this day thus ordained should be celebrated by\nabstinence from labor, and attendance upon divine worship.\n\nTo these extraordinary assumptions it is proper to reply: 1. There is\nno proof that Jesus became the head of the corner on the day of his\nresurrection. The Scriptures do not mark the day when this event took\nplace. His being made head of the corner has reference to his becoming\nthe chief corner stone of that spiritual temple composed of his people;\nin other words, it has reference to his becoming head of that living\nbody, the saints of the Most High. It does not appear that he assumed\nthis position until his ascension on high, where he became the chief\ncorner stone in Zion above, elect and precious.[331] And hence there\nis no evidence that the first day of the week is even referred to in\nthis text. 2. Nor is there the slightest evidence that that day or any\nother day was set apart as the Christian Sabbath in memory of Christ\u2019s\nresurrection. 3. Nor can there well be found a more extraordinary\nassumption than that this text enjoins the Sabbatic observance of the\nfirst day of the week!\n\nThis scripture has manifest reference to the Saviour\u2019s act of becoming\nthe head of the New-Testament church; and consequently it pertains to\nthe opening of the gospel dispensation. The day in which the people of\nGod rejoice, in view of this relation to the Redeemer, can therefore be\nunderstood of no one day of the week; for they are commanded to \u201crejoice\nEVERMORE;\u201d[332] but of the whole period of the gospel dispensation. Our\nLord uses the word day in the same manner when he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cYour father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and\n was glad.\u201d[333]\n\nTo assert the existence of what is termed the Christian Sabbath on the\nground that this text is the prediction of such an institution, is to\nfurnish a fourth pillar for the first-day temple quite as substantial as\nthose already tested.\n\nThe seventieth week of Daniel\u2019s prophecy extends three and a half years\nbeyond the death of the Redeemer, to the commencement of the great work\nfor the Gentiles. This period of seven years through which we have been\npassing is the most eventful period in the history of the Sabbath. It\nembraces the whole history of the Lord of the Sabbath as connected with\nthat institution: His miracles and teaching, by which it is affirmed\nthat he weakened its authority; his death, at which many affirm that\nhe abrogated it; and his resurrection, at which a still larger number\ndeclare that he changed it to the first day of the week. We have had the\nmost ample evidence, however, that each of these positions is false; and\nthat the opening of the great work for the Gentiles witnessed the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment neither weakened, abrogated, nor changed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES.\n\n The knowledge of God preserved in the family of Abraham\u2014The\n call of the Gentiles\u2014The new covenant puts the law of God into\n the heart of each Christian\u2014The new covenant has a temple in\n Heaven; and an ark containing the great original of that law\n which was in the ark upon earth\u2014And before that ark a priest\n whose offering can take away sin\u2014The Old and New Testaments\n compared\u2014The human family in all ages amenable to the law of\n God\u2014The good olive tree shows the intimate relation between the\n church of the New Testament and the Hebrew church\u2014The apostolic\n church observed the Sabbath\u2014Examination of Acts 13\u2014The assembly\n of the apostles at Jerusalem\u2014Sabbatarian origin of the church\n at Philippi\u2014Of the church of the Thessalonians\u2014Of the church\n of Corinth\u2014The churches in Judea and in many cases among the\n Gentiles began with Sabbath-keepers\u2014Examination of 1 Cor. 16:1,\n 2\u2014Self-contradiction of Dr. Edwards\u2014Paul at Troas\u2014Examination\n of Rom. 14:1-6\u2014Flight of the disciples from Judea\u2014The Sabbath\n of the Bible at the close of the first century.\n\n\nWe have now traced the Sabbath through the period of its especial\nconnection with the family of Abraham. The termination of the seventy\nweeks brings us to the call of the Gentiles, and to their admission to\nequal privileges with the Hebrew race. We have seen that with God there\nwas no injustice in conferring especial blessings upon the Hebrews, and\nat the same time leaving the Gentiles to their own chosen ways.[334]\nTwice had he given the human family, as a whole, the most ample means\nof grace that their age of the world admitted, and each time did it\nresult in the almost total apostasy of mankind. Then God selected as\nhis heritage the family of Abraham, his friend; and by means of that\nfamily preserved in the earth the knowledge of his law, his Sabbath, and\nhimself, until the coming of the great Messiah. During his ministry, the\nMessiah solemnly affirmed the perpetuity of his Father\u2019s law, enjoining\nobedience, even to its least commandment;[335] at his death he broke\ndown that middle wall of partition[336] by which the Hebrews had so long\nbeen preserved a separate people in the earth; and when about to ascend\ninto Heaven commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach\nthe gospel to every creature; teaching them to observe all things which\nhe had commanded them.[337] With the expiration of the seventieth week,\nthe apostles enter upon the execution of this great commission to the\nGentiles.[338] Several facts of deep interest should here be noticed:\u2014\n\n1. The new covenant or testament dates from the death of the Redeemer.\nIn accordance with the prediction of Jeremiah, it began with the Hebrews\nalone, and was confined exclusively to them until the expiration of the\nseventieth week. Then the Gentiles were admitted to a full participation\nwith the Hebrews in its blessings, being no longer aliens and foreigners,\nbut fellow-citizens with the saints.[339] God entered into covenant this\ntime with his people as individuals and not as a nation. The promises of\nthis covenant embrace two points of great interest: (1) That God will\nput his law into the hearts of his people. (2) That he will forgive their\nsins. These promises being made six hundred years before the birth of\nChrist, there can be no question relative to what was meant by the law\nof God. It was the law of God then in existence that should be put into\nthe heart of each new-covenant saint. The new covenant, then, is based\nupon the perpetuity of the law of God; it does not abrogate that law, but\ntakes away sin, the transgression of the law, from the heart, and puts\nthe law of God in its place.[340] The perpetuity of each precept of the\nmoral law lies, therefore, at the very foundation of the new covenant.\n\n2. As the first covenant had a sanctuary, and within that sanctuary an\nark containing the law of God in ten commandments,[341] and had also\na priesthood to minister before that ark, to make atonement for the\nsins of men,[342] even thus is it with the new covenant. Instead of the\ntabernacle erected by Moses as the pattern of the true, the new covenant\nhas the greater and more perfect tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and\nnot man\u2014the temple of God in Heaven.[343] As the great central point\nin the earthly sanctuary was the ark containing that law which man had\nbroken, even thus it is with the heavenly sanctuary. \u201cThe temple of God\nwas opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his\ntestament.\u201d[344] Our Lord Jesus Christ as a great High Priest presents\nhis own blood before the ark of God\u2019s testament in the temple in Heaven.\nRespecting this object before which he ministers, let the following\npoints be noted:\u2014\n\n1. The ark in the heavenly temple is not empty; it contains the testament\nof God; and hence it is the great center of the sanctuary above, as the\nark of God\u2019s testament was the center of the sanctuary on earth.[345]\n\n2. The death of the Redeemer for the sins of men, and his work as High\nPriest before the ark in Heaven, have direct reference to the fact that\nwithin that ark is the law which mankind have broken.\n\n3. As the atonement and priesthood of Christ have reference to the law\nwithin that ark before which he ministers, it follows that this law\nexisted and was transgressed before the Saviour came down to die for men.\n\n4. And hence, the law contained in the ark above is not a law which\noriginated in the New Testament; for it necessarily existed long anterior\nto it.\n\n5. If, therefore, God has revealed this law to mankind, that revelation\nmust be sought in the Old Testament. For while the New Testament makes\nmany references to that law which caused the Saviour to lay down his life\nfor sinful men, and even quotes from it, it never publishes a second\nedition, but cites us to the Old Testament for the original code.[346]\n\n6. It follows, therefore, that this law is revealed, and that this\nrevelation is to be found in the Old Testament.\n\n7. In that volume will be found, (1) The descent of the Holy One upon\nMount Sinai; (2) The proclamation of his law in ten commandments; (3) The\nten commandments written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone;\n(4) These tables placed beneath the mercy-seat in the ark of the earthly\nsanctuary.[347]\n\n8. That this remarkable Old-Testament law which was shut up in the ark\nof the earthly sanctuary was identical with that in the ark in Heaven,\nmay be thus shown: (1) The mercy-seat which was placed over the ten\ncommandments was the place from which pardon was expected, the great\ncentral point in the work of atonement;[348] (2) The law beneath the\nmercy-seat was that which made the work of atonement necessary; (3)\nThere was no atonement that could take away sins; it was only a shadowy\nor typical atonement; (4) But there was actual sin, and hence a real\nlaw which man had broken; (5) There must therefore be an atonement that\ncan take away sins; and that real atonement must pertain to that law\nwhich was broken, and respecting which an atonement had been shadowed\nforth.[349] (6) The ten commandments are thus set forth in the Old\nTestament as that law which demanded an atonement; while the fact is ever\nkept in view that those sacrifices there provided could not avail to\ntake away sins.[350] (7) But the death of Jesus as the antitype of those\nsacrifices, was designed to accomplish precisely what they shadowed\nforth, but which they could not effect, viz., to make atonement for\nthe transgression of that law which was placed in the ark beneath the\nmercy-seat.[351]\n\nWe are thus brought to the conclusion that the law of God contained in\nthe ark in Heaven is identical with that law which was contained in the\nark upon earth; and that both are identical with that law which the new\ncovenant puts in the heart of each believer.[352] The Old Testament,\ntherefore, gives us the law of God and pronounces it perfect; it also\nprovides a typical atonement, but pronounces it inadequate to take away\nsins.[353] Hence what was needed was not a new edition of the law of God;\nfor that which was given already was perfect; but a real atonement to\ntake away the guilt of the transgressor. So the New Testament responds\nprecisely to this want, providing a real atonement in the death and\nintercession of the Redeemer, but giving no new edition of the law of\nGod,[354] though it fails not to cite us to the perfect code given long\nbefore. But although the New Testament does not give a new edition of the\nlaw of God, it does show that the Christian dispensation has the great\noriginal of that law in the sanctuary in Heaven.\n\n9. We have seen that the new covenant places the law of God in the heart\nof each believer, and that the original of that law is preserved in the\ntemple in Heaven. That all mankind are amenable to the law of God, and\nthat they ever have been, is clearly shown by Paul\u2019s epistle to the\nRomans. In the first chapter, he traces the origin of idolatry to the\nwillful apostasy of the Gentiles, which took place soon after the flood.\nIn the second chapter, he shows that although God gave them up to their\nown ways, and as a consequence left them without his written law, yet\nthey were not left in utter darkness; for they had by nature the work\nof the law written in their hearts; and dim as was this light, their\nsalvation would be secured by living up to it, or their ruin accomplished\nby sinning against it. In the third chapter, he shows what advantage\nthe family of Abraham had in being taken as the heritage of God, while\nall other nations were left to their own ways. It was that the oracles\nof God, the written law, was given them in addition to that work of the\nlaw written in the heart, which they had by nature in common with the\nGentiles. He then shows that they were no better than the Gentiles,\nbecause that both classes were transgressors of the law. This he proves\nby quotations from the Old Testament. Then he shows that the law of God\nhas jurisdiction over all mankind:\u2014\n\n \u201cNow we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to\n them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped,\n and all the world may become guilty before God.\u201d[355]\n\nHe then shows that the law cannot save the guilty, but must condemn them,\nand that justly. Next, he reveals the great fact that redemption through\nthe death of Jesus is the only means by which God can justify those who\nseek pardon, and at the same time remain just himself. And finally he\nexclaims:\u2014\n\n \u201cDo we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea,\n we establish the law.\u201d[356]\n\nIt follows, therefore, that the law of God is unabolished; that the\nsentence of condemnation which it pronounces upon the guilty is as\nextensive as is the offer of pardon through the gospel; that its work\nexists in the hearts of men by nature; from which we may conclude\nthat man in his uprightness possessed it in perfection, as is further\nproved by the fact that the new covenant, after delivering men from\nthe condemnation of the law of God, puts that law perfectly into their\nhearts. From all of which it follows that the law of God is the great\nstandard by which sin is shown,[357] and hence the rule of life, by which\nall mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, should walk.\n\nThat the church in the present dispensation is really a continuation of\nthe ancient Hebrew church, is shown by the illustration of the good olive\ntree. That ancient church was God\u2019s olive tree, and that olive tree has\nnever been destroyed.[358] Because of unbelief, _some_ of its branches\nwere broken off; but the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles does\nnot create a new olive tree; it only grafts into the good olive tree\nsuch of the Gentiles as believe; giving them a place among the original\nbranches, that with them they may partake of its root and fatness.\nThis olive tree must date from the call of Abraham after the apostasy\nof the Gentiles; its trunk representing the patriarchs, beginning with\nthe father of the faithful;[359] its branches, the Hebrew people. The\ningrafting of the wild olive into the place of those branches which were\nbroken off, represents the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges\nwith the Hebrews after the expiration of the seventy weeks. The\nOld-Testament church, the original olive tree, was a kingdom of priests\nand an holy nation; the New-Testament church, the olive tree after the\ningrafting of the Gentiles, is described in the same terms.[360]\n\nWhen God gave up the Gentiles to apostasy before the call of Abraham, he\nconfounded their language, that they should not understand one another,\nand thus scattered them abroad upon the face of the earth. Standing over\nagainst this is the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, preparatory\nto the call of the Gentiles, and their ingrafting into the good olive\ntree.[361]\n\nWe have followed the Sabbath to the call of the Gentiles, and the opening\nevents of the gospel dispensation. We find the law of God, of which the\nSabbath is a part, to be that which made our Lord\u2019s death as an atoning\nsacrifice necessary; and that the great original of that law is in the\nark above, before which our Lord ministers as high priest; while a copy\nof that law is by the new covenant written within the heart of each\nbeliever. It is seen, therefore, that the law of God is more intimately\nconnected with the people of God since the death of the Redeemer than\nbefore that event.\n\nThat the apostolic church did sacredly regard the Sabbath, as well as\nall the other precepts of the moral law, admits of no doubt. The fact\nis proved, not merely because the early Christians were not accused of\nits violation by their most inveterate enemies; nor wholly by the fact\nthat they held sin to be the transgression of the law, and that the\nlaw was the great standard by which sin is shown, and that by which sin\nbecomes exceeding sinful.[362] These points are certainly very decisive\nevidence that the apostolic church did keep the fourth commandment. The\ntestimony of James relative to the ten commandments, that he who violates\none of them becomes guilty of all, is yet another strong evidence that\nthe primitive church did sacredly regard the whole law of God.[363] But\nbesides these facts we have a peculiar guaranty that the Sabbath of the\nLord was not forgotten by the apostolic church. The prayer which our Lord\ntaught his disciples, that their flight from Judea should not be upon the\nSabbath was, as we have seen, designed to impress its sacredness deeply\nupon their minds, and could not but have secured that result.[364] In the\nhistory of the primitive church we have several important references to\nthe Sabbath. The first of these is as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in\n Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and\n sat down.\u201d[365]\n\nBy invitation of the rulers of the synagogue, Paul delivered an extended\naddress, proving that Jesus was the Christ. In the course of these\nremarks he used the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because\n they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are\n read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning\n him.\u201d[366]\n\nWhen Paul\u2019s discourse was concluded, we read:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles\n besought that these words might be preached to them the next\n Sabbath.[367] Now when the congregation was broken up, many of\n the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas:\n who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace\n of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city\n together to hear the word of God.\u201d[368]\n\nThese texts show, 1. That by the term Sabbath in the book of Acts is\nmeant that day on which the Jewish people assembled in the synagogue\nto listen to the voices of the prophets. 2. That as this discourse was\nfourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and the record of it\nby Luke was some thirty years after that event, it follows that the\nalleged change of the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ had not,\neven after many years, come to the knowledge of either Luke or Paul.\n3. That here was a remarkable opportunity to mention the change of the\nSabbath, had it been true that the Sabbath had been changed in honor of\nChrist\u2019s resurrection. For when Paul was asked to preach the same words\nthe next Sabbath, he might have answered that the following day was now\nthe proper day for divine worship. And Luke, in placing this incident\nupon record, could not well avoid the mention of this new day, had it\nbeen true that another day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. 4. That\nas this second meeting pertained almost wholly to Gentiles, it cannot be\nsaid in this case that Paul preached upon the Sabbath out of regard to\nthe Jews. On the contrary, the narrative strongly indicates Paul\u2019s regard\nfor the Sabbath as the proper day for divine worship. 5. Nor can it be\ndenied that the Sabbath was well understood by the Gentiles in this city,\nand that they had some degree of regard for it, a fact which will be\ncorroborated by other texts.\n\nSeveral years after these things, the apostles assembled at Jerusalem\nto consider the question of circumcision.[369] \u201cCertain men which came\ndown from Judea,\u201d finding the Gentiles uncircumcised, had \u201ctaught the\nbrethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses\nye cannot be saved.\u201d Had they found the Gentiles neglecting the Sabbath;\nunquestionably this would have first called out their rebuke. It is\nindeed worthy of notice that no dispute at this time existed in the\nchurch relative to the observance of the Sabbath; for none was brought\nbefore this apostolic assembly. Yet had it been true that the change of\nthe Sabbath was then advocated, or that Paul had taught the Gentiles to\nneglect the Sabbath, without doubt those who brought up the question\nof circumcision would have urged that of the Sabbath with even greater\nearnestness. That the law of Moses, the observance of which was under\ndiscussion in this assembly, is not the ten commandments, is evident\nfrom several decisive facts. 1. Because that Peter calls the code under\nconsideration a _yoke_ which neither their fathers nor themselves were\nable to bear. But James expressly calls that royal law, which, on his\nown showing, embodies the ten commandments, a law of liberty. 2. Because\nthat this assembly did decide against the authority of the law of Moses;\nand yet James, who was a member of this body, did some years afterward\nsolemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments, affirming that he who\nviolated one was guilty of all.[370] 3. Because the chief feature in the\nlaw of Moses as here presented was circumcision.[371] But circumcision\nwas not in the ten commandments; and were it true that the law of Moses\nincludes these commandments, circumcision would not in that case be a\nchief feature of that law. 4. Finally, because that the precepts still\ndeclared obligatory are not properly either of the ten commandments.\nThese were, first, the prohibition of meats offered to idols; second,\nof blood; third, of things strangled; and fourth, of fornication.[372]\nEach of these precepts may be often found in the books of Moses,[373] and\nthe first and last ones come under the second and seventh commandments\nrespectively; but neither of these cover but a part of that which is\nforbidden in either commandment. It is evident, therefore, that the\nauthority of the ten commandments was not under consideration in this\nassembly, and that the decision of that assembly had no relation to\nthose precepts. For otherwise the apostles released the Gentiles from\nall obligation to eight of the ten commandments, and from the greater\nprohibitions contained in the other two.\n\nIt is evident that those greatly err who represent the Gentiles as\nreleased from the obligation of the Sabbath by this assembly. The\nquestion did not come before the apostles on this occasion; a strong\nproof that the Gentiles had not been taught to neglect the Sabbath,\nas they had to omit circumcision, which was the occasion of its being\nbrought before the apostles at Jerusalem. Yet the Sabbath was referred\nto in this very assembly as an existing institution, and that, too,\nin connection with the Gentile Christians. Thus when James pronounced\nsentence upon the question, he used the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cWherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which\n from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write\n unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and\n from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.\n For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,\n being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.\u201d[374]\n\nThis last fact is given by James as a reason for the course proposed\ntoward the brethren among the Gentiles. \u201cFor Moses of old time hath in\nevery city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every\nSabbath day.\u201d From this it is apparent that the ancient custom of divine\nworship upon the Sabbath was not only preserved by the Jewish people and\ncarried with them into every city of the Gentiles, but that the Gentile\nChristians did attend these meetings. Otherwise the reason assigned by\nJames would lose all its force, as having no application to this case.\nThat they did attend them strongly attests the Sabbath as the day of\ndivine worship with the Gentile churches.\n\nThat the ancient Sabbath of the Lord had neither been abrogated nor\nchanged prior to this meeting of the apostles, is strongly attested by\nthe nature of the dispute here adjusted. And the close of their assembly\nbeheld the Bible Sabbath still sacredly enthroned within the citadel of\nthe fourth commandment. After this, in a vision of the night, Paul was\ncalled to visit Macedonia. In obedience to this call he came to Philippi,\nwhich is the chief city of that part of Macedonia. Thus Luke records the\nvisit:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the\n Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer\n was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women\n which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a\n seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God,\n heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto\n the things which were spoken of Paul.\u201d[375]\n\nThis does not appear to have been a gathering of Jews, but of Gentiles,\nwho, like Cornelius, were worshipers of the true God. Thus it is seen\nthat the church of the Philippians originated with a pious assembly of\nSabbath-keeping Gentiles. And it is likely that Lydia and those employed\nby her in business, who were evidently observers of the Sabbath, were the\nmeans of introducing the gospel into their own city of Thyatira.\n\n \u201cNow when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,\n they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews.\n And Paul, as his manner was,[376] went in unto them, and three\n Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.... And\n some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and\n of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women\n not a few.\u201d[377]\n\nSuch was the origin of the Thessalonian church. That it was an assembly\nof Sabbath-keepers at its beginning admits of no doubt. For besides the\nfew Jews who received the gospel through the labors of Paul, there was\na great multitude of devout Greeks; that is, of Gentiles who had united\nthemselves with the Jews in the worship of God upon the Sabbath. We have\na strong proof of the fact that they continued to observe the Sabbath\nafter their reception of the gospel in the following words of Paul\naddressed to them as a church of Christ:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God\n which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.\u201d[378]\n\nThe churches in Judea, as we have seen, were observers of the Sabbath\nof the Lord. The first Thessalonian converts, before they received the\ngospel, were Sabbath-keepers, and when they became a Christian church\nthey adopted the churches in Judea as their proper examples. And this\nchurch was adopted as an example by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia.\nIn this number were included the churches of Philippi and of Corinth.\nThus writes Paul:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having\n received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy\n Ghost; so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in\n Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the\n Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every\n place your faith to Godward is spread abroad.\u201d[379]\n\nAfter these things, Paul came to Corinth. Here, he first found Aquila and\nPriscilla.\n\n \u201cAnd because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and\n wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers. And he\n reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews\n and the Greeks.\u201d[380]\n\nAt this place also Paul found Gentiles as well as Jews in attendance\nupon the worship of God on the Sabbath. The first members of the church\nat Corinth were therefore observers of the Sabbath at the time when they\nreceived the gospel; and, as we have seen, they adopted as their pattern\nthe Sabbath-keeping church of Thessalonica, who in turn patterned after\nthe churches in Judea.\n\nThe first churches were founded in the land of Judea. All their members\nhad from childhood been familiar with the law of God, and well understood\nthe precept, \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\u201d Besides this\nprecept, all these churches had a peculiar memento of the Sabbath. They\nknew from our Lord himself that the time was coming when they must all\nsuddenly flee from that land. And in view of this fact, they were to pray\nthat the moment of their sudden flight might not be upon the Sabbath; a\nprayer which was designed, as we have seen, to preserve the sacredness of\nthe Sabbath. That the churches in Judea were composed of Sabbath-keeping\nmembers, admits therefore of no doubt.\n\nOf the churches founded outside the land of Judea, whose origin is\ngiven in the book of Acts, nearly all began with Jewish converts.\nThese were Sabbath-keepers when they received the gospel. Among these,\nthe Gentile converts were engrafted. And it is worthy of notice that\nin a large number of cases, those Gentiles are termed \u201cdevout Greeks,\u201d\n\u201creligious proselytes,\u201d persons that \u201cworshiped God,\u201d that feared God and\nthat \u201cprayed to God alway.\u201d[381] These Gentiles, at the time of their\nconversion to the gospel, were, as we have seen, worshipers of God upon\nthe Sabbath with the Jewish people. When James had proposed the kind of\nletter that should be addressed by the apostles to the Gentile converts,\nhe assigned a reason for its adoption, the force of which can now be\nappreciated: \u201cFor Moses,\u201d said he, \u201cof old time hath in EVERY CITY them\nthat preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.\u201d The\nSabbatarian character of the apostolic churches is thus clearly shown.\n\nIn a letter addressed to the Corinthians, about five years after they had\nreceived the gospel, Paul is supposed to contribute a fifth pillar to the\nfirst-day temple. Thus he wrote them:\u2014\n\n \u201cNow concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given\n order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first\n day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as\n God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I\n come.\u201d[382]\n\nFrom this text it is argued in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, 1. That\nthis was a public collection. 2. That hence the first day of the week\nwas the day of public worship in the churches of Corinth and Galatia. 3.\nAnd therefore that the Sabbath had been changed to that day. Thus the\nchange of the Sabbath is inferred from the public assemblies for divine\nworship on the first day at Corinth and Galatia; and the existence of\nthese assemblies on that day is inferred from the words of Paul, \u201cUpon\nthe first day of the week, let every one of you lay _by him_ in store.\u201d\n\nWhat, then, do these words ordain? But one answer can be returned:\nThey ordain precisely the _reverse_ of a public collection. Each one\nshould lay by himself on each first day of the week according as God had\nprospered him, that when Paul should arrive, they might have their bounty\nready. Mr. J. W. Morton, late Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, bears the\nfollowing testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression,\n \u2018by him;\u2019 and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it\n means \u2018in the collection box of the congregation.\u2019 Greenfield,\n in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, \u2018_With one\u2019s self,\n i. e., at home_.\u2019 Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that\n of Castellio, render it, \u2018_apud se_,\u2019 with one\u2019s self; at\n home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald,\n and De Sacy, \u2018_chez soi_,\u2019 at his own house; at home. The\n German of Luther, \u2018_bei sich selbst_,\u2019 by himself; at home.\n The Dutch, \u2018_by hemselven_,\u2019 same as the German. The Italian\n of Diodati, \u2018_appresso di se_,\u2019 in his own presence; at home.\n The Spanish of Felippe Scio, \u2018_en su casa_,\u2019 in his own house.\n The Portuguese of Ferreira, \u2018_para isso_,\u2019 with himself. The\n Swedish, \u2018_n\u00e6r sig self_,\u2019 near himself.\u201d[383]\n\nDr. Bloomfield thus comments on the original: \u201c\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6, \u2018by him.\u2019\nFrench, _chez lui_, \u2018at home.\u2019\u201d[384]\n\nThe Douay Bible reads: \u201cLet every one of you put apart with himself.\u201d\nMr. Sawyer thus translates: \u201cLet each one of you lay aside by himself.\u201d\nTheodore Beza\u2019s Latin version has it: \u201c_Apud se_,\u201d _i.e._, at home. The\nSyriac reads thus: \u201cLet every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.\u201d\n\nIt is true that an eminent first-day writer, Justin Edwards, D. D., in a\nlabored effort to prove the change of the Sabbath, brings forward this\ntext to show that Sunday was the day of religious worship with the early\nchurch. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis laying by in store was NOT laying by AT HOME; for that\n would not prevent gatherings when he should come.\u201d[385]\n\nSuch is his language as a theologian upon whom has fallen the difficult\ntask of proving the change of the Sabbath by the authority of the\nScriptures. But in his Notes on the New Testament, in which he feels at\nliberty to speak the truth, he thus squarely contradicts his own language\nalready quoted. Thus he comments on this text:\u2014\n\n \u201cLay by him in store; AT HOME. That there be no gatherings;\n that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should\n come.\u201d[386]\n\nThus even Dr. Edwards confesses that the idea of a public collection\nis not found in this scripture. On the contrary, it appears that each\nindividual, in obedience to this precept, would, at the opening of each\nnew week, be found AT HOME laying aside something for the cause of\nGod, according as his worldly affairs would warrant. The change of the\nSabbath, as proved by this text, rests wholly upon an idea which Dr.\nEdwards confesses is not found in it. We have seen that the church at\nCorinth was a Sabbath-keeping church. It is evident that the change of\nthe Sabbath could never have been suggested to them by this text.\n\nThis is the only scripture in which Paul even mentions the first day of\nthe week. It was written nearly thirty years after the alleged change of\nthe Sabbath. Yet Paul omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating\nit as first day of the week; a name to which it was entitled as one of\n\u201cthe six working days.\u201d[387] It is also worthy of notice that this is the\nonly precept in the Bible in which the first day is even named; and that\nthis precept says nothing relative to the sacredness of the day to which\nit pertains; even the duty which it enjoins being more appropriate to a\nsecular than to a sacred day.\n\nSoon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited\nTroas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the\nfirst day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened\n bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days;[388] where\n we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when\n the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached\n unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his\n speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper\n chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in\n a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into\n a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down\n with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken\n up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing\n him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When\n he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and\n eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he\n departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not\n a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed\n unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he\n appointed, minding himself to go afoot.\u201d[389]\n\nThis scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day\ntemple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows\nthat the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church\nto meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ\u2019s resurrection\nupon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had\nbecome the Christian Sabbath.\n\nIf this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the\nchange of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it\nwould even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following\nfacts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the\nchange of the Sabbath. 1. That this is the only instance of a religious\nmeeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2.\nThat no stress can be laid upon the expression, \u201c_when_ the disciples\ncame together,\u201d as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking\nbread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in\nthe original answering to the word \u201c_when_;\u201d the whole phrase being\ntranslated from three words, the perfect passive participle \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u201cbeing assembled,\u201d and \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u201cthe disciples;\u201d the sacred writer\nsimply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion.[390] 3.\nThat the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate\nthe resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the\ncross.[391] The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the\nweek, is not a commemoration of Christ\u2019s resurrection. 4. That as the\nbreaking of bread commemorates our Lord\u2019s crucifixion, and was instituted\non the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion\nJesus himself and all the apostles were present,[392] it is evident that\nthe day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration\nof this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our\nLord designated no day for this ordinance, and as the apostolic church\nat Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily,[393] it is\nevidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single\ninstance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this\ninstance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference\nto the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable\nfact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first\nday recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved\nby the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that\nPaul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important\nconsequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night.[394]\nFor the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and\nevening being at sunset,[395] it is seen that the first day of the week\nbegins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night\nmeeting, therefore, upon the first day of the week could be only upon\nSaturday night. 9. Paul therefore preached until midnight of Saturday\nnight\u2014for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath,\nbecause he was to leave in the morning\u2014then being interrupted by the fall\nof the young man, he went down and healed him, then went up and attended\nto the breaking of bread; and at break of day, on Sunday morning, he\ndeparted. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul\nand his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning\nof the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being\npleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul\u2019s regard\nfor the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his\njourney; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in\nmodern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was\nwritten by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the\nSabbath. It is worthy of note that Luke omits all titles of sacredness,\nsimply designating the day in question as the first day of the week.\nThis is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when\nrecording the very event which is said to have changed the Sabbath,\nhe not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the\nday itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the\nsame time designates the previous day as the Sabbath according to the\ncommandment.[396]\n\nThe same year that Paul visited Troas, he wrote as follows to the church\nat Rome:\u2014\n\n \u201cHim that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful\n disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things:\n another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth\n despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not\n judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art\n thou that judgest another man\u2019s servant? to his own master\n he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God\n is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above\n another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be\n fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day,\n regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day,\n to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to\n the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to\n the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.\u201d[397]\n\nThese words have often been quoted to show that the observance of the\nfourth commandment is now a matter of indifference; each individual being\nat liberty to act his pleasure in the matter. So extraordinary a doctrine\nshould be thoroughly tested before being adopted. For as it pleased God\nto ordain the Sabbath before the fall of man, and to give it a place in\nhis code of ten commandments, thus making it a part of that law to which\nthe great atonement relates; and as the Lord Jesus, during his ministry,\nspent much time in explaining its merciful design, and took care to\nprovide against its desecration at the flight of his people from the land\nof Judea, which was ten years in the future when these words were written\nby Paul; and as the fourth commandment itself is expressly recognized\nafter the crucifixion of Christ; if, under these circumstances, we could\nsuppose it to be consistent with truth that the Most High should abrogate\nthe Sabbath, we certainly should expect that abrogation to be stated in\nexplicit language. Yet neither the Sabbath nor the fourth commandment are\nhere named. That they are not referred to in this language of Paul, the\nfollowing reasons will show:\u2014\n\n1. Such a view would make the observance of one of the ten commandments\na matter of indifference; whereas James shows that to violate one of\nthem is to transgress the whole.[398] 2. It directly contradicts what\nPaul had previously written in this epistle; for in treating of the law\nof ten commandments, he styles it holy, spiritual, just, and good; and\nstates that sin\u2014the transgression of the law\u2014by the commandment becomes\n\u201cEXCEEDING SINFUL.\u201d[399] 3. Because that Paul in the same epistle affirms\nthe perpetuity of that law which caused our Lord to lay down his life for\nsinful men;[400] which we have seen before was the ten commandments. 4.\nBecause that Paul in this case not only did not name the Sabbath and the\nfourth commandment, but certainly was not treating of the moral law. 5.\nBecause that the topic under consideration which leads him to speak as he\ndoes of the days in question was that of eating all kinds of food, or of\nrefraining from certain things. 6. Because that the fourth commandment\ndid not stand associated with precepts of such a kind, but with moral\nlaws exclusively.[401] 7. Because that in the ceremonial law, associated\nwith the precepts concerning meats, was a large number of festivals,\nentirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord.[402] 8. Because that\nthe church of Rome, which began probably with those Jews that were\npresent from Rome on the day of Pentecost, had many Jewish members in its\ncommunion, as may be gathered from the epistle itself;[403] and would\ntherefore be deeply interested in the decision of this question relative\nto the ceremonial law; the Jewish members feeling conscientious in\nobserving its distinctions, the Gentile members feeling no such scruples:\nhence the admirable counsel of Paul exactly meeting the case of both\nclasses. 9. Nor can the expression, \u201cevery day,\u201d be claimed as decisive\nproof that the Sabbath of the Lord is included. At the very time when\nthe Sabbath was formally committed to the Hebrews, just such expressions\nwere used, although only the six working days were intended. Thus it was\nsaid: \u201cThe people shall go out and gather a certain rate _every_ day;\u201d\nand the narrative says, \u201cThey gathered it _every_ morning.\u201d Yet when some\nof them went out to gather on the Sabbath, God says, \u201cHow long refuse\nye to keep my commandments and my laws?\u201d[404] The Sabbath being a great\ntruth, plainly stated and many times repeated, it is manifest that Paul,\nin the expression, \u201cevery day,\u201d speaks of the six working days, among\nwhich a distinction had existed precisely coeval with that respecting\nmeats; and that he manifestly excepts that day which from the beginning\nGod had reserved unto himself. Just as when Paul quotes and applies to\nJesus the words of David, \u201cAll things are put under him,\u201d he adds: \u201cIt\nis manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.\u201d[405]\n10. And lastly, in the words of John, \u201cI was in the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s\nday,\u201d[406] written many years after this epistle of Paul, we have an\nabsolute proof that in the gospel dispensation one day is still claimed\nby the Most High as his own.[407]\n\nAbout ten years after this epistle was written, occurred the memorable\nflight of all the people of God that were in the land of Judea. It was\nnot in the winter; for it occurred just after the feast of tabernacles,\nsome time in October. And it was not upon the Sabbath; for Josephus,\nwho speaks of the sudden withdrawal of the Roman army after it had,\nby encompassing the city, given the very signal for flight which our\nLord promised his people, tells us that the Jews rushed out of the city\nin pursuit of the retreating Romans, which was at the very time when\nour Lord\u2019s injunction of instant flight became imperative upon the\ndisciples. The historian does not intimate that the Jews thus pursued\nthe Romans upon the Sabbath, although he carefully notes the fact that a\nfew days previous to this event they did, in their rage, utterly forget\nthe Sabbath and rush out to fight the Romans upon that day. These\nprovidential circumstances in the flight of the disciples being made\ndependent upon their asking such interposition at the hand of God, it is\nevident that the disciples did not forget the prayer which the Saviour\ntaught them relative to this event; and that, as a consequence, the\nSabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by them. And thus the Lord Jesus in\nhis tender care for his people and in his watchful care in behalf of the\nSabbath, showed that he was alike the Lord of his people and the Lord of\nthe Sabbath.[408]\n\nTwenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, the book of\nRevelation was committed to the beloved disciple. It bears the following\ndeeply interesting date as to place and time:\u2014\n\n \u201cI John, who also am your brother, and companion in\n tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,\n was in THE ISLE that is called PATMOS, for the word of God, and\n for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on THE\n LORD\u2019S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,\n saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and, What\n thou seest, write in a book.\u201d[409]\n\nThis book is dated in the isle of Patmos, and upon the Lord\u2019s day. The\nplace, the day, and the individual, have each a real existence, and not\nmerely a symbolical or mystical one. Thus John, almost at the close of\nthe first century, and long after those texts were written which are\nnow adduced to prove that no distinction in days exists, shows that the\nLord\u2019s day has as real an existence, as has the isle of Patmos, or as had\nthe beloved disciple himself.\n\nWhat day, then, is intended by this designation? Several answers have\nbeen returned to this question. 1. It is the gospel dispensation. 2. It\nis the day of Judgment. 3. It is the first day of the week. 4. It is the\nSabbath of the Lord. The first answer cannot be the true one; for it not\nonly renders the day a mystical term, but it involves the absurdity of\nrepresenting John as writing to Christians sixty-five years after the\ndeath of Christ, that the vision which he had just had, was seen by him\nin the gospel dispensation; as though it were possible for them to be\nignorant of the fact that if he had a vision at all he must have it in\nthe existing dispensation.\n\nNor can the second answer be admitted as the truth. For while it is\ntrue that John might have a vision CONCERNING the day of Judgment, it\nis impossible that he should have a vision ON that day when it was yet\nfuture. If it be no more than an absurdity to represent John as dating\nhis vision in the isle of Patmos, on the gospel dispensation, it becomes\na positive untruth, if he is made to say that he was in vision at Patmos\non the day of Judgment.\n\nThe third answer, that the Lord\u2019s day is the first day of the week, is\nnow almost universally received as the truth. The text under examination\nis brought forward with an air of triumph as completing the temple of\nfirst-day sacredness, and proving beyond all doubt that that day is\nindeed the Christian Sabbath. Yet as we have examined this temple with\npeculiar carefulness, we have discovered that the foundation on which it\nrests is a thing of the imagination only; and that the pillars by which\nit is supported exist only in the minds of those who worship at its\nshrine. It remains to be seen whether the dome which is supposed to be\nfurnished by this text is more real than the pillars on which it rests.\n\nThat the first day of the week has no claim to the title of Lord\u2019s day,\nthe following facts will show: 1. That, as this text does not define the\nterm Lord\u2019s day, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for the evidence\nthat shows the first day to be entitled to such a designation. 2. That\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, the other sacred writers who mention the\nday, use no other designation for it than first day of the week, a name\nto which it was entitled as one of the six working days. Yet three of\nthese writers mention it at the very time when it is said to have become\nthe Lord\u2019s day; and two of them mention it also some thirty years after\nthat event. 3. That while it is claimed that the Spirit of inspiration,\nby simply leading John to use the term Lord\u2019s day, though he did in no\nwise connect the first day of the week therewith, did design to fix this\nas the proper title of the first day of the week, it is a remarkable\nfact that after John returned from the isle of Patmos he wrote his\ngospel;[410] and in that gospel he twice mentioned the first day of the\nweek; yet in each of these instances where it is certain that first-day\nis intended, no other designation is used than plain first day of the\nweek. This is a most convincing proof that John did not regard the first\nday of the week as entitled to this name, or any other, expressive of\nsacredness. 4. What still further decides the point against the first\nday of the week is the fact that neither the Father nor the Son have\never claimed the first day in any higher sense than they have each of\nthe six days given to man for labor. 5. And what completes the chain of\nevidence against the claim of first day to this title is the fact that\nthe testimony adduced by first-day advocates to prove that it has been\nadopted by the Most High in place of that day which he once claimed as\nhis, having been examined, is found to have no such meaning or intent.\nIn setting aside the third answer, also, as not being in accordance with\ntruth, the first day of the week may be properly dismissed with it, as\nhaving no claim to our regard as a scriptural institution.[411]\n\nThat the Lord\u2019s day is the Bible Sabbath, admits of clear and certain\nproof. The argument stands thus: When God gave to man six days of the\nweek for labor, he did expressly reserve unto himself the seventh, on\nwhich he placed his blessing in memory of his own act of resting upon\nthat day, and thenceforward, through the Bible, has ever claimed it\nas his holy day. As he has never put away this sacred day and chosen\nanother, the Sabbath of the Lord is still his holy day. These facts may\nbe traced in the following scriptures. At the close of the Creator\u2019s\nrest, it is said:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because\n that in it he had rested from all his work which God created\n and made.\u201d[412]\n\nAfter the children of Israel had reached the wilderness of Sin, Moses\nsaid to them on the sixth day:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\u201d[413]\n\nIn giving the ten commandments, the Law-giver thus stated his claim to\nthis day:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For\n in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all\n that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord\n blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d[414]\n\nHe gives to man the six days on which himself had labored; he reserves\nas his own that day upon which he had rested from all his work. About\neight hundred years after this, God spoke by Isaiah as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf thou turn away thy foot from THE SABBATH, from doing thy\n pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, ... then shalt thou delight thyself in\n the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of\n the earth.\u201d[415]\n\nThis testimony is perfectly explicit; the Lord\u2019s day is the ancient\nSabbath of the Bible. The Lord Jesus puts forth the following claim:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.\u201d[416]\n\nThus, whether it be the Father or the Son whose title is involved, the\nonly day that can be called \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d is the Sabbath of the\ngreat Creator.[417] And here, at the close of the Bible history of the\nSabbath, two facts of deep interest are presented: 1. That John expressly\nrecognizes the existence of the Lord\u2019s day at the very close of the first\ncentury. 2. That it pleased the Lord of the Sabbath to place a signal\nhonor upon his own day in that he selected it as the one on which to give\nthat revelation to John, which himself alone had been worthy to receive\nfrom the Father.\n\n\n\n\nPART II\u2014SECULAR HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nEARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH.\n\n General purity of the apostolic churches\u2014Early decline of their\n piety\u2014False teachers arose in the church immediately after\n the apostles\u2014The great Romish apostasy began before the death\n of Paul\u2014An evil thing not rendered good by beginning in the\n apostolic age\u2014How to decide between truth and error\u2014Age cannot\n change the fables of men into the truth of God\u2014Historical\n testimony concerning the early development of the great\n apostasy\u2014Such an age no standard by which to correct the\n Bible\u2014Testimony of Bower relative to the traditions of this\n age\u2014Testimony of Dowling\u2014Dr. Cumming\u2019s opinion of the authority\n of the fathers\u2014Testimony of Adam Clarke\u2014The church of Rome\n has corrupted the writings of the fathers\u2014Nature of tradition\n illustrated\u2014The two rules of faith which divide Christendom\u2014The\n first-day Sabbath can only be sustained by adopting the rule of\n the Romanists.\n\n\nThe book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period\nwhich is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers\nwere upon the stage of action, and under their watchcare the churches of\nChrist preserved, to a great extent, their purity of life and doctrine.\nThese apostolic churches are thus set forth as the proper examples for\nall coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four\nevangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus joins together the\nwhole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this\ninspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed\nby inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is,\nunfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing\n religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native\n purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He\n must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption,\n which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a\n weak and degenerate race of beings.\u201d[418]\n\nWhat says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the\nlabors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul\nsaid:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves\n enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own\n selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away\n disciples after them.\u201d[419]\n\nIt follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive\nthe teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the\napostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous\nwolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own\nselves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how\nthese are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, this is the\nproper answer: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings\nof the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that\nclass who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them.\n\nWhat say the apostolic epistles relative to this apostasy? To the\nThessalonians, it is written:\u2014\n\n \u201cLet no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall\n not come, except there come a falling away first, and that\n man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth\n and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that\n is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of\n God, showing himself that he is God.... For the mystery of\n iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let,\n until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked\n be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit\n of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his\n coming.\u201d[420]\n\nTo Timothy, in like manner, it is said:\u2014\n\n \u201cPreach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,\n rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the\n time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but\n after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,\n having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from\n the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.\u201d[421]\n\nThese texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the\nchurch, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced.\nThe Romish church, the eldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its\napostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians,\nalready quoted, that great Antichristian body may indeed find its claim\nto an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character\nmost emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration\nof the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental\ncircumstance of its originating in the days of the apostles. Every\nthing, at its commencement, is either right or wrong. If right, it may be\nknown by its agreement with the divine standard. If wrong at its origin,\nit can never cease to be such. Satan\u2019s great falsehood which involved our\nrace in ruin has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years\nhave elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this, ye who worship at the\nshrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of\nthe truth of God, he was thereby dishonored. How, then, can he accept\nobedience to them as any part of that pure devotion which he requires at\nour hands? They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth.\nHow many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed\ninto divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting\nthe great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of\necclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling, in his History\nof Romanism, bears the following testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the\n careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater\n surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of\n the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the\n Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed\n that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural\n notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they\n anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a\n vast and hideous system of superstition and error, as is that\n of popery.... Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages\n took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was\n deserving of strong reprehension.... The worship of images, the\n invocation of saints, and the superstition of relics, were but\n expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection\n cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died\n for the truth.\u201d[422]\n\nRobinson, author of the \u201cHistory of Baptism,\u201d bears the following\ntestimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cToward the latter end of the second century most of the\n churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared;\n and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves,\n their children along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles,\n came forward and new modeled the cause.\u201d[423]\n\nThe working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the\nChristian church is thus described by a recent writer:\u2014\n\n \u201cDuring these centuries the chief corruptions of popery were\n either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so\n effectually sown as naturally to produce those baneful fruits\n which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin\n Martyr\u2019s time, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the\n cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the elements sent\n to the absent. The bread, which at first was sent only to the\n sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home\n by the people and locked up as a divine treasure for their\n private use. At this time, too, the ordinance of the supper\n was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the\n sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the\n dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and\n became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it\n came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to\n deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints,\n the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and\n of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and\n pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their\n supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity, which was\n already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after\n their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of\n Christianity.\u201d[424]\n\nNeander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from\n domestic life into the churches, as early as the end of the\n third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in\n the same way.\u201d[425]\n\nThe early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon\nthe authority of inspiration, not less than upon that of ecclesiastical\nhistory. \u201cThe mystery of iniquity,\u201d said Paul, \u201cdoth already work.\u201d We\nare constrained to marvel that so large a portion of the people of God\nwere _so soon_ removed from the grace of God unto another gospel.\n\nWhat shall be said of those who go to this period of church history, and\neven to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would\nrise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who would\nspeak perverse things, and that men would turn away their ears from the\ntruth, and would be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period\nof sufficient importance to make void God\u2019s word? The learned historian\nof the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as\n we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit,\n unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of\n undoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of\n an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious\n credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.\u201d[426]\n\nMr. Dowling bears a similar testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2018The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of\n Protestants!\u2019 Nor is it of any account in the estimation of\n the genuine Protestant _how early_ a doctrine originated, if\n it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament\n itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and\n that their pens were frequently employed in combating those\n errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance,\n he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught\n by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?... More than this,\n we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine,\n or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius,\n or Iren\u00e6us, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural\n doctrines and dogmas of Popery, which, however, is by no means\n admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is\n the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ\n and his apostles?... He who receives a single doctrine upon the\n mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he\n will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes\n over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and\n can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the\n earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same\n authority.\u201d[427]\n\nDr. Cumming of London thus speaks of the authority of the fathers of the\nearly church:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome of these were distinguished for their genius, some for\n their eloquence, a few for their piety, and too many for\n their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr.\n Delahogue (who was Professor in the Roman Catholic College of\n Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the fathers who\n were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in\n which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for\n martyrdom to commit anything to writing; and, therefore, by\n the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the\n full and fair exponent of the views of all the fathers of the\n earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of\n literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges....\n The most devoted and pious of the fathers were busy teaching\n their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time\n in preparing treatises. If all the fathers who signalized\n the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might\n have had a fair representation of the theology of the church\n of the fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of\n their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the\n most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as\n unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by\n the writings of the few fathers who are its only surviving\n representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the\n nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches\n of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward\n Irving.\u201d[428]\n\nDr. Adam Clarke bears the following decisive testimony on the same\nsubject:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut of these we may safely state that there is not a _truth_\n in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their\n authority; nor a _heresy_ that has disgraced the Romish church,\n that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of\n _doctrine_, their authority is, _with me_, nothing. The WORD of\n God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to\n the Greek and Latin fathers of the church to know what _they\n believed_; and what the people of their respective communions\n believed: but after all this, I must return to God\u2019s word to\n know what he would have _me_ to believe.\u201d[429]\n\nIn his life, he uses the following strong language:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the\n doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows\n that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.\u201d[430]\n\nThe following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of\nthe fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe church of Rome having been conscious of their errors and\n corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times,\n pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite\n profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath\n hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their\n greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have\n corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and reprinting them,\n make them speak as they would have them.... 2. They have\n written many books in the names of these ancient writers,\n and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false\n witness to them.\u201d[431]\n\nAnd Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time,\n place, and power, to establish the kingdom of darkness; and\n that in coining, clipping, and washing, the primitive records\n to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to\n themselves, is notoriously evident.\u201d[432]\n\nThe traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as\nreliable as the language of the Holy Scriptures. A single instance taken\nfrom the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the\namount of reliance that can be placed upon it:\u2014\n\n \u201cThen Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus\n loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper,\n and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?); Peter seeing\n him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus\n saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is\n that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad\n among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet\n Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that\n he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?\u201d[433]\n\nHere is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very\nbosom of the apostolic church, which nevertheless handed down to the\nfollowing generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word\nof God corrects this error.\n\nTwo rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these\nis the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions\nof the church. Here they are:\u2014\n\n I. THE RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD, THE BIBLE ALONE.\n\n \u201cAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is\n profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for\n instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be\n perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.\u201d[434]\n\n II. THE RULE OF THE ROMANIST, THE BIBLE AND TRADITION.\n\n \u201cIf we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and\n practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which\n Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament\n alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along\n with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation\n of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book\n and the true meaning of it.\u201d[435]\n\nIt is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the\nfirst of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such\nan institution. The second of these rules is necessarily adopted by all\nthose who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. For the\nwritings of the fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the\ntestimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first\nrule is to condemn the first-day Sabbath as a human institution. To adopt\nthe second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right; for\nit is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural\ndogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, states this\npoint with great clearness:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all\n observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed\n complete and unanswerable.... It should present a subject\n of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and\n evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or\n suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance, that\n will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in\n sustaining the various other \u2018holy days\u2019 appointed by \u2018the\n church.\u2019\u201d[436]\n\nListen to the argument of a Roman Catholic:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath\n of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any\n precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week,\n only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans\n oppose against this point, that the observation of the first\n day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said \u2018the first day\n of the week.\u2019[437] Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting\n these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory\n and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the\n like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn;\n for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which\n those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should\n be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it\n decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate\n or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God\n commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is\n expressed in the written word of God.\u201d[438]\n\nWhoever therefore enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath,\nmust of necessity do this\u2014though perhaps not aware of the fact\u2014under the\nbanner of the church of Rome.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE SUNDAY-LORD\u2019S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES.\n\n General statement respecting the Ante-Nicene fathers\u2014The\n change of the Sabbath never mentioned by one of these\n fathers\u2014Examination of the historical argument for Sunday as\n the Lord\u2019s day\u2014This argument compared with the like argument\n for the Catholic festival of the Passover.\n\n\nThe Ante-Nicene fathers[439] are those Christian writers who flourished\nafter the time of the apostles, and before the Council of Nice, A. D.\n325. Those who govern their lives by the volume of Inspiration do not\nrecognize any authority in these fathers to change any precept of that\nbook, nor any authority in them to add any new precepts to it. But\nthose whose rule of life is the Bible as modified by tradition, regard\nthe early fathers of the church as nearly or quite equal in authority\nwith the inspired writers. They declare that the fathers conversed with\nthe apostles; or if they did not do this, they conversed with some who\nhad seen some of the apostles; or at least they lived within a few\ngenerations of the apostles, and so learned by tradition, which involved\nonly a few transitions from father to son, what was the true doctrine of\nthe apostles.\n\nThus with perfect assurance they supply the lack of inspired testimony\nin behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath by plentiful quotations\nfrom the early fathers. What if there be no mention of the change of the\nSabbath in the New Testament? And what if there be no commandment for\nresting from labor on the first day of the week? Or, what if there be no\nmethod revealed in the Bible by which the first day of the week can be\nenforced by the fourth commandment? They supply these serious omissions\nin the Scriptures by testimonies which they say were written by men who\nlived during the first three hundred years after the apostles.\n\nOn such authority as this the multitude dare to change the Sabbath of the\nfourth commandment. But next to the deception under which men fall when\nthey are made to believe that the Bible may be corrected by the fathers,\nis the deception practiced upon them as to what the fathers actually\nteach. It is asserted that the fathers bear explicit testimony to the\nchange of the Sabbath by Christ as a historical fact, and that they knew\nthat this was so because they had conversed with the apostles, or with\nsome who had conversed with them. It is also asserted that the fathers\ncalled the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, and that they\nrefrained from labor on that day as an act of obedience to the fourth\ncommandment.\n\nNow it is a most remarkable fact that every one of these assertions\nis false. The people who trust in the fathers as their authority for\ndeparting from God\u2019s commandment are miserably deceived as to what the\nfathers teach.\n\n1. The fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them\nChrist changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to the\nidea of such a change.\n\n2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor\nindeed ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind.\n\n3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful;\nnor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to\nthe fourth commandment.\n\n4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore\nabsolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church.[440]\n\nBut though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be\nproduced from the writings of the fathers of the first three hundred\nyears, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that\nthe first day of the week is the Lord\u2019s day of Rev. 1:10. The biblical\nargument that the Lord\u2019s day is the seventh day and no other, because\nthat day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the\nSon as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven,\nand is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the\nclaim of the first day to this honorable distinction is substantiated out\nof the fathers as follows:\u2014\n\nThe term Lord\u2019s day as a name for the first day of the week can be traced\nback through the first three centuries, from the fathers who lived\ntoward their close, to the ones next preceding who mention the first day,\nand so backward by successive steps till we come to one who lived in\nJohn\u2019s time, and was his disciple; and this disciple of John calls the\nfirst day of the week the Lord\u2019s day. It follows therefore that John must\nhave intended the first day of the week by the term Lord\u2019s day, but did\nnot define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in\nhis time. Thus by history we prove the first day of the week to be the\nLord\u2019s day of Rev. 1:10; and then by Rev. 1:10, we prove the first day\nof the week to be the sacred day of this dispensation; for the spirit of\ninspiration by which John wrote would not have called the first day by\nthis name if it were only a human institution, and if the seventh day was\nstill by divine appointment the Lord\u2019s holy day.\n\nThis is a concise statement of the strongest argument for first-day\nsacredness which can be drawn from ecclesiastical history. It is the\nargument by which first-day writers prove Sunday to be the day called by\nJohn the Lord\u2019s day. This argument rests upon the statement that Lord\u2019s\nday as a name for Sunday can be traced back to the disciples of John, and\nthat it is the name by which that day was familiarly known in John\u2019s time.\n\nBut this entire statement is false. The truth is, no writer of the first\ncentury, and no one of the second, prior to A. D. 194, who is known to\nspeak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord\u2019s day! Yet the\nfirst day is seven times mentioned by the sacred writers _before_ John\u2019s\nvision upon Patmos on the Lord\u2019s day, and is twice mentioned by John\nin his gospel which he wrote _after_ his return from that island, and\nis mentioned some sixteen times by ecclesiastical writers of the second\ncentury prior to A. D. 194, and never in a single instance is it called\nthe Lord\u2019s day! We give all the instances of its mention in the Bible.\nMoses, in the beginning, by divine inspiration, gave to the day its name,\nand though the resurrection of Christ is said to have made it the Lord\u2019s\nday, yet every sacred writer who mentions the day after that event still\nadheres to the plain name of first day of the week. Here are all the\ninstances in which the inspired writers mention the day:\u2014\n\nMoses, B. C. 1490. \u201cThe evening and the morning were the first day.\u201d Gen.\n1:5.\n\nMatthew, A. D. 41. \u201cIn the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward\nthe first day of the week.\u201d Matt. 28:1.\n\nPaul, A. D. 57. \u201cUpon the first day of the week.\u201d 1 Cor. 16:2.\n\nLuke, A. D. 60. \u201cNow upon the first day of the week.\u201d Luke 24:1.\n\nLuke, A. D. 63. \u201cAnd upon the first day of the week.\u201d Acts 20:7.\n\nMark, A. D. 64. \u201cAnd very early in the morning, the first day of the\nweek.\u201d Mark 16:2. \u201cNow when Jesus was risen early the first day of the\nweek.\u201d Verse 9.\n\nAfter the resurrection of Christ, and before John\u2019s vision, A. D. 96, the\nday is six times mentioned by inspired men, and every time as plain first\nday of the week. It certainly was not familiarly known as Lord\u2019s day\nbefore the time of John\u2019s vision. To speak the exact truth, it was not\ncalled by that name at all, nor by any other name equivalent to that,\nnor is there any record of its being set apart by divine authority as\nsuch.\n\nBut in the year 96, John says, \u201cI was in the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\nRev. 1:10. Now it is evident that this must be a day which the Lord had\nset apart for himself, and which he claimed as his. This was all true in\nthe case of the seventh day, but was not in any respect true in that of\nthe first day. He could not therefore call the first day by this name,\nfor it was not such. But if the Spirit of God designed at this point to\ncreate a new institution and to call a certain day the Lord\u2019s day which\nbefore had never been claimed by him as such, it was necessary that he\nshould specify that new day. He did not define the term, which proves\nthat he was not giving a sacred name to some new institution, but was\nspeaking of a well-known, divinely appointed day. But _after_ John\u2019s\nreturn from Patmos, he wrote his gospel,[441] and in that gospel he twice\nhad occasion to mention the first day of the week. Let us see whether he\nadheres to the manner of the other sacred writers, or whether, when we\nknow he means the first day, he gives to it a sacred name.\n\nJohn, A. D. 97. \u201cThe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early.\u201d\nJohn 20:1. \u201cThen the same day at evening, being the first day of the\nweek.\u201d Verse 19.\n\nThese texts complete the Bible record of the first day of the week. They\nfurnish conclusive evidence that John did not receive new light in vision\nat Patmos, bidding him call the first day of the week the Lord\u2019s day, and\nwhen taken with all the instances preceding, they constitute a complete\ndemonstration that the first day was not familiarly known as the Lord\u2019s\nday in John\u2019s time, nor indeed known at all by that name then. Let us now\nsee whether Lord\u2019s day as a title for the first day can be traced back to\nJohn by means of the writings of the fathers.\n\nThe following is a concise statement of the testimony by which the\nfathers are made to prove that John used the term Lord\u2019s day as a name\nfor the first day of the week. A chain of seven successive witnesses,\ncommencing with one who was the disciple of John, and extending forward\nthrough several generations, is made to connect and identify the Lord\u2019s\nday of John with the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day of a later age. Thus, Ignatius,\nthe disciple of John, is made to speak familiarly of the first day\nas the Lord\u2019s day. This is directly connecting the fathers and the\napostles. Then the epistle of Pliny, A. D. 104, in connection with the\nActs of the Martyrs, is adduced to prove that the martyrs in his time\nand forward were tested as to their observance of Sunday, the question\nbeing, \u201cHave you kept the Lord\u2019s day?\u201d Next, Justin Martyr, A. D. 140,\nis made to speak of Sunday as the Lord\u2019s day. After this, Theophilus of\nAntioch, A. D. 168, is brought forward to bear a powerful testimony to\nthe Sunday-Lord\u2019s day. Then Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170, is made to\nspeak to the same effect. Next Melito of Sardis, A. D. 177, is produced\nto confirm what the others have said. And finally, Iren\u00e6us, A. D. 178,\nwho had been the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John\nthe apostle, is brought forward to bear a decisive testimony in behalf of\nSunday as the Lord\u2019s day and the Christian Sabbath.\n\nThese are the first seven witnesses who are cited to prove Sunday the\nLord\u2019s day. They bring us nearly to the close of the second century. They\nconstitute the chain of testimony by which the Lord\u2019s day of the apostle\nJohn is identified with the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day of later times. First-day\nwriters present these witnesses as proving positively that Sunday is\nthe Lord\u2019s day of the Scriptures, and the Christian church accepts this\ntestimony in the absence of that of the inspired writers. But the folly\nof the people, and the wickedness of those who lead them, may be set\nforth in one sentence:\u2014\n\nThe first, second, third, fourth, and seventh, of these testimonies are\ninexcusable frauds, while the fifth and sixth have no decisive bearing\nupon the case.\n\n1. Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known\nSunday to be the Lord\u2019s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed\nwith the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term\nLord\u2019s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention\nof the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination\nof the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history.\n\n2. It is a pure fabrication that the martyrs in Pliny\u2019s time, about A. D.\n104, and thence onward, were tested by the question whether they had kept\nthe Sunday-Lord\u2019s day. No question at all resembling this is to be found\nin the words of the martyrs till we come to the fourth century, and then\nthe reference is not at all to the first day of the week. This is fully\nshown in chapter fifteen.\n\n3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings\nforward the third of these Sunday-Lord\u2019s day witnesses in the person of\nJustin Martyr, A. D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord\u2019s day by\nquoting him as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cJustin Martyr observes that \u2018on the Lord\u2019s day all Christians\n in the city or country meet together, because that is the day\n of our Lord\u2019s resurrection.\u2019\u201d\n\nBut Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord\u2019s day, nor indeed any\nother sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd 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\n time permits,\u201d etc.[442]\n\nJustin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help\nestablish its title to the name of Lord\u2019s day, his words are deliberately\nchanged. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord\u2019s day, like the\nfirst and the second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even\nworse than the three which precede.\n\n4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day is furnished in Dr.\nJustin Edwards\u2019 Sabbath Manual, p. 114:\u2014\n\n \u201cTheophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: \u2018Both\n custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor _the\n Lord\u2019s day_, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus\n completed his resurrection from the dead.\u2019\u201d\n\nDr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these\nwords are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every\nparagraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state\nemphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He\nnever uses the term Lord\u2019s day, and he does not even speak of the first\nday of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the\nimpression that the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day is of apostolic institution, are\nput into his mouth by the falsehood of some one.\n\nHere are four frauds, constituting the first four instances of the\nalleged use of Lord\u2019s day as a name for Sunday. Yet it is by means of\nthese very frauds that the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day of later ages is identified\nwith the Lord\u2019s day of the Bible. Somebody invented these frauds. The use\nto which they are put plainly indicates the purpose for which they were\nframed. The title of Lord\u2019s day must be proved to pertain to Sunday by\napostolic authority. For this purpose these frauds were a necessity. The\ncase of the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day may be fitly illustrated by that of the\nlong line of popes. Their apostolic authority as head of the Catholic\nchurch depends on their being able to identify the apostle Peter as the\nfirst of their line, and to prove that his authority was transmitted to\nthem. There is no difficulty in tracing back their line to the early\nages, though the earliest Roman bishops were modest, unassuming men,\nwholly unlike the popes of after times. But when they come to make Peter\nthe head of their line, and to identify his authority and theirs, they\ncan do it only by fraudulent testimonials. And such is the case with\nfirst-day observance. It may be traced back as a festival to the time of\nJustin Martyr, A. D. 140, but the day had then no sacred name, and at\nthat time claimed no apostolic authority. But these must be secured at\nany cost, and so its title of Lord\u2019s day is by a series of fraudulent\ntestimonials traced to the apostle John, as in like manner the authority\nof the popes is traced to the apostle Peter.\n\n5. The fifth witness of this series is Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170.\nUnlike the four which have been already examined, Dionysius actually uses\nthe term Lord\u2019s day, though he says nothing identifying it with the first\nday of the week. His words are these:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo-day we have passed the Lord\u2019s holy day, in which we have\n read your epistle; in reading which we shall always have our\n minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that\n written to us before by Clement.\u201d[443]\n\nThe epistle of Dionysius to Soter, bishop of Rome, from which this\nsentence is taken, has perished. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth\ncentury, has preserved to us this sentence, but we have no knowledge of\nits connection. First-day writers quote Dionysius as the fifth of their\nwitnesses that Sunday is the Lord\u2019s day. They say that Sunday was so\nfamiliarly known as Lord\u2019s day in the time of Dionysius, that he calls it\nby that name without even stopping to tell what day he meant.\n\nBut it is not honest to present Dionysius as a witness to the\nSunday-Lord\u2019s day, for he makes no application of the term. But it is\nsaid he certainly meant Sunday because that was the familiar name of the\nday in his time, even as is indicated by the fact that he did not define\nthe term. And how is it known that Lord\u2019s day was the familiar name of\nSunday in the time of Dionysius? The four witnesses already examined\nfurnish all the evidence in proof of this, for there is no writer this\nside of Dionysius who calls Sunday the Lord\u2019s day until almost the entire\nperiod of a generation has elapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth\nwitness of the series by virtue of the fact that the first four witnesses\nprove that in his time, Lord\u2019s day was the common name for first day of\nthe week. But the first four testify to nothing of the kind until the\nwords are by fraud put into their mouths! Dionysius is a witness for the\nSunday-Lord\u2019s day because that four fraudulent testimonials from the\ngenerations preceding him fix this as the meaning of his words! And the\nname Lord\u2019s day must have been a very common one for first day of the\nweek because Dionysius does not define the term! And yet those who say\nthis know that this _one_ sentence of his epistle remains, while the\nconnection, which doubtless fixed his meaning, has perished.\n\nBut Dionysius does not merely use the term Lord\u2019s day. He uses a stronger\nterm than this\u2014\u201cthe Lord\u2019s _holy_ day.\u201d Even for a long period after\nDionysius, no writer gives to Sunday so sacred a title as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s\nholy day.\u201d Yet this is the very title given to the Sabbath in the Holy\nScriptures, and it is a well-ascertained fact that at this very time it\nwas extensively observed, especially in Greece, the country of Dionysius,\nand that, too, as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.[444]\n\n6. The sixth witness in this remarkable series is Melito of Sardis, A.\nD. 177. The first four, who never use the term Lord\u2019s day, are by direct\nfraud made to call Sunday by that name; the fifth, who speaks of the\nLord\u2019s holy day, is claimed on the strength of these frauds to have meant\nby it Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of\nany day! Melito wrote several books now lost, the titles of which have\nbeen preserved to us by Eusebius.[445] One of these, as given in the\nEnglish version of Eusebius, is \u201cOn the Lord\u2019s Day.\u201d Of course, first-day\nwriters claim that this was a treatise concerning Sunday, though down to\nthis point no writer calls Sunday by this name. But it is an important\nfact that the word _day_ formed no part of the title of Melito\u2019s book. It\nwas a discourse on something pertaining to the Lord\u2014\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\u2014but the essential word \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, _day_, is wanting. It may have been\na treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words\nin connection: \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd, _Lord\u2019s life_. Like the sentence from\nDionysius, it would not even seem to help the claim of Sunday to the\ntitle of Lord\u2019s day were it not for the series of frauds in which it\nstands.\n\n7. The seventh witness summoned to prove that Lord\u2019s day was the\napostolic title of Sunday, is Iren\u00e6us. Dr. Justin Edwards professes to\nquote him as follows:\u2014[446]\n\n \u201cHence Iren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who\n had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167 [it should be\n A. D. 178], says that the Lord\u2019s day was the Christian Sabbath.\n His words are, \u2018On the Lord\u2019s day every one of us Christians\n keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the\n works of God.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis witness is brought forward in a manner to give the utmost weight and\nauthority to his words. He was the disciple of that eminent Christian\nmartyr, Polycarp, and Polycarp was the companion of the apostles. What\nIren\u00e6us says is therefore in the estimation of many as worthy of our\nconfidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles.\nDoes not Iren\u00e6us call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s day?\nDid he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp get\nthem from the fountain head? What need have we of further witness that\nLord\u2019s day is the apostolic name for Sunday? What if the six earlier\nwitnesses have failed us? Here is one that says all that can be asked,\nand he had his doctrine from a man who had his from the apostles!\n\nWhy then does not this establish the authority of Sunday as the Lord\u2019s\nday? The first reason is that neither Iren\u00e6us nor any other man can add\nto or change one precept of the word of God, on any pretense whatever.\nWe are never authorized to depart from the words of the inspired writers\non the testimony of men who conversed with the apostles, or rather who\nconversed with some who had conversed with them. But the second reason is\nthat every word of this pretended testimony of Iren\u00e6us is a fraud! Nor\nis there a single instance in which the term Lord\u2019s day is to be found\nin any of his works, nor in any fragment of his works preserved in other\nauthors![447] And this completes the seven witnesses by whom the Lord\u2019s\nday of the Catholic church is traced back to and identified with the\nLord\u2019s day of the Bible! It is not till A. D. 194, sixteen years after\nthe latest of these witnesses, that we meet the first instance in which\nSunday is called the Lord\u2019s day. In other words, Sunday is not called the\nLord\u2019s day till ninety-eight years after John was upon Patmos, and one\nhundred and sixty-three years after the resurrection of Christ!\n\nBut is not this owing to the fact that the records of that period have\nperished? By no means; for the day is six times mentioned by the inspired\nwriters between the resurrection of Christ, A. D. 31, and John\u2019s vision\nupon Patmos, A. D. 96; namely, by Matthew, A. D. 41; by Paul, A. D. 57;\nby Luke, A. D. 60, and A. D. 63; and by Mark, A. D. 64; and always as\nfirst day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A. D. 97,\ntwice mentions the day, still calling it first day of the week.\n\nAfter John\u2019s time, the day is next mentioned in the so-called epistle of\nBarnabas, written probably as early as A. D. 140, and is there called\n\u201cthe eighth day.\u201d Next it is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apology,\nA. D. 140, once as \u201cthe day on which we all hold our common assembly;\u201d\nonce as \u201cthe first day on which God ... made the world;\u201d once as \u201cthe\nsame day [on which Christ] rose from the dead;\u201d once as \u201cthe day after\nthat of Saturn;\u201d and three times as \u201cSunday,\u201d or \u201cthe day of the sun.\u201d\nNext the day is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho,\nA. D. 155, in which he twice calls it the \u201ceighth day;\u201d once \u201cthe first\nof all the days;\u201d once as \u201cthe first\u201d \u201cof all the days of the [weekly]\ncycle;\u201d and twice as \u201cthe first day after the Sabbath.\u201d Next it is once\nmentioned by Iren\u00e6us, A. D. 178, who calls it simply \u201cthe first day of\nthe week.\u201d And next it is mentioned once by Bardesanes, who calls it\nsimply \u201cthe first of the week.\u201d The variety of names by which the day is\nmentioned during this time is remarkable; but it is _never_ called Lord\u2019s\nday, nor ever called by _any sacred_ name.\n\nThough Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second\ncentury, it is not till we come almost to the close of that century that\nwe find the first instance in which it is called Lord\u2019s day. Clement,\nof Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses this title with reference to \u201cthe eighth\nday.\u201d If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not\ncertain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation\ngives to the term an entirely different sense. Here are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord\u2019s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth\n book of the _Republic_, in these words: \u2018And when seven days\n have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they\n are to set out and arrive in four days.\u2019 By the meadow is to be\n understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot,\n and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days, each\n motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which\n speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs, the\n journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day.\n And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out\n the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is\n recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the\n Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and\n plants revolve.\u201d[448]\n\nClement was originally a heathen philosopher, and these strange\nmysticisms which he here puts forth upon the words of Plato are only\nmodifications of his former heathen notions. Though Clement says\nthat Plato speaks of the Lord\u2019s day, it is certain that he does not\nunderstand him to speak of literal days nor of a literal meadow. On the\ncontrary, he interprets the meadow to represent \u201cthe fixed sphere, as\nbeing a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious;\u201d which must\nrefer to their future inheritance. The seven days are not so many literal\ndays, but they represent \u201ceach motion of the seven planets, and the whole\npractical art which speeds to the end of rest.\u201d This seems to represent\nthe present period of labor which is to end in the rest of the saints.\nFor he adds: \u201cBut after the wandering orbs [represented by Plato\u2019s seven\ndays] the journey leads to _Heaven_, that is, to _the eighth_ motion and\n_day_.\u201d The seven days, therefore, do here represent the period of the\nChristian\u2019s pilgrimage, and the eighth day of which Clement here speaks\nis not Sunday, but Heaven itself! Here is the first instance of Lord\u2019s\nday as a name for the eighth day, but this eighth day is a mystical one,\nand means Heaven!\n\nBut Clement uses the term Lord\u2019s day once more, and this time clearly, as\nrepresenting, not a literal day, but the whole period of our regenerate\nlife. For he speaks of it in treating of fasting, and he sets forth\nfasting as consisting in abstinence from sinful pleasures, not only in\ndeeds, to use his distinction, as forbidden by the law, but in thoughts,\nas forbidden by the gospel. Such fasting pertains to the entire life of\nthe Christian. And thus Clement sets forth what is involved in observing\nthis duty in the gospel sense:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel,\n keeps the Lord\u2019s day, when he abandons an evil disposition,\n and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord\u2019s\n resurrection in himself.\u201d[449]\n\nFrom this statement we learn, not merely his idea of fasting, but also\nthat of celebrating the Lord\u2019s day, and glorifying the resurrection of\nChrist. This, according to Clement, does not consist in paying special\nhonors to Sunday, but in abandoning an evil disposition, and in assuming\nthat of the Gnostic, a Christian sect to which he belonged. Now it is\nplain that this kind of Lord\u2019s-day observance pertains to no one day\nof the week, but embraces the entire life of the Christian. Clement\u2019s\nLord\u2019s day was not a literal, but a mystical, day, embracing, according\nto this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the\nChristian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the\nfuture life in Heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement\u2019s statement\nof the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which he belonged and other\nChristians. He says of their worship that it was \u201cNOT ON SPECIAL DAYS,\nas some others, but _doing this continually_ in our whole life.\u201d And\nhe speaks further of the worship of the Gnostic that it was \u201c_not_ in\na specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals, and on\nappointed days, _but during his whole life_.\u201d[450]\n\nIt is certainly a very remarkable fact that the first writer who speaks\nof the Lord\u2019s day as the eighth day uses the term, not with reference to\na literal, but a mystical, day. It is not Sunday, but the Christian\u2019s\nlife, or Heaven itself! This doctrine of a perpetual Lord\u2019s day, we\nshall find alluded to in Tertullian, and expressly stated in Origen, who\nare the next two writers that use the term Lord\u2019s day. But Clement\u2019s\nmystical or perpetual Lord\u2019s day shows that he had no idea that John, by\nLord\u2019s day, meant Sunday; for in that case, he must have recognized that\nas the true Lord\u2019s day, and the Gnostics\u2019 special day of worship.\n\nTertullian, A. D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term Lord\u2019s day.\nHe defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ\u2019s\nresurrection. Kitto[451] says this is \u201cthe earliest authentic instance\u201d\nin which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by\nactual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some\nreference to Sunday in Clement\u2019s mystical eighth day. Tertullian\u2019s words\nare these:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe, however (just as we have received), only on the Lord\u2019s\n day of the resurrection [_solo die dominico resurrexionis_]\n ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture\n and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we\n give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of\n Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of\n exultation.\u201d[452]\n\nTwice more does Tertullian use the term Lord\u2019s day, and once more does he\ndefine it, this time calling it the \u201ceighth day.\u201d And in each of these\ntwo cases does he place the day which he calls Lord\u2019s day in the same\nrank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, even as he does in the\ninstance already quoted. As the second instance of Tertullian\u2019s use of\nLord\u2019s day, we quote a portion of the rebuke which he addressed to his\nbrethren for mingling with the heathen in their festivals. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cOh! better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which\n claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the\n Lord\u2019s day, not Pentecost, _even if they had known them_, would\n they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should\n seem to be Christians. _We_ are not apprehensive lest we seem\n to be _heathens_! If any indulgence is to be granted to the\n flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more\n too; for to the _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once\n annually; _you_ have a festive day every eighth day.\u201d[453]\n\nThe festival which Tertullian here represents as coming every eighth day\nwas no doubt the one which he has just called the Lord\u2019s day. Though he\nelsewhere[454] speaks of the Sunday festival as observed at least by some\nportion of the heathen, he here speaks of the Lord\u2019s day as unknown to\nthose heathen of whom he now writes. This strongly indicates that the\nSunday festival had but recently begun to be called by the name of Lord\u2019s\nday. But he once more speaks of the Lord\u2019s day:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings\n for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling\n in worship on the Lord\u2019s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the\n same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday [the Pentecost].\n We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own,\n be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at\n every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes,\n when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps,\n on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life,\n we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].\n\n \u201cIf, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having\n positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition\n will be held forth to you as the _originator_ of them, custom\n as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason\n will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either\n yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.\u201d[455]\n\nThis completes the instances in which Tertullian uses the term Lord\u2019s\nday, except a mere allusion to it in his discourse on Fasting. It is very\nremarkable that in each of the three cases, he puts it on a level with\nthe festival of Whitsunday, or Pentecost. He also associates it directly\nwith \u201cofferings for the dead\u201d and with the use of \u201cthe sign of the\ncross.\u201d When asked for authority from the Bible for these things, he does\nnot answer, \u201cWe have the authority of John for the Lord\u2019s day, though we\nhave nothing but tradition for the sign of the cross and offerings for\nthe dead.\u201d On the contrary, he said there was no Scripture injunction for\nany of them. If it be asked, How could the title of Lord\u2019s day be given\nto Sunday except by tradition derived from the apostles? the answer will\nbe properly returned, What was the origin of offerings for the dead?\nAnd how did the sign of the cross come into use among Christians? The\ntitle of Lord\u2019s day as a name for Sunday is no nearer apostolic than is\nthe sign of the cross, and offerings for the dead; for it can be traced\nno nearer to apostolic times than can these most palpable errors of the\ngreat apostasy.\n\nClement taught a perpetual Lord\u2019s day; Tertullian held a similar view,\nasserting that Christians should celebrate a perpetual Sabbath, not by\nabstinence from labor, but from sin.[456] Tertullian\u2019s method of Sunday\nobservance will be noticed hereafter.\n\nOrigen, A. D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call \u201cthe\neighth day\u201d the Lord\u2019s day. He was the disciple of Clement, the first\nwriter who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he\nshould teach Clement\u2019s doctrine of a perpetual Lord\u2019s day, nor that he\nshould state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen,\nhaving represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are\n accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord\u2019s\n day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to\n answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his\n thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the\n Word, all his days are the Lord\u2019s, and he is always keeping the\n Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[457]\n\nThis was written some forty years after Clement had propounded his\ndoctrine of the Lord\u2019s day. The imperfect Christian might honor a Lord\u2019s\nday which stood in the same rank with the Preparation, the Passover,\nand the Pentecost. But the perfect Christian observed the true Lord\u2019s\nday, which embraced all the days of his regenerate life. Origen uses\nthe term Lord\u2019s day for two different days. 1. For a natural day, which\nin his judgment stood in the same rank with the Preparation day, the\nPassover, and the Pentecost. 2. For a mystical day, as did Clement, which\nis the entire period of the Christian\u2019s life. The mystical day, in his\nestimation, was the true Lord\u2019s day. It therefore follows that he did not\nbelieve Sunday to be the Lord\u2019s day by apostolic appointment. But, after\nOrigen\u2019s time, Lord\u2019s day becomes a common name for the so-called eighth\nday. Yet these three men, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, who first\nmake this application, not only do not claim that this name was given to\nthe day by the apostles, but do plainly indicate that they had no such\nidea. Offerings for the dead and the use of the sign of the cross are\nfound as near to apostolic times as is the use of Lord\u2019s day as a name\nfor Sunday. The three have a common origin, as shown by Tertullian\u2019s own\nwords. Origen\u2019s views of the Sabbath, and of the Sunday festival, will be\nnoticed hereafter.\n\nSuch is the case with the claim of Sunday to the title of Lord\u2019s day. The\nfirst instance of its use, if Clement be supposed to refer to Sunday, is\nnot till almost one century after John was in vision upon Patmos. Those\nwho first call it by that name had no idea that it was such by divine or\napostolic appointment, as they plainly show. In marked contrast with this\nis the Catholic festival of the Passover. Though never commanded in the\nNew Testament, it can be traced back to men who say that they had it from\nthe apostles!\n\nThus the churches of Asia Minor had the festival from Polycarp who,\nas Eusebius states the claim of Polycarp, had \u201cobserved it with John\nthe disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he\nassociated.\u201d[458] Socrates says of them that they maintain that this\nobservance \u201cwas delivered to them by the apostle John.\u201d[459] Anatolius\nsays of these Asiatic Christians that they received \u201cthe rule from an\nunimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.\u201d[460]\n\nNor was this all. The western churches also, with the church of Rome\nat their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They\nalso traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them:\n\u201cThe Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage\noriginated with the apostles Peter and Paul.\u201d[461] But he says these\nparties cannot prove this by written testimony. Sozomen says of the\nRomans, with respect to the Passover festival, that they \u201chave never\ndeviated from their original usage in this particular; the custom having\nbeen handed down to them by the holy apostles Peter and Paul.\u201d[462]\n\nIf the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day could be traced to a man who claimed to have\ncelebrated it with John and other of the apostles, how confidently\nwould this be cited as proving positively that it is an apostolic\ninstitution! And yet this can be done in the case of the Passover\nfestival! Nevertheless, a single fact in the case of this very festival\nis sufficient to teach us the folly of trusting in tradition. Polycarp\nclaimed that John and other of the apostles taught him to observe the\nfestival on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of\nthe week it might be; while the elders of the Roman church asserted\nthat Peter and Paul taught them that it must be observed on the Sunday\nfollowing Good Friday![463]\n\nThe Lord\u2019s day of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John\nthan A. D. 194, or perhaps in strict truth to A. D. 200, and those\nwho then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be\nthe Lord\u2019s day by apostolic appointment. To hide these fatal facts by\nseeming to trace the title back to Ignatius the disciple of John, and\nthus to identify Sunday with the Lord\u2019s day of that apostle, a series\nof remarkable frauds has been committed which we have had occasion to\nexamine. But even could the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day be traced to Ignatius,\nthe disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic\ninstitution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can\nbe traced to Polycarp, another of John\u2019s disciples, who claimed to have\nreceived it from John himself!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY.\n\n Origin of Sunday observance the subject of present\n inquiry\u2014Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander\u2014The\n question between them stated, and the true data for deciding\n that question\u2014The New Testament furnishes no support for\n Mosheim\u2019s statement\u2014Epistle of Barnabas a forgery\u2014The testimony\n of Pliny determines nothing in the case\u2014The epistle of Ignatius\n probably spurious, and certainly interpolated so far as it is\n made to sustain Sunday\u2014Decision of the question.\n\n\nThe first day of the week is now almost universally observed as the\nChristian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us\nas the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church\nhistorians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a\nquestion of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth.\nThus Mosheim writes respecting the first century:\u2014\n\n \u201cAll Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day\n of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the\n dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious\n custom, which was derived from the example of the church of\n Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the\n apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose,\n and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches,\n as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible\n writers.\u201d[464]\n\nNow let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church\nhistorians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always\n only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of\n the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect,\n far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer\n the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the\n second century a false application of this kind had begun to\n take place; for men appear by that time to have considered\n laboring on Sunday as a sin.\u201d[465]\n\nHow shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither\nof them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer\nof the eighteenth century, and Neander, of the nineteenth. Of necessity\ntherefore they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of\nthat period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony\nwhich can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are,\nfirst, the inspired writings of the New Testament; second, the reputed\nproductions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the\nfirst day, viz., the epistle of Barnabas; the letter of Pliny, governor\nof Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan; and the epistle of Ignatius. These\nare all the writings prior to the middle of the second century\u2014and this\nis late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim\u2019s statement\u2014which can\nbe introduced as even referring to the first day of the week.\n\nThe questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles\nset apart Sunday for divine worship (as Mosheim affirms)? or does the\nevidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other\nfestivals, was always only a human ordinance (as is affirmed by Neander)?\n\nIt is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday\nfor the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that\nthere is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such\nobservance. The New Testament therefore furnishes no support[466] for the\nstatement of Mosheim.\n\nThe three epistles which have come down to us purporting to have been\nwritten in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age, next\ncome under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more\nextended than that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the\nfirst century only; but we summon all the writers of that century, and\nof the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, who\nare even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader\nis furnished with all the data in the case. The epistle of Barnabas\nspeaks as follows in behalf of first-day observance:\u2014\n\n \u201cLastly he saith unto them, Your new-moons and your sabbaths I\n cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths,\n says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but\n those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall\n begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other\n world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness,\n in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested\n himself to his disciples, ascended into Heaven.\u201d[467]\n\nIt might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would place great reliance\nupon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat\nbetter suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything\npreviously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle\nis spurious. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew,\n who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean\n abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show,\n notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must\n have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who\n was St. Paul\u2019s companion.\u201d[468]\n\nIn another work, Mosheim says of this epistle:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by\n that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the\n futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from\n the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations\n of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little of\n either truth, dignity or force, as to render it impossible that\n they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely\n instructed.\u201d[469]\n\nNeander speaks thus of this epistle:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to\n belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of\n the apostolic labors of St. Paul.\u201d[470]\n\nProf. Stuart bears a similar testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThat a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt\n not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I with many\n others must doubt.\u201d[471]\n\nDr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, to the General Assembly\nof the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably\n composed in A. D. 135. It is the production apparently of a\n convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical\n interpretation of Scripture.\u201d[472]\n\nProf. Hackett bears the following testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas\n even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.\u201d[473]\n\nMr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnabas as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which\n goes by his name, to be his.\u201d[474]\n\nKitto speaks of this production as,\n\n \u201cThe so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the\n second century.\u201d[475]\n\nSays the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, speaking of the Barnabas of\nthe New Testament:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe could not be the author of a work so full of forced\n allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of\n Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such\n like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle.\u201d[476]\n\nEusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the\ncatalogue of spurious books. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAmong the spurious must be numbered both the books called,\n \u2018The Acts of Paul,\u2019 and that called, \u2018Pastor,\u2019 and \u2018The\n Revelation of Peter.\u2019 Besides these the books called \u2018The\n Epistle of Barnabas,\u2019 and what are called, \u2018The Institutions of\n the Apostles.\u2019\u201d[477]\n\nSir Wm. Domville speaks as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut the epistle was not written by Barnabas; it was not merely\n unworthy of him,\u2014it would be a disgrace to him, and what is of\n much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian\n religion, as being the production of one of the authorized\n teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which\n circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine\n origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as\n regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony\n of some unknown writer to the practice of Sunday observance by\n some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain\n period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for\n believing that period to have been the first century.\u201d[478]\n\nColeman bears the following testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the\n companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently\n spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic,\n allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful\n conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no\n authority.\u201d[479]\n\nAs a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this\nepistle, the following passage is quoted:\u2014\n\n \u201cNeither shalt thou eat of the hyena: that is, again, be not an\n adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such.\n And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its\n kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female.\u201d[480]\n\nThus first-day historians being allowed to decide the case, we are\nauthorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read\nits ninth chapter\u2014for it will not bear quoting\u2014will acknowledge the\njustice of this conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting\nto come from the first century except the New Testament, in which the\nfirst day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday\nobservance, even Mosheim acknowledges.\n\nThe next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the\nRoman governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan. It was written about\nA. D. 104. He says of the Christians of his province:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that\n they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and\n addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some\n god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes\n of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or\n adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when\n they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was\n their custom to separate, and then re-assemble to eat in common\n a harmless meal.\u201d[481]\n\nThis epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday\nobservance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says\nof this extract:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis 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.\u201d[482]\n\nCharles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this\nepistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite\ntranslation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle:\u2014\n\n \u201cThese persons declare that their whole crime, if they are\n guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble\n before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of\n God.\u201d[483]\n\nTertullian, who wrote A. D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe found in their religious services nothing but meetings _at\n early morning_ for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing\n home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to\n their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and\n other crimes.\u201d[484]\n\nTertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of Sunday.\n\nMr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly\n observed at this date as the sun\u2019s day (if not even more so),\n it is just as probable that this \u2018stated day\u2019 referred to by\n Pliny was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though\n the latter is generally _taken for granted_.\u201d[485]\n\nTaking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no new\nfeature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day\nobservance. Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny as a\nchief support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another\nlearned man:\u2014\n\n \u201cB. Just. Hen. Boehmer, would indeed have us to understand this\n day to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath.\u201d[486]\n\nThis testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time\nof the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded\nby the apostle Peter.[487] It is certainly far more probable that this\nchurch, only forty years after the death of Peter, was keeping the fourth\ncommandment, than that it was observing a day never enjoined by divine\nauthority. It must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves\nnothing in support of Sunday observance; for it does not designate what\nday of the week was thus observed.\n\nThe epistles of Ignatius of Antioch so often quoted in behalf of\nfirst-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as\nsaying:\u2014\n\n \u201cWherefore if they who are brought up in these ancient laws\n came nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing\n sabbaths, but keeping the Lord\u2019s day, in which also our life\n is sprung up by him, and through his death, whom yet some\n deny (by which mystery we have been brought to believe,\n and therefore wait that we may be found the disciples of\n Jesus Christ, our only master): how shall we be able to\n live different from him; whose disciples the very prophets\n themselves being, did by the Spirit expect him as their\n master.\u201d[488]\n\nTwo important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular\nnotice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious\nby first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some\nof them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the\nepistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do\nthey say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle\nto the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the\nword day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of\nthe first of these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr.\nKillen speaks as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out\n from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered\n to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch.\n Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and\n forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In\n the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a\n somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and\n claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics\n refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was\n roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest\n desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria,\n Palestine, and Egypt, were ransacked in search of them, and\n at length three letters are found. The discovery creates\n general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles\n so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is\n boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge.\n But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns\n these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of\n these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last\n three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a\n grave imposture.\u201d[489]\n\nThe same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin,\n that, upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping\n sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles.\u201d[490]\n\nOf the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F.\nHudson speaks as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIgnatius of Antioch was martyred probably A. D. 115. Of the\n eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those\n addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans.\u201d[491]\n\nIt will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as\ngenuine do not include that epistle from which the quotation in behalf of\nSunday is taken, and it is a fact also that they contain no allusion to\nSunday. Sir Wm. Domville, an anti-Sabbatarian writer, uses the following\nlanguage:\u2014\n\n \u201cEvery one at all conversant with such matters is aware that\n the works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted\n than those of any other of the ancient fathers; and also that\n some writings have been attributed to him which are wholly\n spurious.\u201d[492]\n\nRobinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century,\nexpresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius,\nBarnabas, and others:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf any of the writings attributed to those who are called\n apostolical fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp,\n at Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hermas, who was\n brother to Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine,\n of which there is great reason to doubt, they only prove the\n piety and illiteracy of the good men. Some are worse, and\n the best not better, than the godly epistles of the lower\n sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the civil war in\n England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both of\n these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular\n geniuses.\u201d[493]\n\nThe doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently\nattested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of\nthe three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still\nfurther to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day were it\nnot for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator\nhas used in inserting the word _day_. This fact is shown with critical\naccuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day\nscholars. Thus he presents the original of Ignatius with comments and a\ntranslation as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe must here notice one other passage ... as bearing on the\n subject of the Lord\u2019s day, though it certainly contains no\n mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the\n Magnesians (about A. D. 100.) The whole passage is confessedly\n obscure, and the text may be corrupt.... The passage is as\n follows:\u2014\n\n \u0395\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f24\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u2014(\u1f10\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f76\u2019 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, etc.)[494]\n\n \u201cNow many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear),\n that after \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd [Lord\u2019s] the word \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd [day] is to be\n understood.... Let us now look at the passage simply as it\n stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive\n to which \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 can refer. This defect, so far from being\n remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of\n \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. Now if we take \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 as simply \u2018the life of the\n Lord,\u2019 having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer\n to supplying the substantive to \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.... Thus upon the whole\n the meaning might be given thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf those who lived under the old dispensation have come to\n the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living\n according to our Lord\u2019s life (in which, as it were, our life\n has risen again through him, &c.)....\n\n \u201cOn this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord\u2019s\n day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded\n as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term\n \u2018Lord\u2019s day\u2019 (for which it is often cited), since the material\n word \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 [day] is purely conjectural.\u201d[495]\n\nThe learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this\nstatement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient\n days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living\n according to the dominical life, &c.... The Medicean copy, the\n best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because\n \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd is expressed and determines the word dominical to the\n person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection.\u201d[496]\n\nSir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cJudging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the\n literal translation of the passage in discussion, \u2018no longer\n observing sabbaths, but living according to the Lord\u2019s life,\u2019\n appears to give its true and proper meaning; and if this be\n so, Ignatius, whom Mr. Gurney[497] puts forward as a material\n witness to prove the observance of the Lord\u2019s day in the\n beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact,\n it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he\n does not even mention the Lord\u2019s day, nor in any way allude to\n the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by any\n other.\u201d[498]\n\nIt is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference\nwhatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence\nthat that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord\u2019s\nday.[499] The evidence is now before the reader which must determine\nwhether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in\nthe case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the\nuninspired writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing\nto sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the\nfourth century, we shall find a statement by him which essentially\nmodifies what he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas,\nPliny, and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the\nsecond speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the\nthird, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative\nto Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated\nthe word _day_ into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion\nthat Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as\na historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth,\nwe say with Neander, \u201cThe festival of Sunday was always only a human\nordinance.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nEXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.\n\n Were the martyrs in Pliny\u2019s time and afterward tested by the\n question whether they had kept Sunday or not?\u2014Argument in the\n affirmative quoted from Edwards\u2014Its origin\u2014No facts to sustain\n such an argument prior to the fourth century\u2014A single instance\n at the opening of that century all that can be claimed in\n support of the assertion\u2014Sunday not even alluded to in that\n instance\u2014Testimony of Mosheim relative to the work in which\n this is found.\n\n\nCertain doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that\nthe \u201cstated day\u201d of Pliny\u2019s epistle is the first day of the week. For\nthis purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable\nhistorians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument\nis this: That in Pliny\u2019s time and afterward, that is, from the close of\nthe first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before\ntheir persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept\nthe Lord\u2019s day, this term being used to designate the first day of the\nweek. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when\nPliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed\nto meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the\nweek. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand\ntest by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. 3. That\nLord\u2019s day was the name by which the first day of the week was known in\nthe time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John. To prove these\npoints, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cHence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to\n know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to\n them this question, viz., \u2018_Dominicum servasti?_\u2019\u2014\u2018Hast thou\n kept the Lord\u2019s day?\u2019 If they had they were Christians. This\n was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews\n and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant,\n they must be put to death. And what, when they continued\n steadfast, was their answer? \u2018_Christianus sum; intermittere\n non possum_;\u2019\u2014\u2018I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.\u2019 It is\n a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of\n course keep the Lord\u2019s day, because it is the will of his Lord;\n and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his\n religion.\u201d[500]\n\nMr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same\nargument and for the same purpose.[501] The importance attached to this\nstatement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day\nsacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr.\nEdwards gives no authority for his statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the\nstory to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken\nit from the _Acta Martyrum_, an ancient collection of the acts of the\nmartyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop\nAndrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star\nChamber, against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal\nof maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep\nthe seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced,\ntherefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when\non trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able\nanti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe bishop, as we have seen, refers to the _Acta_ of the\n martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question,\n _Dominicum servasti?_ but he does not cite a single instance\n from them in which that question was put. We are left therefore\n to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere,\n they are to be found. The most complete collection of the\n memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and\n sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart,\n entitled, \u2018_Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta_.\u2019 I have\n carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm\n that among the questions there stated to have been put to the\n martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two\n hundred years afterwards, the question, _Dominicum servasti?_\n does not once occur; nor any equivalent question.\u201d[502]\n\nThis shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter,\neither that the \u201cstated day\u201d of Pliny was the first day of the week, or\nthat the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether\nthey had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false\nthat the martyrs of Pliny\u2019s time called Sunday the Lord\u2019s day and kept\nit as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before\nPliny\u2019s time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was\nput to them, Domville says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis much may suffice to show that _Dominicum servasti?_\n was no question in Pliny\u2019s time, as Mr. Gurney intends us to\n believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr.\n Gurney\u2019s unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating\n it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may\n have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when\n stating that _Dominicum servasti?_ was ever a usual question\n put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass\n over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny\u2019s time and\n the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose,\n and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of\n which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop\n Andrews derived his question, _Dominicum servasti?_ \u2018Hold you\n the Lord\u2019s day?\u2019 This martyrdom happened A. D. 304.[503] The\n sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other\n persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the\n proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examinations\n by him, the phrases, \u2018CELEBRARE _Dominicum_,\u2019 and \u2018AGERE\n _Dominicum_,\u2019 frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb\n \u2018_servare_\u2019 used in reference to _Dominicum_. I mention this\n chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt\n he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question\n was, _Dominicum servasti?_ it is very clear he had not his\n author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a\n phrase of his own.\u201d[504]\n\nDomville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the\nmartyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney\u2019s and Edward\u2019s\nquotation from Andrews. He then adds:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only\n one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of\n Bishop Andrews that, \u2018Hold you the Lord\u2019s day?\u2019 was the usual\n question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this\n narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing\n is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite\n mistaken the meaning of the word _Dominicum_ in translating it\n \u2018the Lord\u2019s day.\u2019 It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous\n word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers in, and\n subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a\n church, and at other times the Lord\u2019s supper, but NEVER the\n Lord\u2019s day.[505] My authorities on this point are\u2014\n\n \u201c1. Ruinart, who, upon the word _Dominicum_, in the narrative\n of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it\n is a word signifying the Lord\u2019s supper[506] (\u2018_Dominicum vero\n desinat sacra mysteria_\u2019), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian\n in support of this interpretation.\n\n \u201c2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine\u2019s\n works. They state that the word _Dominicum_ has the two\n meanings of a church and the Lord\u2019s supper. For the former they\n quote among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo\n Cesarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer\n also to St. Augustine\u2019s account of his conference with the\n Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the\n martyrdom of Saturninus.[507]\n\n \u201c3. Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749,\n gives both meanings to the word _Dominicum_. For that of the\n Lord\u2019s supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes\n Cyprian and also Hillary.\u201d[508]\n\nDomville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then\npays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Andrews\n to the \u2018Acts of Martyrs\u2019 completely fails to establish his\n dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the\n martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and\n obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that\n dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney\u2019s regard for truth,\n when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the\n \u2018stated day\u2019 mentioned in Pliny\u2019s letter as that on which the\n Christians held their religious assemblies, was \u2018clearly the\n first day of the week,\u2019 is proved by the very question which\n it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the\n martyrs, _Dominicum servasti?_\u2014\u2018Hast thou kept the Lord\u2019s day?\u2019\n For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word\n \u2018clearly,\u2019 in order to make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney\n is without any excuse.\u201d[509]\n\nThe justice of Domville\u2019s language cannot be questioned when he\ncharacterizes this favorite first-day argument as\u2014\n\n \u201cOne of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in\n theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so\n generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually\n received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to\n pass current for truth.\u201d[510]\n\nThe investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows,\n1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord\u2019s day? is upon\nrecord as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such\nquestion was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth\ncentury. 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question\nof the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one\ncase, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining\nthe story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin\nshows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of\nSunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the _Acta Martyrum_,\nin which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify\nrelative to the character of this work for veracity:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs to those accounts which have come down to us under the\n title of _Acta Martyrum_, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their\n authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable\n nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer\n to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to\n no sort of credit whatever.\u201d[511]\n\nSuch is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is\nnot strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it\nto theologians.\n\nSuch are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They\nconstitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for\nSunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this\nis too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is\nas truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday.\nIt will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for\nothers will have to go with it for possessing the same character.\n\nSince the publication of Domville\u2019s elaborate work, James Gilfillan\nof Scotland has written a large volume entitled, \u201cThe Sabbath,\u201d which\nhas been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is\nesteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day\ndenominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville as appears from his\nstatements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore\nacquainted with Domville\u2019s exposure of the fraud respecting \u201c_Dominicum\nservasti?_\u201d But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers\nnot one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much\nassurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville\nhad shown up the matter from the _Acta Martyrum_, it was necessary for\nGilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to\nCardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan\u2019s words:\u2014\n\n \u201cFrom the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the\n followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting\n than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue,\n sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their\n Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the\n martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not\n worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change\n of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection\n on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful\n observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions\n put to the martyrs being, _Dominicum servasti?_\u2014Have you kept\n the Lord\u2019s day?\u2014_Baron. An. Eccles._, A. D. 303, Num. 35,\n etc.\u201d[512]\n\nGilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority\nthe annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and\nrepeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What\nif the _Acta Martyrum_ has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to\nBaronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in\nthis matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from\nmisleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done\nin this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the\n_Acta Martyrum_.[513]\n\n1. That no such question as \u201c_Dominicum servasti?_\u201d was addressed to any\nmartyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years\nafter the time of Pliny.\n\n2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the\nLord\u2019s day, but to the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nNow it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the\ntruth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which\nhe could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows.\nIt differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart\u2019s _Acta\nMartyrum_, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from\nthat work! Domville\u2019s first and most important statement is therefore\nvindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say\nthis in so many words.\n\nDomville\u2019s second point is that _Dominicum_, when used as a noun, as in\nthe present case, signifies either a church or the Lord\u2019s supper, but\nnever signifies Lord\u2019s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible\nevidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer\nDomville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which\nDomville had exposed. So he turns from the _Acta Martyrum_ in which the\ncompiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville\nasserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius.\nNow, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high\nauthority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the\nmartyrs were tested by the question, \u201cHave you kept the Lord\u2019s day?\u201d No\nmatter then as to the _Acta Martyrum_ from which Bishop Andrews first\nproduced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its\nstead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes\nthis test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no\navail as proof that Pliny\u2019s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much\nto have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century\nwere put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day.\n\nBut these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in\nplain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony\nof Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of\nSaturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the\nvery story which Domville has cited from the _Acta Martyrum_, and\nBaronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work.\nHe gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the\nseveral answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from\nBaronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they\nwere celebrating the Lord\u2019s sacrament according to custom.[514] The\nfollowing is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated\nthe _Collectam Dominicam_ against the command of the emperors.[515] The\nproconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the _Collectam_,\nand he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this.[516] Another\nsays, \u201cI have not only been in the _Collecta_, but I have celebrated the\n_Dominicum_ with the brethren because I am a Christian.\u201d[517] Another\nsays we have celebrated the _Dominicum_, because the _Dominicum_ cannot\nbe neglected.[518] Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed)\nat his house.[519] The proconsul questioning again one of those already\nexamined, received this answer: \u201cThe _Dominicum_ cannot be disregarded,\nthe law so commands.\u201d[520] When one was asked whether the _Collecta_\nwas made (or observed) at his house, he answered, \u201cIn my house we have\ncelebrated the _Dominicum_.\u201d He added, \u201cWithout the _Dominicum_ we cannot\nbe,\u201d or live.[521] To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish\nto know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the\n_Collecta_. His reply was: \u201cAs if one could be a Christian without the\n_Dominicum_, or as if the _Dominicum_ can be celebrated without the\nChristian.\u201d[522] And he said further to the proconsul: \u201cWe have observed\nthe _Collecta_ most sacredly; we have always convened in the _Dominicum_\nfor reading the Lord\u2019s word.\u201d[523] Another said: \u201cI have been in\n[literally, have made] the _Collecta_ with my brethren, I have celebrated\nthe _Dominicum_.\u201d[524] After him another proclaimed the _Dominicum_\nto be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the\nothers, he exclaimed, \u201dI have celebrated the _Dominicum_ with a devoted\nheart, and with my brethren I have made the _Collecta_ because I am a\nChristian.\u201d[525] When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he\nhad conducted the _Dominicum_, he replied that he had because Christ was\nhis Saviour.[526]\n\nI have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set\nbefore the reader the references therein made to the _Dominicum_. It is\nto be observed that _Collecta_ is used as another name for _Dominicum_.\nNow does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord\u2019s day? It\nso happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to\nthis very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven\ndefinitions:\u2014\n\nWhen Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs,\nhe there defines these words as follows: \u201cBy the words _Collectam_,\n_Collectionem_, and _Dominicum_, the author always understands the\nsacrifice of the Mass.\u201d[527] After recording the words of that martyr who\nsaid that the law commanded the observance of the _Dominicum_, Baronius\ndefines his statement thus: \u201cEvidently the Christian law concerning the\n_Dominicum_, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.\u201d[528] Baronius,\nby the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the\nLord\u2019s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination,\nhe again defines the celebration of the _Dominicum_. He says: \u201cIt\nhas been shown above in relating these things that the Christians\nwere moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the\n_Dominicum_. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it\nwas a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.\u201d[529] He\npresently defines _Dominicum_ again, saying, \u201cThough it is a fact that\nthe same expression was employed at times with reference to the _temple_\nof God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this\nmatter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently\nshown concerning the celebration of the _Dominicum_, _that only the\nsacrifice of the Mass can be understood_.\u201d[530] Observe this last\nstatement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the\ntemple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can _only_ signify\nthe sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit.\nBut Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains\nthese words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus\nunder _Collecta_ is this statement: \u201cThe _Collecta_, the _Dominicum_, the\nMass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.\u201d[531] Under _Missa_: \u201cThe Mass is the\nsame as the _Collecta_, or _Dominicum_ [A. D.], 303, xxxix.\u201d[532] Under\n_Dominicum_: \u201cTo celebrate the _Dominicum_ is the same as to conduct the\nMass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.\u201d[533]\n\nIt is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that\n_Dominicum_ signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these\nmartyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which\nthe church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the\nsacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, concerning which they were tested, and\nfor observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word _Dominicum_\nsignifies \u201cthe sacred mysteries,\u201d as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in\n_seven_ times affirming _this_ definition, though acknowledging that it\nhas sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that\nin this record, it can have _no other meaning_ than that service which\nthe Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all\nthis, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were\ntested by the question, \u201cHave you kept Lord\u2019s day?\u201d He could not but know\nthat he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God,\nand the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.\n\nBefore Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the\nfact that the sentence, \u201c_Dominicum servasti?_\u201d does not occur in the\n_Acta Martyrum_, a different verb being used every time. But this is the\npopular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan\ndeclares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A.\nD. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by\nBaronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the _Acta\nMartyrum_. \u201c_Dominicum servasti?_\u201d does not occur in that historian, and\nGilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however,\nis comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of\nLord\u2019s day under the name of _Dominicum_, Gilfillan stands convicted of\ninexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.\n\n Sunday a heathen festival from remote antiquity\u2014Origin of the\n name\u2014Reasons which induced the leaders of the church to adopt\n this festival\u2014It was the day generally observed by the Gentiles\n in the first centuries of the Christian era\u2014To have taken a\n different day would have been exceedingly inconvenient\u2014They\n hoped to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles by keeping\n the same day that they observed\u2014Three voluntary weekly\n festivals in the church in memory of the Redeemer\u2014Sunday soon\n elevated above the other two\u2014Justin Martyr\u2014Sunday observance\n first found in the church of Rome\u2014Iren\u00e6us\u2014First act of papal\n usurpation was in behalf of Sunday\u2014Tertullian\u2014Earliest trace of\n abstinence from labor on Sunday\u2014General statement of facts\u2014The\n Roman church made its first great attack upon the Sabbath by\n turning it into a fast.\n\n\nThe festival of Sunday is more ancient than the Christian religion, its\norigin being lost in remote antiquity. It did not originate, however,\nfrom any divine command nor from piety toward God: on the contrary, it\nwas set apart as a sacred day by the heathen world in honor of their\nchief god, the sun. It is from this fact that the first day of the week\nhas obtained the name of Sunday, a name by which it is known in many\nlanguages. Webster thus defines the word:\u2014\n\n \u201cSunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated\n to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week; the\n Christian Sabbath; a day consecrated to rest from secular\n employments, and to religious worship; the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\n\nAnd Worcester, in his large dictionary, uses similar language:\u2014\n\n \u201cSunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or to\n its worship. The first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath,\n consecrated to rest from labor and to religious worship; the\n Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\n\nThese lexicographers call Sunday the Christian Sabbath, etc., because\nin the general theological literature of our language, it is thus\ndesignated, though never thus in the Bible. Lexicographers do not\nundertake to settle theological questions, but simply to define terms as\ncurrently used in a particular language. Though all the other days of the\nweek have heathen names, Sunday alone was a conspicuous heathen festival\nin the days of the early church. The _North British Review_, in a labored\nattempt to justify the observance of Sunday by the Christian world,\nstyles that day, \u201cTHE WILD SOLAR HOLIDAY [_i. e._, festival in honor of\nthe sun] OF ALL PAGAN TIMES.\u201d[534]\n\nVerstegan says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe most ancient Germans being pagans, and having appropriated\n their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the\n sun, whereof that day doth yet in our English tongue retain the\n name of Sunday, and appropriated the next day unto it unto the\n especial adoration of the moon, whereof it yet retaineth with\n us, the name of Monday; they ordained the next day to these\n most heavenly planets to the particular adoration of their\n great reputed god, Tuisco, whereof we do yet retain in our\n language the name of Tuesday.\u201d[535]\n\nThe same author thus speaks concerning the idols of our Saxon ancestors:\u2014\n\n \u201cOf these, though they had many, yet seven among the rest they\n especially appropriated unto the seven days of the week....\n Unto the day dedicated unto the especial adoration of the idol\n of the sun, they gave the name of Sunday, as much as to say\n the sun\u2019s day or the day of the sun. This idol was placed in\n a temple, and there adored and sacrificed unto, for that they\n believed that the sun in the firmament did with or in this idol\n correspond and co-operate.\u201d[536]\n\nJennings makes this adoration of the sun more ancient than the\ndeliverance of Israel from Egypt. For, in speaking of the time of that\ndeliverance, he speaks of the Gentiles as,\n\n \u201cThe idolatrous nations who in honor to their chief god, the\n sun, began their day at his rising.\u201d[537]\n\nHe represents them also as setting apart Sunday in honor of the same\nobject of adoration:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe day which the heathens in general consecrated to the\n worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according\n to our computation, was the first day of the week.\u201d[538]\n\nThe _North British Review_ thus defends the introduction of this ancient\nheathen festival into the Christian church:\u2014\n\n \u201cThat very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and\n respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with\n expediency in making it at once their Lord\u2019s day and their\n Sabbath.... If the authority of the church is to be ignored\n altogether by Protestants, there is no matter; because\n opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough\n for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for\n the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish\n Sabbath. That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the\n adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and\n supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration;\n and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it,\n inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day at\n any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded\n by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival.\u201d[539]\n\nIt would seem that something more potent than \u201cpatriotism\u201d and\n\u201cexpediency\u201d would be requisite to transform this heathen festival into\nthe Christian Sabbath, or even to justify its introduction into the\nChristian church. A further statement of the reasons which prompted its\nintroduction, and a brief notice of the earlier steps toward transforming\nit into a Christian institution, will occupy the remainder of this\nchapter. Chafie, a clergyman of the English Church, in 1652, published a\nwork in vindication of first-day observance, entitled, \u201cThe Seventh-day\nSabbath.\u201d After showing the general observance of Sunday by the heathen\nworld in the early ages of the church, Chafie thus states the reasons\nwhich forbid the Christians attempting to keep any other day:\u2014\n\n \u201c1. Because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby\n should be had in, among all the Gentiles with whom they\n lived.... How grievous would be their taunts and reproaches\n against the poor Christians living with them and under their\n power for their new set sacred day, had the Christians chosen\n any other than the Sunday.... 2. Most Christians then were\n either servants or of the poorer sort of people; and the\n Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty\n to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except\n on their Sunday.... 3. Because had they assayed such a change\n it would have been but labor in vain; ... they could never have\n brought it to pass.\u201d[540]\n\nThus it is seen that at the time when the early church began to\napostatize from God and to foster in its bosom human ordinances, the\nheathen world\u2014as they had long done\u2014very generally observed the first day\nof the week in honor of the sun. Many of the early fathers of the church\nhad been heathen philosophers. Unfortunately they brought with them into\nthe church many of their old notions and principles. Particularly did\nit occur to them that by uniting with the heathen in the day of weekly\ncelebration they should greatly facilitate their conversion. The reasons\nwhich induced the church to adopt the ancient festival of the heathen as\nsomething made ready to hand, are thus stated by Morer:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is not to be denied but we borrow the name of this day\n from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old\n Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing _memorial_ of\n their veneration, dedicated this day to him. And we find by the\n influence of their examples, _other_ nations, and among them\n the Jews themselves, doing him homage;[541] yet these abuses\n did not hinder the fathers of the Christian church simply to\n repeal, or altogether lay by, the day or its name, but only to\n sanctify and improve both, as they did also the pagan temples\n polluted before with idolatrous services, and other instances\n wherein those good men were always tender to work any other\n change than what was evidently necessary, and in such things\n as were plainly inconsistent with the Christian religion; so\n that Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored\n that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on\n that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body\n (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the\n same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear\n causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion\n of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be\n otherwise taken against the gospel.\u201d[542]\n\nIn the time of Justin Martyr, Sunday was a weekly festival, widely\ncelebrated by the heathen in honor of their god, the sun. And so, in\npresenting to the heathen emperor of Rome an \u201cApology\u201d for his brethren,\nJustin takes care to tell him thrice that the Christians held their\nassemblies on this day of general observance.[543] Sunday therefore makes\nits first appearance in the Christian church as an institution identical\nin time with the weekly festival of the heathen, and Justin, who first\nmentions this festival, had been a heathen philosopher. Sixty years\nlater, Tertullian acknowledges that it was not without an appearance of\ntruth that men declared the sun to be the god of the Christians. But he\nanswered that though they worshiped toward the east like the heathen,\nand devoted Sunday to rejoicing, it was for a reason far different from\nsun-worship.[544] And on another occasion, in defending his brethren\nfrom the charge of sun-worship, he acknowledges that these acts, prayer\ntoward the east, and making Sunday a day of festivity, did give men a\nchance to think the sun was the God of the Christians.[545] Tertullian is\ntherefore a witness to the fact that Sunday was a heathen festival when\nit obtained a foothold in the Christian church, and that the Christians,\nin consequence of observing it, were taunted with being sun-worshipers.\nIt is remarkable that in his replies he never claims for their observance\nany divine precept or apostolic example. His principal point was that\nthey had as good a right to do it as the heathen had. One hundred and\ntwenty one years after Tertullian, Constantine, while yet a heathen, put\nforth his famous edict in behalf of the heathen festival of the sun,\nwhich day he pronounced \u201cvenerable.\u201d And this heathen law caused the\nday to be observed everywhere throughout the Roman Empire, and firmly\nestablished it both in Church and State. It is certain, therefore, that\nat the time of its entrance into the Christian church, Sunday was an\nancient weekly festival of the heathen world.\n\nThat this heathen festival was upon the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection\ndoubtless powerfully contributed to aid \u201cpatriotism\u201d and \u201cexpediency\u201d in\ntransforming it into the Lord\u2019s day or Christian Sabbath. For, with pious\nmotives, as we may reasonably conclude, the professed people of God early\npaid a voluntary regard to several days, memorable in the history of the\nRedeemer. Mosheim, whose testimony in behalf of Sunday has been presented\nalready, uses the following language relative to the crucifixion day:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is also probable that Friday, the day of Christ\u2019s\n crucifixion, was early distinguished by particular honors from\n the other days of the week.\u201d[546]\n\nAnd of the second century, he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cMany also observed the fourth day of the week, on which\n Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his\n crucifixion.\u201d[547]\n\nDr. Peter Heylyn says of those who chose Sunday:\u2014\n\n \u201cBecause our Saviour rose that day from amongst the dead, so\n chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Saviour\u2019s\n passion; and Wednesday on the which he had been betrayed: the\n Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the\n eastern churches.\u201d[548]\n\nOf the comparative sacredness of these three voluntary festivals, the\nsame writer testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf we consider either the preaching of the word, the\n ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers: the\n Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above\n other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save\n that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people\n greater than at other times, as is most likely.\u201d[549]\n\nAnd besides these three weekly festivals, there were also two annual\nfestivals of great sacredness. These were the Passover and the Pentecost.\nAnd it is worthy of special notice that although the Sunday festival can\nbe traced no higher in the church than Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, the\nPassover can be traced to a man who claimed to have received it from\nthe apostles. See chapter thirteen. Among these festivals, considered\nsimply as voluntary memorials of the Redeemer, Sunday had very little\npre-eminence. For it is well stated by Heylyn:\u2014\n\n \u201cTake which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and\n we shall find no Lord\u2019s day instituted by any apostolical\n mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of\n the week.\u201d[550]\n\nDomville bears the following testimony, which is worthy of lasting\nremembrance:\u2014\n\n \u201cNot any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries\n attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or\n to his apostles.\u201d[551]\n\n\u201cPatriotism\u201d and \u201cexpediency,\u201d however, erelong elevated immeasurably\nabove its fellows that one of these voluntary festivals which\ncorresponded to \u201cthe wild solar holiday\u201d of the heathen world, making\nthat day at last \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d of the Christian church. The earliest\ntestimony in behalf of first-day observance that has _any_ claim to be\nregarded as genuine is that of Justin Martyr, written about A. D. 140.\nBefore his conversion, he was a heathen philosopher. The time, place, and\noccasion of his first Apology or Defense of the Christians, addressed to\nthe Roman Emperor, is thus stated by an eminent Roman Catholic historian.\nHe says that Justin Martyr\n\n \u201cWas at Rome when the persecution that was raised under the\n reign of Antoninus Pius, the successor of Adrian, began to\n break forth, where he composed an excellent apology in behalf\n of the Christians.\u201d[552]\n\nOf the works ascribed to Justin Martyr, Milner says:\u2014\n\n \u201cLike many of the ancient fathers he appears to us under the\n greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost; and\n others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his;\n and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.\u201d[553]\n\nIf the writings ascribed to him are genuine, there is little propriety\nin the use made of his name by the advocates of the first-day Sabbath.\nHe taught the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution; and there is no\nintimation in his words that the Sunday festival which he mentions was\nother than a voluntary observance. Thus he addresses the emperor of Rome:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city\n or country meet together at the same place, where the writings\n of the apostles and prophets are read, as much as time will\n give leave; when the reader has done, the bishop makes a\n sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them\n to the practice of such lovely precepts: at the conclusion\n of this discourse, we all rise up together and pray; and\n prayers being over, as I now said, there is bread and wine and\n water offered, and the bishop, as before, sends up prayers\n and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he is able, and the\n people conclude all with the joyful acclamation of Amen. Then\n the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of,\n by all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands\n of the deacons. But the wealthy and the willing, for every\n one is at liberty, contribute as they think fitting; and this\n collection is deposited with the bishop, and out of this he\n relieves the orphan and the widow, and such as are reduced to\n want by sickness or any other cause, and such as are in bonds,\n and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, he is the\n guardian and almoner to all the indigent. Upon Sunday we all\n assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself\n to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and\n in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead;\n for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day\n after, which is Sunday, he appeared unto his apostles and\n disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your\n consideration.\u201d[554]\n\nThis passage, if genuine, furnishes the earliest reference to the\nobservance of Sunday as a religious festival in the Christian church.\nIt should be remembered that this language was written at Rome, and\naddressed directly to the emperor. It shows therefore what was the\npractice of the church in that city and vicinity, but does not determine\nhow extensive this observance was. It contains strong incidental proof\nthat apostasy had made progress at Rome; the institution of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper being changed in part already to a human ordinance; water being\nnow as essential to the Lord\u2019s supper as the wine or the bread. And\nwhat is still more dangerous as perverting the institution of Christ,\nthe consecrated elements were sent to the absent, a step which speedily\nresulted in their becoming objects of superstitious veneration, and\nfinally of worship. Justin tells the emperor that Christ thus ordained;\nbut such a statement is a grave departure from the truth of the New\nTestament.\n\nThis statement of reasons for Sunday observance is particularly worthy\nof attention. He tells the emperor that they assembled upon the day\ncalled Sunday. This was equivalent to saying to him, We observe the day\non which our fellow-citizens offer their adoration to the sun. Here\nboth \u201cpatriotism\u201d and \u201cexpediency\u201d discover themselves in the words\nof Justin, which were addressed to a persecuting emperor in behalf of\nthe Christians. But as if conscious that the observance of a heathen\nfestival as the day of Christian worship was not consistent with their\nprofession as worshipers of the Most High, Justin bethinks himself for\nreasons in defense of this observance. He assigns no divine precept nor\napostolic example for this festival. For his reference to what Christ\ntaught his disciples, as appears from the connection, was to the general\nsystem of the Christian religion, and not to the observance of Sunday.\nIf it be said that Justin might have learned from tradition what is\nnot to be found in the New Testament relative to Sunday observance,\nand that after all Sunday may be a divinely-appointed festival, it is\nsufficient to answer, 1. That this plea would show only tradition in\nfavor of the Sunday festival. 2. That Justin Martyr is a very unsafe\nguide; his testimony relative to the Lord\u2019s supper differs from that of\nthe New Testament. 3. That the American Tract Society, in a work which it\npublishes against Romanism, bears the following testimony relative to the\npoint before us:\u2014\n\n \u201cJustin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim\n to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected\n on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine\n deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of\n the impostor Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by\n a modern writer in relating a historical fact, exposure would\n immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward\n be suspected. And assuredly the same measure should be meted to\n Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact\n alluded to by Livy the historian.\u201d[555]\n\nJustin assigns the following reasons in support of Sunday observance:\n\u201cThat being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark\nvoid in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour\nrose again from the dead.\u201d Bishop Jeremy Taylor most fittingly replies to\nthis:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe first of these looks more like an excuse than a just\n reason; for if anything of the creation were made the cause of\n a Sabbath, it ought to be the end, not the beginning; it ought\n to be the rest, not the first part of the work; it ought to be\n that which God assigned, not [that] which man should take by\n way of after justification.\u201d[556]\n\nIt is to be observed, therefore, that the first trace of Sunday as a\nChristian festival is found in the church of Rome. Soon after this time,\nand thenceforward, we shall find \u201cthe bishop\u201d of that church making\nvigorous efforts to suppress the Sabbath of the Lord, and to elevate in\nits stead the festival of Sunday.\n\nIt is proper to note the fact also that Justin was a decided opponent\nof the ancient Sabbath. In his \u201cDialogue with Trypho the Jew\u201d he thus\naddressed him:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis new law teaches you to observe a perpetual Sabbath; and\n you, when you have spent one day in idleness, think you have\n discharged the duties of religion.... If any one is guilty\n of adultery, let him repent, then he hath kept the true and\n delightful Sabbath unto God.... For we really should observe\n that circumcision which is in the flesh, and the Sabbath,\n and all the feasts, if we had not known the reason why they\n were imposed upon you, namely, upon the account of your\n iniquities.... It was because of your iniquities, and the\n iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe\n the Sabbath.... You see that the heavens are not idle, nor do\n they observe the Sabbath. Continue as ye were born. For if\n before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of the\n sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now\n in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ,\n the Son of God, was by the determinate counsel of God, born of\n a virgin of the seed of Abraham without sin.\u201d[557]\n\nThis reasoning of Justin deserves no reply. It shows, however, the\nunfairness of Dr. Edwards, who quotes Justin Martyr as a witness for the\nchange of the Sabbath;[558] whereas Justin held that God made the Sabbath\non account of the wickedness of the Jews, and that he totally abrogated\nit in consequence of the first advent of Christ; the Sunday festival of\nthe heathen being evidently adopted by the church at Rome from motives\nof \u201cexpediency\u201d and perhaps of \u201cpatriotism.\u201d The testimony of Justin, if\ngenuine, is peculiarly valuable in one respect. It shows that as late as\nA. D. 140 the first day of the week had acquired no title of sacredness;\nfor Justin several times mentions the day: thrice as \u201cthe day called\nSunday\u201d and twice as \u201cthe eighth day;\u201d and by other terms also, but never\nby any sacred name.[559]\n\nThe next important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus\npresented by Dr. Edwards:\u2014\n\n \u201cHence Iren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who\n had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says that\n the Lord\u2019s day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, \u2018On\n the Lord\u2019s day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath,\n meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.\u2019\u201d[560]\n\nThis testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and\nprominently set forth in their publications. Sir Wm. Domville, whose\nelaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states\nthe following important fact relative to this quotation:\u2014\n\n \u201cI have carefully searched through all the extant works of\n Iren\u00e6us and can with certainty state that no such passage, or\n any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition\n I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure\n myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by\n Erasmus (Paris, 1563), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither\n do I find the passage in question.\u201d[561]\n\nIt is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of\nIren\u00e6us, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight\u2019s\nTheology instead of referring them to the place in the works of Iren\u00e6us\nwhere it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the\ntheological world with this invaluable quotation. Where, then, did Dwight\nobtain this testimony which has so many times been given as that of\nIren\u00e6us? On this point Domville remarks:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe had the misfortune to be afflicted with a disease in his\n eyes from the early age of twenty-three, a calamity (says\n his biographer) by which he was deprived of the capacity for\n reading and study.... The knowledge which he gained from books\n after the period above mentioned [by which the editor must mean\n his age of twenty-three] was almost exclusively at second hand,\n by the aid of others.\u201d[562]\n\nDomville states another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of\nthis quotation:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut although not to be found in Iren\u00e6us, there are in\n the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the\n interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one\n of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling\n those of Dr. Dwight\u2019s quotation as to leave no doubt of the\n source from which he quoted.\u201d[563]\n\nSuch, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Iren\u00e6us, who had\nit from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the\nworld by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who in consequence of this\ninfirmity took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle\nfalsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the\ngenuine testimony of Iren\u00e6us. Loss of eyesight, as we may charitably\nbelieve, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed;\nbut by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to\ncome in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as\nincapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of\nnatural eyesight, was of reading Iren\u00e6us for himself. This case admirably\nillustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the\nblind until both fall into the ditch.\n\nNor is this all that should be said in the case of Iren\u00e6us. In all his\nwritings there is _no instance_ in which he calls Sunday the Lord\u2019s day!\nAnd what is also very remarkable, there is no sentence extant written\nby him in which he even mentions the first day of the week![564] It\nappears, however, from several statements in ancient writers, that he did\nmention the day, though no sentence of _his_ in which it is mentioned\nis in existence. He held that the Sabbath was a typical institution,\nwhich pointed to the seventh thousand years as the great day of rest\nto the church;[565] he said that Abraham was \u201cwithout observance of\nSabbaths;\u201d[566] and yet he makes the origin of the Sabbath to be the\nsanctification of the seventh day.[567] But he expressly asserts the\nperpetuity and authority of the ten commandments, declaring that they\nare identical with the law of nature implanted from the beginning in\nmankind, that they remain permanently with us, and that if any one does\nnot observe them he has no salvation.[568]\n\nIt is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the\nbishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN\nBEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate\nthe passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches\nobserved it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what\nday of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the\nSunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good\nFriday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,[569] took upon him to\nimpose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to\nobserve the passover upon Sunday. \u201cThis bold attempt,\u201d says Bower, \u201cwe\nmay call the first essay of papal usurpation.\u201d[570] And Dowling terms it\nthe \u201cearliest instance of Romish assumption.\u201d[571] The churches of Asia\nMinor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate.\nThen, says Bower:\u2014\n\n \u201cUpon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins\n to an impotent and ungovernable passion, published bitter\n invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut\n off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to\n their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to\n have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote\n to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example,\n and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of\n Asia.\u201d[572]\n\nThe historian informs us that \u201cnot one followed his example or advice;\nnot one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least\ninclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt.\u201d He\nfurther says:\u2014\n\n \u201cVictor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors\n took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics\n peaceably followed their ancient practice till the Council\n of Nice, which out of complaisance to Constantine the Great,\n ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the\n same day, after the custom of Rome.\u201d[573]\n\nThe victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn\ntestifies,\n\n \u201cTill the great Council of Nice [A. D. 325] backed by the\n authority of as great an emperor [Constantine] settled it\n better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now\n and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that\n famous synod.\u201d[574]\n\nConstantine, by whose powerful influence the Council of Nice was induced\nto decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that is, to fix the\npassover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure:\u2014\n\n \u201cLet us then have nothing in common with the most hostile\n rabble of the Jews.\u201d[575]\n\nThis sentence is worthy of notice. A determination to have nothing in\ncommon with the Jews had very much to do with the suppression of the\nSabbath in the Christian church. Those who rejected the Sabbath of the\nLord and chose in its stead the more popular and more convenient Sunday\nfestival of the heathen, were so infatuated with the idea of having\nnothing in common with the Jews, that they never even questioned the\npropriety of a festival in common with the heathen.\n\nThis festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the\nfourteenth of the first month to the Sunday following Good Friday was the\nfirst legislation attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival;\nand as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, \u201cThe Lord\u2019s day found it no small\nmatter to obtain the victory.\u201d[576] In a brief period after the Council\nof Nice, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon\nthose who should celebrate the feast of the passover upon any other day\nthan Sunday.[577] The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their\nground against this favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as\nthe sixth century \u201cobstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the\nRoman pontiffs.\u201d[578]\n\nFour years after the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring\nus to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, who\nwrote about A. D. 200. Dr. Clarke tells us that the fathers \u201cblow hot\nand cold.\u201d Tertullian is a fair example of this. He places the origin\nof the Sabbath at the creation, but elsewhere says that the patriarchs\ndid not keep it. He says that Joshua broke the Sabbath at Jericho, and\nafterward shows that he did not break it. He says that Christ broke the\nSabbath, and in another place proves that he did not. He represents the\neighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states the\nreverse. He states that the law is abolished, and in other places teaches\nits perpetuity and authority. He declares that the Sabbath was abrogated\nby Christ, and afterward asserts that \u201cChrist did not at all rescind\nthe Sabbath,\u201d but imparted \u201can additional sanctity\u201d to \u201cthe Sabbath day\nitself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction\nof the Father.\u201d And he goes on to say that Christ \u201cfurnished to this day\ndivine safeguards\u2014a course which his adversary would have pursued for\nsome other days, to avoid honoring the Creator\u2019s Sabbath.\u201d\n\nThis last statement is very remarkable. The Saviour furnished additional\nsafeguards to the Creator\u2019s Sabbath. But \u201chis adversary\u201d would have done\nthis to some other days. Now it is plain, first, that Tertullian did\nnot believe that Christ sanctified some other day to take the place of\nthe Sabbath; and second, that he believed the consecration of another\nday to be the work of the adversary of God! When he wrote these words\nhe certainly did not believe in the sanctification of Sunday by Christ.\nBut Tertullian and his brethren found themselves observing as a festival\nthat day on which the sun was worshiped, and they were, in consequence,\ntaunted with being worshipers of the sun. Tertullian denies the charge,\nthough he acknowledges that there was some appearance of truth to it. He\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cOthers, 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\n of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself\n everywhere in his own disk. The idea, no doubt, has originated\n from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you,\n many of you, also, under pretense sometimes of worshiping\n the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the\n sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing,\n from a far different reason than sun-worship, we have some\n resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to\n ease and luxury, though they, too, go far away from Jewish\n ways, of which they are ignorant.\u201d[579]\n\nTertullian pleads no divine command nor apostolic example for this\npractice. In fact, he offers no reason for the practice, though he\nintimates that he had one to offer. But he finds it necessary in another\nwork to repel this same charge of sun-worship, because of Sunday\nobservance. In this second answer to this charge he states the ground of\ndefense more distinctly, and here we shall find his best reason. These\nare his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cOthers, with greater regard to good manners, it must be\n confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians,\n because it is a well-known fact that we pray toward the east,\n or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you\n do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation\n of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move\n your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all\n events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the\n week; and you have selected its day [Sunday], in preference to\n the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either\n an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement\n until the evening, or for taking rest, and for banqueting. By\n resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your\n own religious rites to those of strangers.\u201d[580]\n\nTertullian, in this discourse, addresses himself to the nations still\nin idolatry. With some of these, Sunday was an ancient festival; with\nothers, it was of comparatively recent date. But some of these heathen\nreproached the Sunday Christians with being sun-worshipers. And now\nobserve the answer. He does not say, \u201cWe Christians are commanded to\ncelebrate the first day of the week in honor of Christ\u2019s resurrection.\u201d\nHis answer is doubtless the best that he knew how to frame. It is a mere\nretort, and consists in asserting, first, that the Christians had done no\nmore than their accusers, the heathen; and second, that they had as good\na right to make Sunday a day of festivity as had the heathen!\n\nThe origin of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in\nthis chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a\nheathen festival in honor of the sun, and that in the first centuries\nof the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in\nthe heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a\ntender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders\nof the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by\nthe heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given\nit. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual\nobservance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of\nRome about A. D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A. D. 196,\nis by a singular coincidence the first act of papal usurpation. The\nfirst instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the\nearliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the\nwritings of Tertullian at the close of the second century. The origin of\nthe festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it\nhas ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order\nand place.\n\nOne fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great\neffort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in\nturning it into a fast while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the\neastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the western churches,\nwith the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part\nof the western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long\nstruggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn this difference it stood a long time together, till in the\n end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became\n a fast almost through all the parts of the western world. I\n say the western world, and of that alone: the eastern churches\n being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the\n sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 692, they did admonish\n those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of\n censure.\u201d[581]\n\nWm. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the\ntime when this fast originated:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning\n of the third century.\u201d[582]\n\nThus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is,\nimmediately after the year 200. Neander thus states the motive of the\nRoman church:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the western churches, particularly the Roman, where\n opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very\n opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in\n particular as a fast day.\u201d[583]\n\nBy Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the\nSabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman\nchurch in very explicit language:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day in direct\n opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday\n remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly\n business was avoided as much as possible, but the original\n commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not\n then applied to that day.\u201d[584]\n\nLord King attests this fact in the following words:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome of the western churches, that they might not seem to\n Judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus Petavionensis\n writes: We use to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom\n then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe\n the Sabbath.\u201d[585]\n\nThus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render\nit despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman\nchurch toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.\n\n The history of first-day observance compared with that of the\n popes\u2014First-day observance defined in the very words of each of\n the early fathers who mention it\u2014The reasons which each had for\n its observance stated in his own words\u2014Sunday in their judgment\n of no higher sacredness than Easter or Whitsunday, or even than\n the fifty days between those festivals\u2014Sunday not a day of\n abstinence from labor\u2014The reasons which are offered by those of\n them who rejected the Sabbath stated in their own words.\n\n\nThe history of first-day observance in the Christian church may be fitly\nillustrated by that of the bishops of Rome. The Roman bishop now claims\nsupreme power over all the churches of Christ. He asserts that this power\nwas given to Peter, and by him was transmitted to the bishops of Rome; or\nrather that Peter was the first Roman bishop, and that a succession of\nsuch bishops from his time to the present have exercised this absolute\npower in the church. They are able to trace back their line to apostolic\ntimes, and they assert that the power now claimed by the pope was claimed\nand exercised by the first pastors of the church of the Romans. Those who\nnow acknowledge the supremacy of the pope believe this assertion, and\nwith them it is a conclusive evidence that the pope is by divine right\npossessed of supreme power. But the assertion is absolutely false. The\nearly pastors, or bishops, or elders, of the church of the Romans were\nmodest, unassuming ministers of Christ, wholly unlike the arrogant bishop\nof Rome, who now usurps the place of Christ as the head of the Christian\nchurch.\n\nThe first day of the week now claims to be the Christian Sabbath, and\nenforces its authority by means of the fourth commandment, having set\naside the seventh day, which that commandment enjoins, and usurped\nits place. Its advocates assert that this position and this authority\nwere given to it by Christ. As no record of such gift is found in the\nScriptures, the principal argument in its support is furnished by tracing\nfirst-day observance back to the early Christians, who, it is said, would\nnot have hallowed the day if they had not been instructed to do it by the\napostles; and the apostles would not have taught them to do it if Christ\nhad not, in their presence, changed the Sabbath.\n\nBut first-day observance can be traced no nearer to apostolic times than\nA. D. 140, while the bishops of Rome can trace their line to the very\ntimes of the apostles. Herein is the papal claim to apostolic authority\nbetter than is that of the first-day Sabbath. But with this exception,\nthe historical argument in behalf of each is the same. Both began with\nvery moderate pretensions, and gradually gaining in power and sacredness,\ngrew up in strength together.\n\nLet us now go to those who were the earliest observers of Sunday and\nlearn from them the nature of that observance at its commencement.\nWe shall find, first, that no one claimed for first-day observance\nany divine authority; second, that none of them had ever heard of the\nchange of the Sabbath, and none believed the first-day festival to be a\ncontinuation of the Sabbatic institution; third, that labor on that day\nis never set forth as sinful, and that abstinence from labor is never\nmentioned as a feature of its observance, nor even implied, only so far\nas necessary in order to spend a portion of the day in worship; fourth,\nthat if we put together all the hints respecting Sunday observance, which\nare scattered through the fathers of the first three centuries, for no\none of them gives more than two of these, and generally a single hint is\nall that is found in one writer, we shall find just four items: (1) an\nassembly on that day in which the Bible was read and expounded, and the\nsupper celebrated, and money collected; (2) that the day must be one of\nrejoicing; (3) that it must not be a day of fasting; (4) that the knee\nmust not be bent in prayer on that day.\n\nThe following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day\nobservance during the first three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed\nto Barnabas simply says: \u201cWe keep the eighth day with joyfulness.\u201d[586]\nJustin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the\nkind of meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that\nday, and this is all that he connects with its observance.[587] Iren\u00e6us\ntaught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee must not be bent\non that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This\nact of standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to\nbe celebrated only on that day, as he held.[588] Bardesanes the Gnostic\nrepresents the Christians as everywhere meeting for worship on that day,\nbut he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to\nthe day.[589] Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: \u201cWe\ndevote Sunday to rejoicing,\u201d and he adds, \u201cWe have some resemblance to\nthose of you who devote the day of Saturn to _ease_ and _luxury_.\u201d[590]\nIn another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character\nof Sunday. Thus he says to his brethren: \u201cIf any _indulgence is to be\ngranted to the flesh_, you have it. I will not say your own days, but\nmore too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually;\nyou have _a festive_ day _every eighth day_.\u201d[591] Dr. Heylyn spoke the\ntruth when he said:\u2014\n\n \u201cTertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly\n unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when\n in a hundred years after Tertullian\u2019s time there was no law\n or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the\n Christian church.\u201d[592]\n\nThe Sunday festival in Tertullian\u2019s time was not like the modern\nfirst-day Sabbath, but was essentially the German festival of Sunday,\na day for worship and for recreation, and one on which labor was not\nsinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and\nthe words now to be quoted have been used as proof that labor on that day\nwas counted sinful. This is the only statement that can be found prior to\nConstantine\u2019s Sunday law that has such an appearance, and the proof is\ndecisive that such was not its meaning. Here are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the\n Lord\u2019s resurrection, ought to guard, not only against kneeling,\n but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our\n businesses, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly,\n too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by\n the same solemnity of exultation.\u201d[593]\n\nHe speaks of \u201cdeferring even our businesses;\u201d but this does not\nnecessarily imply anything more than its postponement during the hours\ndevoted to religious services. It falls very far short of saying that\nlabor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian\u2019s next mention of\nSunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted. Thus he\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord\u2019s day to\n be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter\n to Whitsunday.\u201d[594]\n\nThese two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the\nfathers set down as unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be\nincluded by some in the list. It is certain that labor is never thus\nmentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important statement\nof the previous quotation that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to\nthe \u201cperiod of Pentecost,\u201d that is, to the fifty days between Easter or\nPassover and Whitsunday or Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday\nwas in Tertullian\u2019s estimation sinful, the same was true for the period\nof Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can\nconceive of the deferral of business for one religious assembly each\nday for fifty days, and also that men should neither fast nor kneel\nduring that time, which was precisely what the religious celebration of\nSunday actually was. But to make Tertullian assert that labor on Sunday\nwas a sin is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days\ntogether, which no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian.\n\nIn another work Tertullian gives us one more statement respecting the\nnature of Sunday observance: \u201cWe make Sunday a day of festivity. What\nthen? Do you do less than this?\u201d[595] His language is very extraordinary\nwhen it is considered that he was addressing heathen. It seems that\nSunday as a Christian festival was so similar to the festival which\nthese heathen observed that he could challenge them to show wherein the\nChristians went further than did these heathen whom he here addressed.\n\nThe next father who gives us the nature of early Sunday observance is\nPeter of Alexandria. He says: \u201cBut the Lord\u2019s day we celebrate as a day\nof joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for\na custom not even to bow the knee.\u201d[596] He marks two things essential.\nIt must be a day of joy, and Christians must not kneel on that day.\nZonaras, an ancient commentator on these words of Peter, explains the day\nof joy by saying, \u201cWe ought not to fast; for it is a day of joy for the\nresurrection of the Lord.\u201d[597] Next in order, we quote the so-called\nApostolical Constitutions. These command Christians to assemble for\nworship every day, \u201cbut principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of\nour Lord\u2019s resurrection, which is the Lord\u2019s day, meet more diligently,\nsending praise to God,\u201d etc. The object of assembling was \u201cto hear the\nsaving word concerning the resurrection,\u201d to \u201cpray thrice standing,\u201d to\nhave the prophets read, to have preaching and also the supper.[598]\nThese \u201cConstitutions\u201d not only give the nature of the worship on Sunday\nas just set forth, but they also give us an idea of Sunday as a day of\nfestivity:\u2014\n\n \u201cNow 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\n Lord\u2019s days_, which are days of joy, to speak or act anything\n unseemly.\u201d[599]\n\nThis language plainly implies that the so-called Lord\u2019s day was a day of\ngreater mirth than the other days of the week. Even on the Lord\u2019s day\nthey must not speak or act anything unseemly, though it is evident that\ntheir license on that day was greater than on other days. Once more these\n\u201cConstitutions\u201d give us the nature of Sunday observance: \u201cEvery Sabbath\nday excepting one, and every Lord\u2019s day hold your solemn assemblies, and\nrejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[600]\nBut no one can read so much as once that \u201che is guilty of sin who\nperforms work on this day.\u201d\n\nNext, we quote the epistle to the Magnesians in its longer form, which\nthough not written by Ignatius was actually written about the time that\nthe Apostolical Constitutions were committed to writing. Here are the\nwords of this epistle:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of\n Christ keep the Lord\u2019s day as a festival, the resurrection day,\n the queen and chief of all the days.\u201d[601]\n\nThe writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa comes last, and he\ndefines the services of Sunday as follows: \u201cOn the first [day] of the\nweek, let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and\nthe oblation.\u201d[602] These are all the passages in the writings of the\nfirst three centuries which describe early first-day observance. Let\nthe reader judge whether we have correctly stated the nature of that\nobservance. Next we invite attention to the several reasons offered by\nthese fathers for celebrating the festival of Sunday.\n\nThe reputed epistle of Barnabas supports the Sunday festival by saying\nthat it was the day \u201con which Jesus rose again from the dead,\u201d and it\nintimates that it prefigures the eighth thousand years, when God shall\ncreate the world anew.[603]\n\nJustin Martyr has four reasons:\u2014\n\n1. \u201cIt is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the\ndarkness and matter, made the world.\u201d[604]\n\n2. \u201cJesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.\u201d[605]\n\n3. \u201cIt is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain\nmysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which\nwas promulgated by God through these rites,\u201d[606] _i. e._, through\ncircumcision.\n\n4. \u201cThe command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise\nthe children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by\nwhich we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose\nfrom the dead on the first day after the Sabbath.\u201d[607]\n\nClement, of Alexandria, appears to treat solely of a mystical eighth\nday or Lord\u2019s day. It is perhaps possible that he has some reference to\nSunday. We therefore quote what he says in behalf of this day, calling\nattention to the fact that he produces his testimony, not from the Bible,\nbut from a heathen philosopher. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd the Lord\u2019s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth\n book of the _Republic_, in these words: \u2018And when seven days\n have passed to each of them in the meadow on the eighth day\n they are to set out and arrive in four days.\u2019\u201d[608]\n\nClement\u2019s reasons for Sunday are found outside the Scriptures. The next\nfather will give us a good reason for Clement\u2019s action in this case.\n\nTertullian is the next writer who gives reasons for the Sunday festival.\nHe is speaking of \u201cofferings for the dead,\u201d the manner of Sunday\nobservance, and the use of the sign of the cross upon the forehead. Here\nis the ground on which these observances rest:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having\n positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition\n will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as\n their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason\n will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either\n yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.\u201d[609]\n\nTertullian\u2019s frankness is to be commended. He had no Scripture to offer,\nand he acknowledges the fact. He depended on tradition, and he was not\nashamed to confess it. The next of the fathers who gives Scripture\nevidence in support of the Sunday festival, is Origen. Here are his\nwords:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe manna fell on the Lord\u2019s day, and not on the Sabbath to\n show the Jews that even then the Lord\u2019s day was preferred\n before it.\u201d[610]\n\nOrigen seems to have been of Tertullian\u2019s judgment as to the\ninconclusiveness of the arguments adduced by his predecessors. He\ntherefore coined an original argument which seems to have been very\nconclusive in his estimation as he offers this alone. But he must have\nforgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would\nhave seen that while his argument does not elevate Sunday above the other\nfive working days, it does make the Sabbath the least reputable day of\nthe seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly designed to set\nforth the sacredness of the Sabbath and to establish its authority before\nthe people. Cyprian is the next father who gives an argument for the\nSunday festival. He contents himself with one of Justin\u2019s old arguments,\nviz., that one drawn from circumcision. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the\n Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given\n beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it\n was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is,\n the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the\n Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us\n circumcision of the Spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first\n day after the Sabbath, and the Lord\u2019s day, went before in the\n figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and\n spiritual circumcision was given to us.\u201d[611]\n\nSuch is the only argument adduced by Cyprian in behalf of the first-day\nfestival. The circumcision of infants when eight days old was, in his\njudgment, a type of infant baptism. But circumcision on the eighth day of\nthe child\u2019s life, in his estimation, did not signify that baptism need to\nbe deferred till the infant is eight days old, but, as here stated, did\nsignify that the eighth day was to be the Lord\u2019s day! But the eighth day,\non which circumcision took place, was not the first day of the week, but\nthe eighth day of each child\u2019s life, whatever day of the week that might\nbe.\n\nThe next father who gives a reason for celebrating Sunday as a day of\njoy, and refraining from kneeling on it, is Peter of Alexandria, who\nsimply says, \u201cBecause on it he rose again.\u201d[612]\n\nNext in order come the Apostolical Constitutions, which assert that the\nSunday festival is a memorial of the resurrection:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut keep the Sabbath, and the Lord\u2019s day festival; because the\n former is a memorial of the creation, and the latter of the\n resurrection.\u201d[613]\n\nThe writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine\nauthority in memory of the resurrection. But the next person who gives\nhis reasons for keeping Sunday \u201cas a festival\u201d is the writer of the\nlonger form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. He\nfinds the eighth day prophetically set forth in the title to the sixth\nand twelfth psalms! In the margin, the word Sheminith is translated \u201cthe\neighth.\u201d Here is this writer\u2019s argument for Sunday:\u2014\n\n \u201cLooking forward to this, the prophet declared, \u2018To the end for\n the eighth day,\u2019 on which our life both sprang up again, and\n the victory over death was obtained in Christ.\u201d[614]\n\nThere is yet another of the fathers of the first three centuries who\ngives the reasons then used in support of the Sunday festival. This is\nthe writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in\norder and closes the list. Here are four reasons:\u2014\n\n 1. \u201cBecause on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the\n place of the dead.\u201d[615]\n\n 2. \u201cOn the first day of the week he arose upon the world,\u201d[616]\n _i. e._, he was born upon Sunday.\n\n 3. \u201cOn the first day of the week he ascended up to Heaven.\u201d[617]\n\n 4. \u201cOn the first day of the week he will appear at last with\n the angels of Heaven.\u201d[618]\n\nThe first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of\nhis own heart for doing what God never commanded; the second and fourth\nare mere assertions of which mankind know nothing; while the third is a\npositive untruth, for the ascension was upon Thursday.\n\nWe have now presented every reason for the Sunday festival which can be\nfound in all the writings of the first three centuries. Though generally\nvery trivial, and sometimes worse than trivial, they are nevertheless\nworthy of careful study. They constitute a decisive testimony that the\nchange of the Sabbath by Christ or by his apostles from the seventh to\nthe first day of the week was absolutely unknown during that entire\nperiod. But were it true that such change had been made they must\nhave known it. Had they believed that Christ changed the Sabbath to\ncommemorate his resurrection, how emphatically would they have stated\nthat fact instead of offering reasons for the festival of Sunday which\nare so worthless as to be, with one or two exceptions, entirely discarded\nby modern first-day writers. Or had they believed that the apostles\nhonored Sunday as the Sabbath or Lord\u2019s day, how would they have produced\nthese facts in triumph! But Tertullian said that they had no positive\nScripture injunction for the Sunday festival, and the others, by offering\nreasons that were only devised in their own hearts, corroborated his\ntestimony, and all of them together establish the fact that even in their\nown estimation the day was only sustained by the authority of the church.\nThey were totally unacquainted with the modern doctrine that the seventh\nday in the commandment means simply one day in seven, and that the\nSaviour, to commemorate his resurrection, appointed that the first day of\nthe week should be that one of the seven to which the commandment should\napply!\n\nWe have given every statement in the fathers of the first three centuries\nin which the manner of celebrating the Sunday festival is set forth. We\nhave also given every reason for that observance which is to be found in\nany of them. These two classes of testimonies show clearly that ordinary\nlabor was not one of the things which were forbidden on that day. We\nnow offer direct proof that other days which on all hands are accounted\nnothing but church festivals were expressly declared by the fathers to be\nequal if not superior in sacredness to the Sunday festival.\n\nThe \u201cLost Writings of Iren\u00e6us\u201d gives us his mind concerning the relative\nsacredness of the festival of Sunday and that of either Easter or\nPentecost. This is the statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cUpon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is\n of _equal significance_ with the Lord\u2019s day, for the reason\n already alleged concerning it.\u201d[619]\n\nTertullian in a passage already quoted, which by omitting the sentence\nwe are about to quote, has been used as the strongest testimony to the\nfirst-day Sabbath in the fathers, expressly equals in sacredness the\nperiod of Pentecost\u2014a space of fifty days\u2014with the festival which he\ncalls Lord\u2019s day. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cSimilarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we\n distinguish by _the same solemnity of exultation_.\u201d[620]\n\nHe states the same fact in another work:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord\u2019s day\n to be unlawful. We rejoice _in the same privilege_ also from\n Easter to Whitsunday.\u201d[621]\n\nOrigen classes the so-called Lord\u2019s day with three other church\nfestivals:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are\n accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord\u2019s\n day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to\n answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his\n thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the\n Word, all his days are the Lord\u2019s, and he is always keeping the\n Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[622]\n\nIren\u00e6us and Tertullian make the Sunday Lord\u2019s day equal in sacredness\nwith the period from the Passover to the Pentecost; but Origen, after\nclassing the day with several church festivals, virtually confesses that\nit has no pre-eminence above other days.\n\nCommodianus, who once uses the term Lord\u2019s day, speaks of the\nCatholic festival of the Passover as \u201cEaster, that day of ours _most\nblessed_.\u201d[623] This certainly indicates that in his estimation no other\nsacred day was superior in sanctity to Easter.\n\nThe \u201cApostolical Constitutions\u201d treat the Sunday festival in the same\nmanner that it is treated by Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian. They make it equal\nto the sacredness of the period from Easter to the Pentecost. Thus they\nsay:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord\u2019s day, being\n the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost,\n or in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord.\u201d[624]\n\nThese testimonies prove conclusively that the festival of Sunday, in the\njudgment of such men as Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, and others, stood in the\nsame rank with that of Easter, or Whitsunday. They had no idea that one\nwas commanded by God, while the others were only ordained by the church.\nIndeed, Tertullian, as we have seen, expressly declares that there is no\nprecept for Sunday observance.[625]\n\nBesides these important facts, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was\nnot a day of abstinence from labor, and our first witness is Justin, the\nearliest witness to the Sunday festival in the Christian church. Trypho\nthe Jew said to Justin, by way of reproof, \u201cYou observe no festivals or\nSabbaths.\u201d[626] This was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the\nstatement that, though he did not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath,\nhe did thus rest on the first day of the week, if it were true that that\nday was with him a day of abstinence from labor. But he gives no such\nanswer. He sneers at the very idea of abstinence from labor, declaring\nthat \u201cGod does not take pleasure in such observances.\u201d Nor does he\nintimate that this is because the Jews did not rest upon the right day,\nbut he condemns the very idea of refraining from labor for a day, stating\nthat \u201cthe new law,\u201d which has taken the place of the commandments given\non Sinai[627] requires a perpetual Sabbath, and this is kept by repenting\nof sin and refraining from its commission. Here are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe new law requires you to keep a 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.\n The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances:\n if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him\n cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has\n kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.\u201d[628]\n\nThis language plainly implies that Justin did not believe that any day\nshould be kept as a Sabbath by abstinence from labor, but that all days\nshould be kept as sabbaths by abstinence from sin. This testimony is\ndecisive, and it is in exact harmony with the facts already adduced\nfrom the fathers, and with others yet to be presented. Moreover, it is\nconfirmed by the express testimony of Tertullian. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cBy us (to whom _Sabbaths are strange_, and the new moons,\n and festivals formerly beloved by God) the Saturnalia and\n new year\u2019s and mid-winter\u2019s festivals and Matronalia are\n frequented.\u201d[629]\n\nAnd he adds in the same paragraph, in words already quoted:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf _any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh_, you have\n it. I will not say _your own days_, but _more too_; for to the\n _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once annually; you have\n a _festive day every eighth day_.\u201d[630]\n\nTertullian tells his brethren in plain language that they kept no\nsabbaths, but did keep many heathen festivals. If the Sunday festival,\nwhich was a day of \u201cindulgence\u201d to the flesh, and which he here mentions\nas the \u201ceighth day,\u201d was kept by them as the Christian Sabbath in place\nof the ancient seventh day, then he would not have asserted that to us\n\u201csabbaths are strange.\u201d But Tertullian has precisely the same Sabbath as\nJustin Martyr. He does not keep the first day in place of the seventh,\nbut he keeps a \u201cperpetual sabbath,\u201d in which he professes to refrain from\nsin every day, and actually abstains from labor on none. Thus, after\nsaying that the Jews teach that \u201cfrom the beginning God sanctified the\nseventh day\u201d and therefore observe that day, he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to\n observe a Sabbath from all \u2018servile work\u2019 always, and not only\n every seventh day, but through all time.\u201d[631]\n\nTertullian certainly had no idea that Sunday was the Sabbath in any other\nsense than were all the seven days of the week. We shall find a decisive\nconfirmation of this when we come to quote Tertullian respecting the\norigin of the Sabbath. We shall also find that Clement expressly makes\nSunday a day of labor.\n\nSeveral of the early fathers wrote in opposition to the observance of\nthe seventh day. We now give the reasons assigned by each for that\nopposition. The writer called Barnabas did not keep the seventh day, not\nbecause it was a ceremonial ordinance unworthy of being observed by a\nChristian, but because it was so pure an institution that even Christians\ncannot truly sanctify it till they are made immortal. Here are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cAttend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, \u2018He\n finished in six days.\u2019 This implieth that the Lord will finish\n all things in six thousand years, for a day is with him a\n thousand years. And he himself testifieth, saying, \u2018Behold,\n to-day will be as a thousand years.\u2019 Therefore, my children,\n in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will\n be finished. And he rested on the seventh day.\u2019 This meaneth:\n When his Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the\n wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the\n moon, and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh\n day. Moreover, he says, \u2018Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands\n and a pure heart.\u2019 If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the\n day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in\n all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then\n one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having\n received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all\n things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work\n righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having\n been first sanctified ourselves. Further he says to them, \u2018Your\n new moons and your sabbaths I cannot endure.\u2019 Ye perceive how\n he speaks: Your present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but\n that is which I have made [namely this], when, giving rest to\n all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that\n is, a beginning of another world, wherefore, also, we keep the\n eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose\n again from the dead.\u201d[632]\n\nObserve the points embodied in this statement of doctrine: 1. He asserts\nthat the six days of creation prefigure the six thousand years which our\nworld shall endure in its present state of wickedness. 2. He teaches that\nat the end of that period Christ shall come again and make an end of\nwickedness, and \u201cthen shall he truly rest on the seventh day.\u201d 3. That\nno \u201cone can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is\npure in heart in all things.\u201d 4. But that cannot be the case until the\npresent world shall pass away, \u201cwhen we ourselves, having received the\npromise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made\nnew by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be\nable to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.\u201d Men cannot,\ntherefore, keep the Sabbath while this wicked world lasts. 5. Therefore,\nhe says, \u201cYour present sabbaths are not acceptable,\u201d not because they\nare not pure, but because you are not now able to keep them as purely as\ntheir nature demands. 6. That is to say, the keeping of the day which\nGod has sanctified is not possible in such a wicked world as this. 7.\nBut though the seventh day cannot now be kept, the eighth day can be,\nand ought to be, because when the seven thousand years are past, there\nwill be at the beginning of the eighth thousand, the new creation. 8.\nTherefore, he did not attempt to keep the seventh day, which God had\nsanctified; for that is too pure to be kept in the present wicked world,\nand can only be kept after the Saviour comes at the commencement of the\nseventh thousand years; but he kept the eighth day with joyfulness on\nwhich Jesus arose from the dead. 9. So it appears that the eighth day,\nwhich God never sanctified, is exactly suitable for observance in our\nworld during its present state of wickedness. 10. But when all things\nhave been made new, and we are able to work righteousness, and wickedness\nno longer exists, then we shall be able to sanctify the seventh day,\nhaving first been sanctified ourselves.\n\nThe reason of Barnabas for not observing the Sabbath of the Lord is not\nthat the commandment enjoining it is abolished, but that the institution\nis so pure that men in their present imperfect state cannot acceptably\nsanctify it. They will keep it, however, in the new creation, but in the\nmeantime they keep with joyfulness the eighth day, which having never\nbeen sanctified by God is not difficult to keep in the present state of\nwickedness.\n\nJustin Martyr\u2019s reasons for not observing the Sabbath are not at all\nlike those of the so-called Barnabas, for Justin seems to have heartily\ndespised the Sabbatic institution. He denies that it was obligatory\nbefore the time of Moses, and affirms that it was abolished by the advent\nof Christ. He teaches that it was given to the Jews because of their\nwickedness, and he expressly affirms the abolition of both the Sabbath\nand the law. So far is he from teaching the change of the Sabbath from\nthe seventh to the first day of the week, or from making the Sunday\nfestival a continuation of the ancient Sabbatic institution, that he\nsneers at the very idea of days of abstinence from labor, or days of\nidleness, and though God gives as his reason for the observance of the\nSabbath, that that was the day on which he rested from all his work,\nJustin gives as his first reason for the Sunday festival that that was\nthe day on which God began his work! Of abstinence from labor as an act\nof obedience to the Sabbath, Justin says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Lord our God does not take pleasure in such\n observances.\u201d[633]\n\nA second reason for not observing the Sabbath is thus stated by him:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor 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\u2014namely, on account of your\n transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.\u201d[634]\n\nAs Justin never discriminates between the Sabbath of the Lord and the\nannual sabbaths he doubtless here means to include it as well as them.\nBut what a falsehood is it to assert that the Sabbath was given to the\nJews because of their wickedness! The truth is, it was given to the\nJews because of the universal apostasy of the Gentiles.[635] But in the\nfollowing paragraph Justin gives three more reasons for not keeping the\nSabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cDo you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no\n Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of\n circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths,\n of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there\n of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus\n Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin\n sprung from the stock of Abraham.\u201d[636]\n\nHere are three reasons: 1. \u201cThat the elements are not idle, and keep no\nSabbaths.\u201d Though this reason is simply worthless as an argument against\nthe seventh day, it is a decisive confirmation of the fact already\nproven, that Justin did not make Sunday a day of abstinence from labor.\n2. His second reason here given is that there was no observance of\nSabbaths before Moses, and yet we do know that God at the beginning did\nappoint the Sabbath to a holy use, a fact to which as we shall see quite\na number of the fathers testify, and we also know that in that age were\nmen who kept all the precepts of God. 3. There is no need of Sabbatic\nobservance since Christ. Though this is mere assertion, it is by no means\neasy for those to meet it fairly who represent Justin as maintaining the\nChristian Sabbath.\n\nAnother argument by Justin against the obligation of the Sabbath is\nthat God \u201cdirects the government of the universe on this day equally as\non all others!\u201d[637] as though this were inconsistent with the present\nsacredness of the Sabbath, when it is also true that God thus governed\nthe world in the period when Justin acknowledges the Sabbath to have\nbeen obligatory. Though this reason is trivial as an argument against\nthe Sabbath, it does show that Justin could have attached no Sabbatic\ncharacter to Sunday. But he has yet one more argument against the\nSabbath. The ancient law has been done away by the new and final law, and\nthe old covenant has been superseded by the new.[638] But he forgets\nthat the design of the new covenant was not to do away with the law of\nGod, but to put that law into the heart of every Christian. And many of\nthe fathers, as we shall see, expressly repudiate this doctrine of the\nabrogation of the Decalogue.\n\nSuch were Justin\u2019s reasons for rejecting the ancient Sabbath. But though\nhe was a decided asserter of the abrogation of the law, and of the\nSabbatic institution itself, and kept Sunday only as a festival, modern\nfirst-day writers cite him as a witness in support of the doctrine that\nthe first day of the week should be observed as the Christian Sabbath on\nthe authority of the fourth commandment.\n\nNow let us learn what stood in the way of Iren\u00e6us\u2019 observance of the\nSabbath. It was not that the commandments were abolished, for we shall\npresently learn that he taught their perpetuity. Nor was it that he\nbelieved in the change of the Sabbath, for he gives no hint of such an\nidea. The Sunday festival in his estimation appears to have been simply\nof \u201cequal significance\u201d with the Pentecost.[639] Nor was it that Christ\nbroke the Sabbath, for Iren\u00e6us says that he did not.[640] But because\nthe Sabbath is called a sign he regarded it as significant of the future\nkingdom, and appears to have considered it no longer obligatory, though\nhe does not expressly say this. Thus he sets forth the meaning of the\nSabbath as held by him:\u2014\n\n \u201cMoreover the Sabbaths of God, _that is, the kingdom_, was, as\n it were, indicated by created things,\u201d etc.[641]\n\n \u201cThese [promises to the righteous] are [to take place] in _the\n times of the kingdom_, that is, upon the seventh day which has\n been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which\n he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous,\u201d[642]\n etc.\n\n \u201cFor the day of the Lord is as a thousand years: and in six\n days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore,\n that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.\u201d[643]\n\nBut Iren\u00e6us did not notice that the Sabbath as a sign does not point\nforward to the restitution, but backward to the creation, that it may\nsignify that the true God is the Creator.[644] Nor did he observe the\nfact that when the kingdom of God shall be established under the whole\nheaven all flesh shall hallow the Sabbath.[645]\n\nBut he says that those who lived before Moses were justified \u201cwithout\nobservance of Sabbaths,\u201d and offers as proof that the covenant at\nHoreb was not made with the fathers. Of course if this proves that the\npatriarchs were free from obligation toward the fourth commandment, it\nis equally good as proof that they might violate any other. These things\nindicate that Iren\u00e6us was opposed to Sabbatic observance, though he did\nnot in express language assert its abrogation, and did in most decisive\nterms assert the continued obligation of the ten commandments.\n\nTertullian offers numerous reasons for not observing the Sabbath, but\nthere is scarcely one of these that he does not in some other place\nexpressly contradict. Thus he asserts that the patriarchs before Moses\ndid not observe the Sabbath.[646] But he offers no proof, and he\nelsewhere dates the origin of the Sabbath at the creation,[647] as we\nshall show hereafter. In several places he teaches the abrogation of\nthe law, and seems to set aside moral law as well as ceremonial. But\nelsewhere, as we shall show, he bears express testimony that the ten\ncommandments are still binding as the rule of the Christian\u2019s life.[648]\nHe quotes the words of Isaiah in which God is represented as hating the\nfeasts, new-moons, and sabbaths observed by the Jews,[649] as proof\nthat the seventh-day Sabbath was a temporary institution which Christ\nabrogated. But in another place he says: \u201c_Christ did not at all rescind\nthe Sabbath_: he kept the law thereof.\u201d[650] And he also explains this\nvery text by stating that God\u2019s aversion toward the Sabbaths observed by\nthe Jews was \u201cbecause they were celebrated without the fear of God by a\npeople full of iniquities,\u201d and adds that the prophet, in a later passage\nspeaking of Sabbaths celebrated according to God\u2019s commandment, \u201cdeclares\nthem to be true, delightful, and inviolable.\u201d[651] Another statement is\nthat Joshua violated the Sabbath in the siege of Jericho.[652] Yet he\nelsewhere explains this very case, showing that the commandment forbids\nour own work, not God\u2019s. Those who acted at Jericho did \u201cnot do their own\nwork, but God\u2019s, which they executed, and that, too, from his express\ncommandment.\u201d[653] He also both asserts and denies that Christ violated\nthe Sabbath.[654] Tertullian was a double-minded man. He wrote much\nagainst the law and the Sabbath, but he also contradicted and exposed his\nown errors.\n\nOrigen attempts to prove that the ancient Sabbath is to be understood\nmystically or spiritually, and not literally. Here is his argument:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2018Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings: no one shall\n move from his place on the Sabbath day.\u2019 Which precept it is\n impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day\n so as not to move from the place where he sat down.\u201d[655]\n\nGreat men are not always wise. There is no such precept in the Bible.\nOrigen referred to that which forbade the people to go out for manna on\nthe Sabbath, but which did not conflict with another that commanded holy\nconvocations or assemblies for worship on the Sabbath.[656]\n\nVictorinus is the latest of the fathers before Constantine who offers\nreasons against the observance of the Sabbath. His first reason is that\nChrist said by Isaiah that his soul hated the Sabbath; which Sabbath he\nin his body abolished; and these assertions we have seen answered by\nTertullian.[657] His second reason is that \u201cJesus [Joshua] the son of\nNave [Nun], the successor of Moses, himself broke the Sabbath day,\u201d[658]\nwhich is false. His third reason is that \u201cMatthias [a Maccabean] also,\nprince of Judah, broke the Sabbath,\u201d[659] which is doubtless false, but\nis of no consequence as authority. His fourth argument is original, and\nmay fitly close the list of reasons assigned in the early fathers for not\nobserving the Sabbath. It is given in full without an answer:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the\n rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath.\u201d[660]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nTHE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS.\n\n The first reasons for neglecting the Sabbath are now\n mostly obsolete\u2014A portion of the early fathers taught the\n perpetuity of the decalogue, and made it the standard of moral\n character\u2014What they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath\n at Creation\u2014Their testimony concerning the perpetuity of the\n ancient Sabbath, and concerning its observance\u2014Enumeration of\n the things which caused the suppression of the Sabbath and the\n elevation of Sunday.\n\n\nThe reasons offered by the early fathers for neglecting the observance\nof the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no special light on the\nsubject by reason of living in the first centuries, which we in this\nlater age do not possess. The fact is, so many of the reasons offered by\nthem are manifestly false and absurd that those who in these days discard\nthe Sabbath, do also discard the most of the reasons offered by these\nfathers for this same course. We have also learned from such of the early\nfathers as mention first-day observance, the exact nature of the Sunday\nfestival, and all the reasons which in the first centuries were offered\nin its support. Very few indeed of these reasons are now offered by\nmodern first-day writers.\n\nBut some of the fathers bear emphatic testimony to the perpetuity of the\nten commandments, and make their observance the condition of eternal\nlife. Some of them also distinctly assert the origin of the Sabbath at\ncreation. Several of them moreover either bear witness to the existence\nof Sabbath-keepers, or bear decisive testimony to the perpetuity and\nobligation of the Sabbath, or define the nature of proper Sabbatic\nobservance, or connect the observance of the Sabbath and first day\ntogether. Let us now hear the testimony of those who assert the authority\nof the ten commandments. Iren\u00e6us asserts their perpetuity, and makes them\na test of Christian character. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor God at the first, indeed, warning them [the Jews] by\n means of _natural precepts_, which _from the beginning he had\n implanted in mankind_, that is, by means of _the_ DECALOGUE\n (_which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation_),\n did then demand nothing more of them.\u201d[661]\n\nThis is a very strong statement. He makes the ten commandments the law\nof nature implanted in man\u2019s being at the beginning; and so inherited\nby all mankind. This is no doubt true. It is the presence of the carnal\nmind or law of sin and death, implanted in man by the fall, that has\npartially obliterated this law, and made the work of the new covenant a\nnecessity.[662] He again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the ten\ncommandments:\u2014\n\n \u201cPreparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in\n his own person to all alike the words of the Decalogue: and\n therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us,\n receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and\n increase, but not abrogation.\u201d[663]\n\nBy the \u201cextension\u201d of the decalogue, Iren\u00e6us doubtless means the\nexposition which the Saviour gave of the meaning of the commandments in\nhis sermon on the mount.[664] Theophilus speaks in like manner concerning\nthe decalogue:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor God has given us a law and holy commandments; and _every\n one_ who _keeps_ these _can be saved_, and, obtaining the\n resurrection, can inherit incorruption.\u201d[665]\n\n \u201cWe have learned a holy law; but we have as Law-giver him who\n is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be\n pious, and to do good.\u201d[666]\n\n \u201cOf this great and wonderful law which tends to all\n righteousness, the TEN HEADS are such as we have already\n rehearsed.\u201d[667]\n\nTertullian calls the ten commandments \u201cthe rules of our regenerate life,\u201d\nthat is to say, the rules which govern the life of a converted man:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey who theorize respecting numbers, honor the number ten\n as the parent of all the others, and as imparting perfection\n to the human nativity. For my own part, I prefer viewing this\n measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the\n ten months rather initiated man into _the ten commandments_; so\n that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate\n our natural birth should correspond to the numerical\n classification of _the rules of our regenerate life_.\u201d[668]\n\nIn showing the deep guilt involved in the violation of the seventh\ncommandment, Tertullian speaks of the sacredness of the commandments\nwhich precede it, naming several of them in particular, and among them\nthe fourth, and then says of the precept against adultery that\n\n It stands \u201cin the very forefront of _the most holy law_, among\n the _primary counts_ of the _celestial edict_.\u201d[669]\n\nClement of Rome, or rather the author whose works have been ascribed to\nthis father, speaks thus of the decalogue as a test:\u2014\n\n \u201cOn account of those, therefore, who, by neglect of their own\n salvation, please the evil one, and those who, by study of\n 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.\u201d[670]\n\nNovatian, who wrote about A. D. 250, is accounted the founder of the sect\ncalled _Cathari_ or Puritans. He wrote a treatise on the Sabbath, which\nis not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of his writings. He\nmakes the following striking remarks concerning the moral law:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose,\n that they might profit by it, and RETURN _to those virtuous\n manners_ which, although _they had received them from their\n fathers_, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their\n intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those _ten\n commandments_ on the tables teach nothing _new_, but _remind\n them of what had been obliterated_\u2014that righteousness in them,\n which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by\n the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a fire [nearly\n extinguished].\u201d[671]\n\nIt is evident that in the judgment of Novatian, the ten commandments\nenjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by the patriarchs\nbefore Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows, therefore, that, in his\nopinion, the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of the manna, but when\nGod sanctified the seventh day, and that holy men from the earliest ages\nobserved it.\n\nThe Apostolical Constitutions, written about the third century, give us\nan understanding of what was widely regarded in the third century as\napostolic doctrine. They speak thus of the ten commandments:\u2014\n\n \u201cHave before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember\n the ten commandments of God,\u2014to love the one and only Lord\n God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any\n other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or\n d\u00e6mons.\u201d[672]\n\n \u201cHe gave a plain law to assist the law of nature, such a\n one as is pure, saving, and holy, in which his own name was\n inscribed, perfect, which is never to fail, being complete in\n ten commands, unspotted, converting souls.\u201d[673]\n\nThis writer, like Iren\u00e6us, believed in the identity of the decalogue\nwith the law of nature. These testimonies show that in the writings of\nthe early fathers are some of the strongest utterances in behalf of the\nperpetuity and authority of the ten commandments. Now let us hear what\nthey say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation. The epistle\nascribed to Barnabas, says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he says in another place, \u2018If my sons keep the Sabbath,\n then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.\u2019 The Sabbath is\n mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: \u2018And God\n 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.\u2019\u201d[674]\n\nIren\u00e6us seems plainly to connect the origin of the Sabbath with the\nsanctification of the seventh day:\u2014\n\n \u201cThese [things promised] are [to take place] in the times of\n the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been\n sanctified, in which God rested from all his works which he\n created, which is the true Sabbath, in which they shall not be\n engaged in any earthly occupation.\u201d[675]\n\nTertullian, likewise, refers the origin of the Sabbath to \u201cthe\nbenediction of the Father\u201d:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh\n month, I more readily recognize in this number than in the\n eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical\n period; so that the month in which God\u2019s image is sometimes\n produced in a human birth, shall in its number tally with the\n day on which God\u2019s creation was completed and _hallowed_.\u201d[676]\n\n \u201cFor even in the case before us he [Christ] fulfilled the law,\n while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a\n clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the\n law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while\n imparting to the Sabbath day itself which _from the beginning\n had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father_, an\n additional sanctity by his own beneficent action.\u201d[677]\n\nOrigen, who, as we have seen, believed in a mystical Sabbath, did\nnevertheless fix its origin at the sanctification of the seventh day:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and\n rest of God, which follows the completion of the world\u2019s\n creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and\n in which all those will keep festival with God who have done\n all their works in their six days.\u201d[678]\n\nThe testimony of Novatian which has been given relative to the sacredness\nand authority of the decalogue plainly implies the existence of the\nSabbath in the patriarchal ages, and its observance by those holy men of\nold. It was given to Israel that they might \u201cRETURN to those _virtuous\nmanners_ which, although _they had received them from their fathers_,\nthey had corrupted in Egypt.\u201d And he adds, \u201cThose ten commandments on\nthe tables teach _nothing new_, but _remind_ them of what had been\nobliterated.\u201d[679] He did not, therefore, believe the Sabbath to have\noriginated at the fall of the manna, but counted it one of those things\nwhich were practiced by their fathers before Jacob went down to Egypt.\n\nLactantius places the origin of the Sabbath at creation:\u2014\n\n \u201cGod 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\n rested from his works. But this is the Sabbath day, which, in\n the language of the Hebrews, received its name from the number,\n whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number.\u201d[680]\n\nIn a poem on Genesis written about the time of Lactantius, but by an\nunknown author, we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment\nof the seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of\nGod:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe seventh came, when God\n At his work\u2019s end did rest, DECREEING IT\n SACRED UNTO THE COMING AGE\u2019S JOYS.\u201d[681]\n\nThe Apostolical Constitutions, while teaching the present obligation of\nthe Sabbath, plainly indicate its origin to have been at creation:\u2014\n\n \u201cO Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and\n _hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof_, because that\n on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the\n meditation upon thy laws.\u201d[682]\n\nSuch are the testimonies of the early fathers to the primeval origin of\nthe Sabbath, and to the sacredness and perpetual obligation of the ten\ncommandments. We now call attention to what they say relative to the\nperpetuity of the Sabbath, and to its observance in the centuries during\nwhich they lived. Tertullian defines Christ\u2019s relation to the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe was called \u2018Lord of the Sabbath\u2019 because he maintained the\n Sabbath as his own institution.\u201d[683]\n\nHe affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cChrist did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law\n thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was\n beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged\n them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in\n the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case\n intimating by facts, \u2018I came not to destroy the law, but to\n fulfill it.\u2019\u201d[684]\n\nNor can it be said that while Tertullian denied that Christ abolished\nthe Sabbath he did believe that he transferred its sacredness from the\nseventh day of the week to the first, for he continues thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe [Christ] exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of\n work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness\n of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath day\n itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the\n benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own\n beneficent action. For he furnished _to this day_ DIVINE\n SAFEGUARDS\u2014_a course which his adversary would have pursued\n for some other days_, to avoid honoring the Creator\u2019s Sabbath,\n and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for\n it.\u201d[685]\n\nThis is a very remarkable statement. The modern doctrine of the change\nof the Sabbath was unknown in Tertullian\u2019s time. Had it then been in\nexistence, there could be no doubt that in the words last quoted he was\naiming at it a heavy blow; for the very thing which he asserts Christ\u2019s\nadversary, Satan, would have had him do, that modern first-day writers\nassert he did do in consecrating another day instead of adding to the\nsanctity of his Father\u2019s Sabbath.\n\nArchelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia emphatically denies the abolition of\nthe Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cAgain, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been\n abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly; for he was\n himself also Lord of the Sabbath.\u201d[686]\n\nJustin Martyr, as we have seen, was an out-spoken opponent of Sabbatic\nobservance, and of the authority of the law of God. He was by no means\nalways candid in what he said. He has occasion to refer to those who\nobserved the seventh day, and he does it with contempt. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such\n institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect\n some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of\n the hardness of the people\u2019s hearts), along with their hope\n in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural\n acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the\n Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing\n them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the\n Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold\n that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with\n them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.\u201d[687]\n\nThese words are spoken of Sabbath-keeping Christians. Such of them as\nwere of Jewish descent no doubt generally retained circumcision. But\nthere were many Gentile Christians who observed the Sabbath, as we shall\nsee, and it is not true that they observed circumcision. Justin speaks\nof this class as acting from \u201cweak-mindedness,\u201d yet he inadvertently\nalludes to the keeping of the commandments as the performance of\n\u201cthe ETERNAL and NATURAL ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,\u201d a most appropriate\ndesignation indeed. Justin would fellowship those who act thus, provided\nthey would fellowship him in the contrary course. But though Justin, on\nthis condition, could fellowship these \u201cweak-minded\u201d brethren, he says\nthat there are those who \u201c_do not venture to have any intercourse with,\nor to extend hospitality to, such persons_; but I do not agree with\nthem.\u201d[688] This shows the bitter spirit which prevailed in some quarters\ntoward the Sabbath, even as early as Justin\u2019s time. Justin has no word of\ncondemnation for these intolerant professors; he is only solicitous lest\nthose persons who perform \u201cthe eternal and natural acts of righteousness\nand piety\u201d should condemn those who do not perform them.\n\nClement of Alexandria, though a mystical writer, bears an important\ntestimony to the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, and to man\u2019s present\nneed thereof. He comments thus on the fourth commandment:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd 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\n God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. _But\n we who bear flesh need rest._ The seventh day, therefore, is\n proclaimed a rest\u2014abstraction from ills\u2014preparing for the\n primal day, our true rest.\u201d[689]\n\nClement recognized the authority of the moral law; for he treats of the\nten commandments, one by one, and shows what each enjoins. He plainly\nteaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he now needs it as a\nday of rest, and his language implies that it was made at the creation.\nBut in the next paragraph, he makes some curious suggestions, which\ndeserve notice:\u2014\n\n \u201cHaving reached this point, we must mention these things by\n the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the\n eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the\n seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter\n properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the\n creation of the world was concluded in six days.\u201d[690]\n\nThis language has been adduced to show that Clement called the eighth\nday, or Sunday, the Sabbath. But first-day writers in general have not\ndared to commit themselves to such an interpretation, and some of them\nhave expressly discarded it. Let us notice this statement with especial\ncare. He speaks of the ordinals seventh and eighth in the abstract, but\nprobably with reference to the days of the week. Observe then,\n\n1. That he does not intimate that the eighth day has _become_ the Sabbath\nin place of the seventh which was _once_ such, but he says that the\neighth day may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh.\n\n2. That in Clement\u2019s time, A. D. 194, there was not any confusion in the\nminds of men as to which day was the ancient Sabbath, and which one was\nthe first day of the week, or eighth day, as it was often called, nor\ndoes he intimate that there was.\n\n3. But Clement, from some cause, says that possibly the eighth day\nshould be counted the seventh, and the seventh day the sixth. Now, if\nthis should be done, it would change the numbering of the days, not only\nas far back as the resurrection of Christ, but all the way back to the\ncreation.\n\n4. If, therefore, Clement, in this place, designed to teach that Sunday\nis the Sabbath, he must also have held that it always had been such.\n\n5. But observe that, while he changes the numbering of the days of the\nweek, he does not change the Sabbath from one day to another. He says\nthe eighth may possibly be the seventh, and the seventh, properly the\nsixth, and the latter, or this one [Greek, \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c5\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,],\nproperly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work.\n\n6. By the latter must be understood the day last mentioned, which he says\nshould be called, not the seventh, but the sixth; and by the seventh\nmust certainly be intended that day which he says is not the eighth, but\nthe seventh, that is to say, Sunday.\n\nThere remains but one difficulty to be solved, and that is why he should\nsuggest the changing of the numbering of the days of the week by striking\none from the count of each day, thus making the Sabbath the sixth day\nin the count instead of the seventh; and making Sunday the seventh day\nin the count instead of the eighth. The answer seems to have eluded the\nobservation of the first-day and anti-Sabbatarian writers who have sought\nto grasp it. But there is a fact which solves the difficulty. Clement\u2019s\ncommentary on the fourth commandment, from which these quotations are\ntaken, is principally made up of curious observations on \u201cthe perfect\nnumber six,\u201d \u201cthe number seven motherless and childless,\u201d and the number\neight, which is \u201ca cube,\u201d and the like matters, and is taken with some\nchange of arrangement almost word for word from Philo Jud\u00e6us, a teacher\nwho flourished at Alexandria about one century before Clement. Whoever\nwill take pains to compare these two writers will find in Philo nearly\nall the ideas and illustrations which Clement has used, and the very\nlanguage also in which he has expressed them.[691] Philo was a mystical\nteacher to whom Clement looked up as to a master. A statement which we\nfind in Philo, in immediate connection with several curious ideas, which\nClement quotes from him, gives, beyond all doubt, the key to Clement\u2019s\nsuggestion that possibly the eighth day should be called the seventh, and\nthe seventh day called the sixth. Philo said that, according to God\u2019s\npurpose, the first day of time was not to be numbered with the other days\nof the creation week. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions\n of the whole, TAKING OUT THE FIRST DAY, which he does not even\n call the first day, _that it may not be numbered with the\n others_, but entitling it ONE, he names it rightly, perceiving\n in it, and ascribing to it, the nature and appellation of the\n limit.\u201d[692]\n\nThis would simply change the numbering of the days, as counted by Philo,\nand afterward partially adopted by Clement, and make the Sabbath, not\nthe seventh day, but the sixth, and Sunday, not the eighth day, but the\nseventh; but it would still leave the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same\nidentical days as before. It would, however, give to the Sabbath the\nname of sixth day, because the first of the six days of creation was not\ncounted; and it would cause the eighth day, so called in the early church\nbecause of its coming next after the Sabbath, to be called seventh day.\nThus the Sabbath would be the sixth day, and the seventh a day of work,\nand yet the Sabbath would be the identical day that it had ever been,\nand the Sunday, though called seventh day, would still, as ever before,\nremain a day on which ordinary labor was lawful. Of course, Philo\u2019s\nidea that the first day of time should not be counted, is wholly false;\nfor there is not one fact in the Bible to support it, but many which\nexpressly contradict it, and even Clement, with all deference to Philo,\nonly timidly suggests it. But when the matter is laid open, it shows that\nClement had no thought of calling Sunday the Sabbath, and that he does\nexpressly confirm what we have fully proved out of other of the fathers,\nthat Sunday was a day on which, in their judgment, labor was not sinful.\n\nTertullian, at different periods of his life, held different views\nrespecting the Sabbath, and committed them all to writing. We last quoted\nfrom him a decisive testimony to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, coupled\nwith an equally decisive testimony against the sanctification of the\nfirst day of the week. In another work, from which we have already quoted\nhis statement that Christians should not kneel on Sunday, we find another\nstatement that \u201csome few\u201d abstained from kneeling on the Sabbath. This\nhas probable reference to Carthage, where Tertullian lived. He speaks\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the matter of _kneeling_ also, prayer is subject to\n diversity of observance, through the act of some few who\n abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension\n is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will\n give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else\n indulge their opinion without offense to others.\u201d[693]\n\nThe act of standing in prayer was one of the chief honors conferred upon\nSunday. Those who refrained from kneeling on the seventh day, without\ndoubt did it because they desired to honor that day. This particular\nact is of no consequence; for it was adopted in imitation of those who,\nfrom tradition and custom, thus honored Sunday; but we have in this an\nundoubted reference to Sabbath-keeping Christians. Tertullian speaks of\nthem, however, in a manner quite unlike that of Justin in his reference\nto the commandment-keepers of his time.\n\nOrigen, like many other of the fathers, was far from being consistent\nwith himself. Though he has spoken against Sabbatic observance, and has\nhonored the so-called Lord\u2019s day as something better than the ancient\nSabbath, he has nevertheless given a discourse expressly designed to\nteach Christians the proper method of observing the Sabbath. Here is a\nportion of this sermon:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which\n the apostle speaks, \u2018There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,\u2019\n that is, the observance of the Sabbath by the people of\n God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us\n see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On\n the Sabbath day all worldly labors ought to be abstained\n from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and\n execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual\n exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading\n and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for\n the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not\n looking to things present and visible, but to those which are\n future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian\n Sabbath.\u201d[694]\n\nThis is by no means a bad representation of the proper observance of the\nSabbath. Such a discourse addressed to Christians is a strong evidence\nthat many did then hallow that day. Some, indeed, have claimed that these\nwords were spoken concerning Sunday. They would have it that he contrasts\nthe observance of the first day with that of the seventh. But the\ncontrast is not between the different methods of keeping two days, but\nbetween two methods of observing one day. The Jews in Origen\u2019s time spent\nthe day mainly in mere abstinence from labor, and often added sensuality\nto idleness. But the Christians were to observe it in divine worship, as\nwell as sacred rest. What day he intends cannot be doubtful. It is DIES\nSABBATI, a term which can signify only the seventh day. Here is the first\ninstance of the term Christian Sabbath, _Sabbati Christiani_, and it is\nexpressly applied to the seventh day observed by Christians.\n\nThe longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians\nwas not written till after Origen\u2019s time, but, though not written by\nIgnatius, it is valuable for light which it sheds upon the existing\nstate of things at the time of its composition, and for marking the\nprogress which apostasy had made with respect to the Sabbath. Here is its\nreference to the Sabbath and first day:\u2014\n\n \u201cLet us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish\n manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for \u2018he that does not\n work, let him not eat.\u2019 For say the [holy] oracles, \u2018In the\n sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.\u2019 But let every one\n of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in\n meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring\n the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the\n day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a\n prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits\n which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the\n Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord\u2019s day as a\n festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all\n the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet\n declared, \u2018To the end, for the eighth day,\u2019 on which our life\n both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained\n in Christ.\u201d[695]\n\nThis writer specifies the different things which made up the Jewish\nobservance of the Sabbath. They may be summed up under two heads. 1.\nStrict abstinence from labor. 2. Dancing and carousal. Now, in the light\nof what Origen has said, we can understand the contrast which this writer\ndraws between the Jewish and Christian observance of the Sabbath. The\nerror of the Jews in the first part of this was that they contented\nthemselves with mere bodily relaxation, without raising their thoughts to\nGod, the Creator, and this mere idleness soon gave place to sensual folly.\n\nThe Christian, as Origen draws the contrast, refrains from labor on the\nSabbath that he may raise his heart in grateful worship. Or, as this\nwriter draws it, the Christian keeps the Sabbath in a spiritual manner,\nrejoicing in meditation on the law; but to do thus, he must hallow it\nin the manner which that law commands, that is, in the observance of\na sacred rest which commemorates the rest of the Creator. The writer\nevidently believed in the observance of the Sabbath as an act of\nobedience to that law on which they were to meditate on that day. And\nthe nature of the epistle indicates that it was observed, at all events,\nin the country where it was written. But mark the work of apostasy. The\nso-called Lord\u2019s day for which the writer could offer nothing better than\nan argument drawn from the title of the sixth psalm (see its marginal\nreading) is exalted above the Lord\u2019s holy day, and made the queen of all\ndays!\n\nThe Apostolical Constitutions, though not written in apostolic times,\nwere in existence as early as the third century, and were then very\ngenerally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do\ntherefore furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the\nchurch at that time, and also indicate the great progress which apostasy\nhad made. Guericke speaks thus of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting\n to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed\n gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of\n much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian\n arch\u00e6ology generally.\u201d[696]\n\nMosheim says of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the\n manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those\n which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third\n centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental\n regions.\u201d[697]\n\nThese Constitutions indicate that the Sabbath was extensively observed in\nthe third century. They also show the standing of the Sunday festival in\nthat century. After solemnly enjoining the sacred observance of the ten\ncommandments, they thus enforce the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cConsider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its\n beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on\n account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased\n not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of\n the law, not for idleness of the hands.\u201d[698]\n\nThis is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. To show how distinctly these\nConstitutions recognize the decalogue as the foundation of Sabbatic\nauthority we quote the words next preceding the above, though we have\nquoted them on another occasion:\u2014\n\n \u201cHave before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember\n the ten commandments of God,\u2014to love the one and only Lord\n God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any\n other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or\n d\u00e6mons.\u201d[699]\n\nBut though these Constitutions thus recognize the authority of the\ndecalogue and the sacred obligation of the seventh day, they elevate the\nSunday festival in some respects to higher honor than the Sabbath, though\nthey claim for it no precept of the Scriptures. Thus they say:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut keep the Sabbath, and the Lord\u2019s day festival; because the\n former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the\n resurrection.\u201d[700]\n\n \u201cFor the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion\n of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise\n to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which\n the Lord\u2019s day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the\n Provider, the Law-giver, the Cause of the resurrection, the\n First-born of the whole creation.\u201d[701]\n\n \u201cSo that the Lord\u2019s day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord,\n thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee,\n which, on account of its greatness, has obscured all other\n blessings.\u201d[702]\n\nTested by his own principles, the writer of these Constitutions was far\nadvanced in apostasy; for he held a festival, for which he claimed no\ndivine authority, more honorable than one which he acknowledged to be\nordained of God. There could be but one step more in this course, and\nthat would be to set aside the commandment of God for the ordinance of\nman, and this step was not very long afterward actually taken. One other\npoint should be noticed. It is said:\u2014\n\n \u201cLet the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and\n the Lord\u2019s day let them have leisure to go to church for\n instruction in piety.\u201d[703]\n\nThe question of the sinfulness of labor on either of these days is not\nhere taken into the account; for the reason assigned is that the slaves\nmay have leisure to attend public worship. But while these Constitutions\nelsewhere forbid labor on the Sabbath on the authority of the decalogue,\nthey do not forbid it upon the first day of the week. Take the following\nas an example:\u2014\n\n \u201cO Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and\n hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that _on\n that day_ thou hast made us _rest from our works_, for the\n meditation upon thy laws.\u201d[704]\n\nThe Apostolical Constitutions are valuable to us, not as authority\nrespecting the teaching of the apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of\nthe views and practices which prevailed in the third century. As these\nConstitutions were extensively regarded as embodying the doctrine of the\napostles, they furnish conclusive evidence that, at the time when they\nwere put in writing, the ten commandments were very generally revered\nas the immutable rule of right, and that the Sabbath of the Lord was by\nmany observed as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as\nthe divine memorial of the creation. They also show that the first-day\nfestival had, in the third century, attained such strength and influence\nas to clearly indicate that ere long it would claim the entire ground.\nBut observe that the Sabbath and the so-called Lord\u2019s day were then\nregarded as distinct institutions, and that no hint of the change of the\nSabbath from the seventh day to the first is even once given.\n\nThus much out of the fathers concerning the authority of the decalogue,\nand concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath. The\nsuppression of the Sabbath of the Bible, and the elevation of Sunday to\nits place, has been shown to be in no sense the work of the Saviour. But\nso great a work required the united action of powerful causes, and these\ncauses we now enumerate.\n\n1. _Hatred toward the Jews._ This people, who retained the ancient\nSabbath, had slain Christ. It was easy for men to forget that Christ, as\nLord of the Sabbath, had claimed it as his own institution, and to call\nthe Sabbath a Jewish institution which Christians should not regard.[705]\n\n2. _The hatred of the church of Rome toward the Sabbath, and its\ndetermination to elevate Sunday to the highest place._ This church, as\nthe chief in the work of apostasy, took the lead in the earliest effort\nto suppress the Sabbath by turning it into a fast. And the very first act\nof papal aggression was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Thenceforward,\nin every possible form, this church continued this work until the pope\nannounced that he had received a divine mandate for Sunday observance\n[the very thing lacking] in a roll which fell from Heaven.\n\n3. _The voluntary observance of memorable days._ In the Christian church,\nalmost from the beginning, men voluntarily honored the fourth, the sixth,\nand the first days of the week, and also the anniversary of the Passover\nand the Pentecost, to commemorate the betrayal, the death, and the\nresurrection, of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which acts\nin themselves could not be counted sinful.\n\n4. _The making of tradition of equal authority with the Scriptures._ This\nwas the great error of the early church, and the one to which that church\nwas specially exposed, as having in it those who had seen the apostles,\nor who had seen those who had seen them. It was this which rendered the\nvoluntary observance of memorable days a dangerous thing. For what began\nas a voluntary observance became, after the lapse of a few years, a\nstanding custom, established by tradition, which must be obeyed because\nit came from those who had seen the apostles, or from those who had seen\nothers who had seen them. This is the origin of the various errors of the\ngreat apostasy.\n\n5. _The entrance of the no-law heresy._ This is seen in Justin Martyr,\nthe earliest witness to the Sunday festival, and in the church of Rome of\nwhich he was then a member.\n\n6. _The extensive observance of Sunday as a heathen festival._ The first\nday of the week corresponded to the widely observed heathen festival\nof the sun. It was therefore easy to unite the honor of Christ in the\nobservance of the day of his resurrection with the convenience and\nworldly advantage of his people in having the same festival day with\ntheir heathen neighbors, and to make it a special act of piety in that\nthe conversion of the heathen was thereby facilitated, while the neglect\nof the ancient Sabbath was justified by stigmatizing that divine memorial\nas a Jewish institution with which Christians should have no concern.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES.\n\n Origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of the sun\n contrasted\u2014Entrance of that festival into the church\u2014The\n Moderns with the Ancients\u2014The Sabbath observed by the early\n Christians\u2014Testimony of Morer\u2014Of Twisse\u2014Of Giesler\u2014Of\n Mosheim\u2014Of Coleman\u2014Of Bishop Taylor\u2014The Sabbath loses\n ground before the Sunday festival\u2014Several bodies of\n decided Sabbatarians\u2014Testimony of Brerewood\u2014Constantine\u2019s\n Sunday law\u2014Sunday a day of labor with the primitive\n church\u2014Constantine\u2019s edict a heathen law, and himself at that\n time a heathen\u2014The bishop of Rome authoritatively confers the\n name of Lord\u2019s day upon Sunday\u2014Heylyn narrates the steps by\n which Sunday arose to power\u2014A marked change in the history of\n that institution\u2014Paganism brought into the church\u2014The Sabbath\n weakened by Constantine\u2019s influence\u2014Remarkable facts concerning\n Eusebius\u2014The Sabbath recovers strength again\u2014The council of\n Laodicea pronounces a curse upon the Sabbath-keepers\u2014The\n progress of apostasy marked\u2014Authority of church councils\n considered\u2014Chrysostom\u2014Jerome\u2014Augustine\u2014Sunday edicts\u2014Testimony\n of Socrates relative to the Sabbath about the middle of the\n fifth century\u2014Of Sozomen\u2014Effectual suppression of the Sabbath\n at the close of the fifth century.\n\n\nThe origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of Sunday is now distinctly\nunderstood. When God made the world, he gave to man the Sabbath that he\nmight not forget the Creator of all things. When men apostatized from\nGod, Satan turned them to the worship of the sun, and, as a standing\nmemorial of their veneration for that luminary, caused them to dedicate\nto his honor the first day of the week. When the elements of apostasy\nhad sufficiently matured in the Christian church, this ancient festival\nstood forth as a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord. The manner in which\nit obtained a foothold in the Christian church has been already shown;\nand many facts which have an important bearing upon the struggle between\nthese rival institutions have also been given. We have, in the preceding\nchapters, given the statements of the most ancient Christian writers\nrespecting the Sabbath and first-day in the early church. As we now trace\nthe history of these two days during the first five centuries of the\nChristian era, we shall give the statements of modern church historians,\ncovering the same ground with the early fathers, and shall also quote\nin continuation of the ancient writers the testimonies of the earliest\nchurch historians. The reader can thus discover how nearly the ancients\nand moderns agree. Of the observance of the Sabbath in the early church,\nMorer speaks thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe primitive Christians had a great veneration for the\n Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it\n is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the\n apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that\n purpose; who, keeping both that day and the first of the week,\n gave occasion to the succeeding ages to join them together, and\n make it one festival, though there was not the same reason for\n the continuance of the custom as there was to begin it.\u201d[706]\n\nA learned English first-day writer of the seventeenth century, William\nTwisse, D. D., thus states the early history of these two days:\u2014\n\n \u201cYet for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the\n Lord\u2019s day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously\n observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious\n Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth,\n and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the\n gospel, to allow for God\u2019s service a better proportion of time,\n than the Jews did under the law, rather than a worse.\u201d[707]\n\nThat the observance of the Sabbath was not confined to Jewish converts,\nthe learned Giesler explicitly testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhile the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire\n Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile\n Christians observed also _the Sabbath_ and the passover,[708]\n with reference to the last scenes of Jesus\u2019 life, but without\n Jewish superstition. In addition to these, Sunday, as the\n day of Christ\u2019s resurrection, was devoted to religious\n services.\u201d[709]\n\nThe statement of Mosheim may be thought to contradict that of Giesler.\nThus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival,\n not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as\n were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other\n Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful.\u201d[710]\n\nIt will be observed that Mosheim does not deny that the Jewish converts\nobserved the Sabbath. He denies that this was done by the Gentile\nChristians. The proof on which he rests this denial is thus stated by\nhim:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks, in his letter\n to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of\n public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the\n week, or what we call the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[711]\n\nThe proposition to be proved is this: The Gentile Christians did not\nobserve the Sabbath. The proof is found in the following fact: The\nchurches of Bithynia assembled on a stated day for the celebration of\ndivine worship. It is seen therefore that the conclusion is gratuitous,\nand wholly unauthorized by the testimony.[712] But this instance shows\nthe dexterity of Mosheim in drawing inferences, and gives us some\ninsight into the kind of evidence which supports some of these sweeping\nstatements in behalf of Sunday. Who can say that this \u201cstated day\u201d was\nnot the very day enjoined in the fourth commandment? Of the Sabbath and\nfirst day in the early ages of the church, Coleman speaks as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe last day of the week was strictly kept in connection with\n that of the first day, for a long time after the overthrow of\n the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century the\n observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian\n church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing\n until it was wholly discontinued.\u201d[713]\n\nThis is a most explicit acknowledgment that the Bible Sabbath was long\nobserved by the body of the Christian church. Coleman is a first-day\nwriter, and therefore not likely to state the case too strongly in behalf\nof the seventh day. He is a modern writer, but we have already proved his\nstatements true out of the ancients. It is true that Coleman speaks also\nof the first day of the week, yet his subsequent language shows that it\nwas a long while before this became a sacred day. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cDuring the early ages of the church it was never entitled\n \u2018the Sabbath,\u2019 this word being confined to the seventh day of\n the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said,\n continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts\n to Christianity.\u201d[714]\n\nThis fact is made still clearer by the following language, in which this\nhistorian admits Sunday to be nothing but a human ordinance:\u2014\n\n \u201cNo law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the\n apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or\n the institution of the Lord\u2019s day, or the substitution of the\n first for the seventh day of the week.\u201d[715]\n\nColeman does not seem to realize that in making this truthful statement\nhe has directly acknowledged that the ancient Sabbath is still in full\nforce as a divine institution, and that first-day observance is only\nauthorized by the traditions of men. He next relates the manner in which\nthis Sunday festival which had been nourished in the bosom of the church\nusurped the place of the Lord\u2019s Sabbath; a warning to all Christians of\nthe tendency of human institutions, if cherished by the people of God, to\ndestroy those which are divine. Let this important language be carefully\npondered. He speaks thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe observance of the Lord\u2019s day was ordered while yet\n the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter\n superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and\n importance, which belonged, at first, to that great day which\n God originally ordained and blessed.... But in time, after\n the Lord\u2019s day was fully established, the observance of the\n Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally\n denounced as heretical.\u201d[716]\n\nThus is seen the result of cherishing this harmless Sunday festival in\nthe church. It only asked toleration at first; but gaining strength by\ndegrees, it gradually undermined the Sabbath of the Lord, and finally\ndenounced its observance as heretical.\n\nJeremy Taylor, a distinguished bishop of the Church of England, and a\nman of great erudition, but a decided opponent of Sabbatic obligation,\nconfirms the testimony of Coleman. He affirms that the Sabbath was\nobserved by the Christians of the first three hundred years, but denies\nthat they did this out of respect to the authority or the law of God. But\nwe have shown from the fathers that those who hallowed the Sabbath did it\nas an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and that the decalogue\nwas acknowledged as of perpetual obligation, and as the perfect rule of\nright. As Bishop T. denies that this was their ground of observance, he\nshould have shown some other, which he has not done. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Lord\u2019s day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath,\n but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord\u2019s day was\n merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced\n by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost\n three hundred years together kept that day which was in that\n commandment; but they did it also without any opinion of prime\n obligation, and therefore they did not suppose it moral.\u201d[717]\n\nThat such an opinion relative to the obligation of the fourth commandment\nhad gained ground extensively among the leaders of the church, as\nearly at least as the fourth century, and probably in the third, is\nsufficiently attested by the action of the council of Laodicea, A. D.\n364, which anathematized those who should observe the Sabbath, as will\nbe noticed in its place. That this loose view of the morality of the\nfourth commandment was resisted by many, is shown by the existence of\nvarious bodies of steadfast Sabbatarians in that age, whose memory has\ncome down to us; and also by the fact that that council made such a\nvigorous effort to put down the Sabbath. Coleman has clearly portrayed\nthe gradual depression of the Sabbath, as the first-day festival arose in\nstrength, until Sabbath-keeping became heretical, when, by ecclesiastical\nauthority, the Sabbath was suppressed, and the festival of Sunday became\nfully established as a new and different institution. The natural\nconsequence of this is seen in the rise of distinct sects, or bodies, who\nwere distinguished for their observance of the seventh day. That they\nshould be denounced as heretical and falsely charged with many errors is\nnot surprising, when we consider that their memory has been handed down\nto us by their opponents, and that Sabbath-keepers in our own time are\nnot unfrequently treated in this very manner. The first of these ancient\nSabbatarian bodies was the Nazarenes. Of these, Morer testifies that,\n\n They \u201cretained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to\n believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were\n in reality neither one nor the other.\u201d[718]\n\nAnd Dr. Francis White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one\nof the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church\nleaders for that heresy; and he classes them with heretics as Morer\nhas done.[719] Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard,\nas being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct\nsuccessors. Thus Gibbon testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the\n Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon\n found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that\n from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the\n banner of Christ.... The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of\n Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where\n that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude\n and obscurity.\u201d[720]\n\nIt is not strange that that church which fled out of Judea at the word\nof Christ[721] should long retain the Sabbath, as it appears that they\ndid, even as late as the fourth century. Morer mentions another class of\nSabbath-keepers in the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cAbout the same time were the Hypsistarii who closed with these\n as to what concerned the Sabbath, yet would by no means accept\n circumcision as too plain a testimony of ancient bondage. All\n these were heretics, and so adjudged to be by the Catholic\n church. Yet their hypocrisy and industry were such as gained\n them a considerable footing in the Christian world.\u201d[722]\n\nThe bishop of Ely names these also as a body of Sabbath-keepers whose\nheresy was condemned by the church.[723] The learned Joseph Bingham, M.\nA., gives the following account of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians,\n that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped\n as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their\n Sabbaths and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean,\n though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen,\n whose father was once one of this sect, gives the account of\n them.\u201d[724]\n\nIt must ever be remembered that these people, whom the Catholic church\nadjudged to be heretics, are not speaking for themselves: their enemies\nwho condemned them have transmitted to posterity all that is known\nof their history. It would be well if heretics, who meet with little\nmercy at the hand of ecclesiastical writers, could at least secure the\nimpartial justice of a truthful record.\n\nAnother class are thus described by Cox in his elaborate work entitled\n\u201cSabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties\u201d:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn this way [that is, by presenting the testimony of the Bible\n on the subject] arose the ancient Sabbatarians, a body it is\n well known of very considerable importance in respect both to\n numbers and influence, during the greater part of the third and\n the early part of the next century.\u201d[725]\n\nThe close of the third century witnessed the Sabbath much weakened\nin its hold upon the church in general, and the festival of Sunday,\nalthough possessed of no divine authority, steadily gaining in strength\nand in sacredness. The following historical testimony from a member of\nthe English Church, Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College,\nLondon, gives a good general view of the matter, though the author\u2019s\nanti-Sabbatarian views are mixed with it. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed together with\n the celebration of the Lord\u2019s day by the Christians of the east\n church above three hundred years after our Saviour\u2019s death;\n and besides that, no other day for more hundreds of years than\n I spake of before, was known in the church by the name of\n Sabbath but that: let the collection thereof and conclusion of\n all be this: The Sabbath of the seventh day as touching the\n allegations of God\u2019s solemn worship to time was ceremonial;\n that Sabbath was religiously observed in the east church three\n hundred years and more after our Saviour\u2019s passion. That church\n being the great part of Christendom, and having the apostles\u2019\n doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it\n if it had been deadly.\u201d[726]\n\nSuch was the case in the eastern churches at the end of the third\ncentury; but in such of the western churches as sympathized with the\nchurch of Rome, the Sabbath had been treated as a fast from the beginning\nof that century, to express their opposition toward those who observed it\naccording to the commandment.\n\nIn the early part of the fourth century occurred an event which could not\nhave been foreseen, but which threw an immense weight in favor of Sunday\ninto the balances already trembling between the rival institutions, the\nSabbath of the Lord and the festival of the sun. This was nothing less\nthan an edict from the throne of the Roman Empire in behalf of \u201cthe\nvenerable day of the sun.\u201d It was issued by the emperor Constantine in A.\nD. 321, and is thus expressed:\u2014\n\n \u201cLet 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\n are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend\n to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that\n no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines;\n lest, the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the\n commodities granted by Heaven. Given the seventh day of March;\n Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the\n second time.\u201d[727]\n\nOf this law, a high authority thus speaks:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the\n proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius,\n appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the\n Roman Empire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed\n the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday; both to satisfy the law\n of Moses, and to imitate the apostles who used to meet together\n on the first day. By Constantine\u2019s law, promulgated in 321, it\n was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a\n day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country\n people to follow their work.\u201d[728]\n\nAnother eminent authority thus states the purport of this law:\u2014\n\n \u201cConstantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A. D.\n 321) that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities\n and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their\n work on that day.\u201d[729]\n\nThus the fact is placed beyond all dispute that this decree gave full\npermission to all kinds of agricultural labor. The following testimony of\nMosheim is therefore worthy of strict attention:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated\n time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was in\n consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed\n with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.\u201d[730]\n\nWhat will the advocates of first-day sacredness say to this? They quote\nMosheim respecting Sunday observance in the first century\u2014which testimony\nhas been carefully examined in this work[731]\u2014and they seem to think\nthat his language in support of first-day sacredness is nearly equal in\nauthority to the language of the New Testament; in fact, they regard\nit as supplying an important omission in that book. Yet Mosheim states\nrespecting Constantine\u2019s Sunday law, promulgated in the fourth century,\nwhich restrained merchants and mechanics, but allowed all kinds of\nagricultural labor on that day, that it caused the day to be \u201cobserved\nwith greater solemnity than it had formerly been.\u201d It follows, therefore,\non Mosheim\u2019s own showing, that Sunday, during the first three centuries,\nwas not a day of abstinence from labor in the Christian church. On this\npoint, Bishop Taylor thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the\n Lord\u2019s day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the\n strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this\n they knew there was none; and therefore when Constantine the\n emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord\u2019s day,\n yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of\n the husbandman whatsoever.\u201d[732]\n\nMorer tells us respecting the first three centuries, that is to say, the\nperiod before Constantine, that\n\n \u201cThe Lord\u2019s day had no command that it should be sanctified,\n but it was left to God\u2019s people to pitch on this or that day\n for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of\n meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years\n there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a\n law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common\n business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary\n affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the\n divine service.\u201d[733]\n\nAnd Sir Wm. Domville says:\u2014\n\n \u201cCenturies of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday\n was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does\n not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was\n at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of\n Constantine in A. D. 321.\u201d[734]\n\nWhat these able modern writers set forth as to labor on Sunday before\nthe edict of Constantine was promulgated, we have fully proved in the\npreceding chapters out of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers. That\nsuch an edict could not fail to strengthen the current already strongly\nset in favor of Sunday, and greatly to weaken the influence of the\nSabbath, cannot be doubted. Of this fact, an able writer bears witness:\u2014\n\n \u201cVery shortly after the period when Constantine issued his\n edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the\n Roman Empire, the party that had contended for the observance\n of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance\n of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with\n the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to\n be more and more generally established ever after this time,\n throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is\n no evidence however that either at this, or at a period much\n later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation\n from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as\n an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good\n Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting\n with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and\n tradition.\u201d[735]\n\nThis extraordinary edict of Constantine caused Sunday to be observed\nwith greater solemnity than it had formerly been. Yet we have the most\nindubitable proof that this law was a heathen enactment; that it was put\nforth in favor of Sunday as a heathen institution and not as a Christian\nfestival; and that Constantine himself not only did not possess the\ncharacter of a Christian, but was at that time in truth a heathen. It\nis to be observed that Constantine did not designate the day which he\ncommanded men to keep, as Lord\u2019s day, Christian Sabbath, or the day of\nChrist\u2019s resurrection; nor does he assign any reason for its observance\nwhich would indicate it as a Christian festival. On the contrary, he\ndesignates the ancient heathen festival of the sun in language that\ncannot be mistaken. Dr. Hessey thus sustains this statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cOthers have looked at the transaction in a totally different\n light, and refused to discover in the document, or to suppose\n in the mind of the enactor, any recognition of the Lord\u2019s\n day as a matter of divine obligation. They remark, and _very\n truly_, that Constantine designates it by its _astrological_\n or _heathen_ title, Dies Solis, and insist that the epithet\n _venerabilis_ with which it is introduced has reference to the\n rites performed on that day in honor of _Hercules_, _Apollo_,\n and _Mithras_.\u201d[736]\n\nOn this important point, Milman, the learned editor of Gibbon, thus\ntestifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian\n Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a\n Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to\n be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be\n closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal\n litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred\n day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar\n worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple\n in the sanctity of the first day of the week.\u201d[737]\n\nAnd he adds in a subsequent chapter:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would\n be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially\n that part which had admitted any tendency towards the Oriental\n theology.\u201d[738]\n\nOn the seventh day of March, Constantine published his edict commanding\nthe observance of that ancient festival of the heathen, the venerable\nday of the sun. On the following day, March eighth,[739] he issued a\nsecond decree in every respect worthy of its heathen predecessor.[740]\nThe purport of it was this: That if any royal edifice should be struck\nby lightning, the ancient ceremonies of propitiating the deity should\nbe practiced, and the _haruspices_ were to be consulted to learn the\nmeaning of the awful portent.[741] The _haruspices_ were soothsayers who\nforetold future events by examining the entrails of beasts slaughtered in\nsacrifice to the gods![742] The statute of the seventh of March enjoining\nthe observance of the venerable day of the sun, and that of the eighth\nof the same month commanding the consultation of the _haruspices_,\nconstitute a noble pair of well-matched heathen edicts. That Constantine\nhimself was a heathen at the time these edicts were issued, is shown not\nonly by the nature of the edicts themselves, but by the fact that his\nnominal conversion to Christianity is placed by Mosheim two years after\nhis Sunday law. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter well considering the subject, I have come to the\n conclusion, that _subsequently to the death of Licinius in the\n year 323_ when _Constantine_ found himself sole emperor, _he\n became an absolute Christian_, or one who believes no religion\n but the Christian to be acceptable to God. He had previously\n considered the religion of one God as more excellent than the\n other religions, and believed that Christ ought especially to\n be worshiped: yet he supposed there were also inferior deities,\n and that to these some worship might be paid, in the manner\n of the fathers, without fault or sin. And who does not know,\n that in those times, many others also combined the worship of\n Christ with that of the ancient gods, whom they regarded as the\n ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and\n earthly affairs.\u201d[743]\n\nAs a heathen, Constantine was the worshiper of Apollo or the sun, a\nfact that sheds much light upon his edict enjoining men to observe the\nvenerable day of the sun. Thus Gibbon testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to\n the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology;\n and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the\n god of light and poetry.... The altars of Apollo were crowned\n with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous\n multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted\n to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelar\n deity.... The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible\n guide and protector of Constantine.\u201d[744]\n\nHis character as a professor of Christianity is thus described:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe sincerity of the man, who in a short period effected such\n amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to Him\n who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life\n furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without\n remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical\n prince.\u201d[745]\n\nA few words relative to his character as a man will complete our view of\nhis fitness to legislate for the church. This man, when elevated to the\nhighest place of earthly power, caused his eldest son, Crispus, to be\nprivately murdered, lest the fame of the son should eclipse that of the\nfather. In the same ruin was involved his nephew Licinius, \u201cwhose rank\nwas his only crime,\u201d and this was followed by the execution \u201cperhaps of a\nguilty wife.\u201d[746]\n\nSuch was the man who elevated Sunday to the throne of the Roman Empire;\nand such the nature of the institution which he thus elevated. A recent\nEnglish writer says of Constantine\u2019s Sunday law that it \u201cwould seem to\nhave been rather to promote heathen than Christian worship.\u201d And he shows\nhow this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute\nbecame a Christian law. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt a LATER PERIOD, carried away by the current of opinion, he\n declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then,\n or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law\n of the land, and the edict of A. D. 321, being unrevoked, was\n enforced as a Christian ordinance.\u201d[747]\n\nThus it is seen that a law, enacted in support of a heathen institution,\nafter a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance; and\nConstantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to\ncontrol the church, as represented in the general council of Nice, so as\nto cause the members of that council to establish their annual festival\nof the passover upon Sunday.[748] Paganism had prepared the institution\nfrom ancient days, and had now elevated it to supreme power; its work was\naccomplished.\n\nWe have proved that the Sunday festival in the Christian church had no\nSabbatical character before the time of Constantine. We have also shown\nthat heathenism, in the person of Constantine, first gave to Sunday its\nSabbatical character, and, in the very act of doing it, designated it as\na heathen, and not as a Christian, festival, thus establishing a heathen\nSabbath. It was now the part of popery authoritatively to effect its\ntransformation into a Christian institution; a work which it was not\nslow to perform. Sylvester was the bishop of Rome while Constantine was\nemperor. How faithfully he acted his part in transforming the festival of\nthe sun into a Christian institution is seen in that, by his apostolic\nauthority, he changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title\nof LORD\u2019S DAY.[749] To Constantine and to Sylvester, therefore, the\nadvocates of first-day observance are greatly indebted. The one elevated\nit as a heathen festival to the throne of the empire, making it a day of\nrest from most kinds of business; the other changed it into a Christian\ninstitution, giving it the dignified appellation of Lord\u2019s day. It is\nnot a sufficient reason for denying that Pope Sylvester, not far from\nA. D. 325, authoritatively conferred on Sunday the name of Lord\u2019s day,\nto say that one of the fathers, as early as A. D. 200, calls the day by\nthat name, and that some seven different writers, between A. D. 200 and\nA. D. 325, viz., Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Anatolius, Commodianus,\nVictorinus, and Peter of Alexandria, can be adduced, who give this name\nto Sunday.\n\nNo one of these fathers ever claims for this title any apostolic\nauthority; and it has been already shown that they could not have\nbelieved the day to be the Lord\u2019s day by divine appointment. So far,\ntherefore, is the use of this term by these persons as a name for Sunday\nfrom conflicting with the statement that Sylvester, by his apostolic\nauthority, established this name as the rightful title of that day, that\nit shows the act of Sylvester to be exactly suited to the circumstances\nof the case. Indeed, Nicephorus asserts that Constantine, who considered\nhimself quite as much the head of the church as was the pope, \u201cdirected\nthat the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and\nwhich the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord\u2019s\nday.\u201d[750] The circumstances of the case render the statements of Lucius\nand Nicephorus in the highest degree probable. They certainly do not\nindicate that the pope would deem such act on his part unnecessary. Take\na recent event in papal history as an illustration of this case. Only a\nfew years since, Pius IX. decreed that the virgin Mary was born without\nsin. This had long been asserted by many distinguished writers in the\npapal church, but it lacked authority as a dogma of that church until the\npope, A. D. 1854, gave it his official sanction.[751] It was the work of\nConstantine and of Sylvester in the early part of the fourth century to\nestablish the festival of the sun, to be a day of rest, by the authority\nof the empire, and to render it a Christian institution by the authority\nof St. Peter.\n\nThe following from Dr. Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of\nEngland, is worthy of particular attention. In most forcible language, he\ntraces the steps by which the Sunday festival arose to power, contrasting\nit in this respect with the ancient Sabbath of the Lord; and then, with\nequal truth and candor, he acknowledges that, as the festival of Sunday\nwas set up by the emperor and the church, the same power can take it down\nwhenever it sees fit. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus do we see upon what grounds the Lord\u2019s day stands; ON\n CUSTOM FIRST, and VOLUNTARY consecration of it to religious\n meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the\n church of God, which TACITLY approved the same; and FINALLY\n CONFIRMED and RATIFIED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCES throughout their\n empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from\n business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength\n from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power\n which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees\n of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular\n prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was\n committed to them.\n\n \u201cI hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither\n took original from custom, that people being not so forward\n to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority\n from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had\n spoke the word, that he would have one day in seven, precisely\n the seventh day from the world\u2019s creation, to be a day of rest\n unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but\n gladly to submit and obey his pleasure.... But thus it was\n not done in our present business. The Lord\u2019s day had no such\n command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to\n God\u2019s people to pitch on this, _or any other_, for the public\n use. And being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting\n in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for three\n hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any\n rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it.\n\n \u201cAnd when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing\n fathers of God\u2019s church, to lay restraints upon their people,\n yet at the first they were not general; but only thus that\n certain men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary\n and daily works, to attend God\u2019s service in the church; those\n whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the\n true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue\n their labors because most necessary to the commonwealth.\n\n \u201cAnd in the following times, when as the prince and prelate,\n in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that\n also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted\n almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day; it was not\n brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the\n people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ\u2019s\n ascension, before the Lord\u2019s day had attained that state in\n which now it standeth.... And being brought into that state,\n wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on\n such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up\n may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away as\n unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems\n best.\u201d[752]\n\nConstantine\u2019s edict marks a signal change in the history of the Sunday\nfestival. Dr. Heylyn thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cHitherto have we spoken of the Lord\u2019s day as taken up by the\n common consent of the church; not instituted or established\n by any text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree\n of council.... In that which followeth, we shall find both\n emperors and councils very frequent in ordering things about\n this day and the service of it.\u201d[753]\n\nAfter his professed conversion to Christianity, Constantine still further\nexerted his power in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, now happily\ntransformed into the Lord\u2019s day, by the apostolic authority of the Roman\nbishop. Heylyn thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cSo natural a power it is in a Christian prince to order things\n about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the\n day, but also to prescribe the service.\u201d[754]\n\nThe influence of Constantine powerfully contributed to the aid of those\nchurch leaders who were intent upon bringing the forms of pagan worship\ninto the Christian church. Gibbon thus places upon record the motives of\nthese men, and the result of their action:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that\n the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the\n superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some\n compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of\n Constantine achieved in less than a century, the final conquest\n of the Roman Empire: but the victors themselves were insensibly\n subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.\u201d[755]\n\nThe body of nominal Christians, which resulted from this strange union\nof pagan rites with Christian worship, arrogated to itself the title\nof Catholic church, while the true people of God, who resisted these\ndangerous innovations, were branded as heretics, and cast out of the\nchurch. It is not strange that the Sabbath should lose ground in such a\nbody, in its struggle with its rival, the festival of the sun. Indeed,\nafter a brief period, the history of the Sabbath will be found only in\nthe almost obliterated records of those whom the Catholic church cast out\nand stigmatized as heretics. Of the Sabbath in Constantine\u2019s time, Heylyn\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the\n eastern churches, little inferior to the Lord\u2019s day, if not\n plainly equal; not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day\n designed unto sacred meetings.\u201d[756]\n\nThere is no doubt that, after the great flood of worldliness which\nentered the church at the time of Constantine\u2019s pretended conversion, and\nafter all that was done by himself and by Sylvester in behalf of Sunday,\nthe observance of the Sabbath became, with many, only a nominal thing.\nBut the action of the council of Laodicea, to which we shall presently\ncome, proves conclusively that the Sabbath was still observed, not simply\nas a festival, as Heylyn would have it, but as a day of abstinence from\nlabor, as enjoined in the commandment. The work of Constantine, however,\nmarks an epoch in the history of the Sabbath and of Sunday. Constantine\nwas hostile to the Sabbath, and his influence told powerfully against it\nwith all those who sought worldly advancement. The historian Eusebius was\nthe special friend and eulogist of Constantine. This fact should not be\noverlooked in weighing his testimony concerning the Sabbath. He speaks of\nit as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey [the patriarchs] did not, therefore, regard circumcision,\n nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we; neither do we abstain\n from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions, which Moses\n subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols,\n because such things as these do not belong to Christians.\u201d[757]\n\nThis testimony shows precisely the views of Constantine and the\nimperial party relative to the Sabbath. But it does not give the views\nof Christians as a whole; for we have seen that the Sabbath had been\nextensively retained up to this point, and we shall soon have occasion\nto quote other historians, the cotemporaries and successors of Eusebius,\nwho record its continued observance. Constantine exerted a controlling\ninfluence in the church, and was determined to \u201chave nothing in common\nwith that most hostile rabble of the Jews.\u201d Happy would it have been had\nhis aversion been directed against the festivals of the heathen rather\nthan against the Sabbath of the Lord.\n\nBefore Constantine\u2019s time, there is no trace of the doctrine of the\nchange of the Sabbath. On the contrary, we have decisive evidence that\nSunday was a day on which ordinary labor was considered lawful and\nproper. But Constantine, while yet a heathen, commanded that every kind\nof business excepting agriculture should be laid aside on that day. His\nlaw designated the day as a heathen festival, which it actually was. But\nwithin four years after its enactment, Constantine had become, not merely\na professed convert to the Christian religion, but, in many respects,\npractically the head of the church, as the course of things at the\ncouncil of Nicea plainly showed. His heathen Sunday law, being unrevoked,\nwas thenceforward enforced in behalf of that day as a Christian festival.\nThis law gave to the Sunday festival, for the first time, something of a\nSabbatic character. It was now a rest-day from most kinds of business by\nthe law of the Roman Empire. God\u2019s rest-day was thenceforward more in the\nway than ever before.\n\nBut now we come to a fact of remarkable interest. The way having been\nprepared, as we have just seen, for the doctrine of the change of the\nSabbath, and the circumstances of the case demanding its production, it\nwas at this very point brought forward for the _first time_. Eusebius,\nthe special friend and flatterer of Constantine, was the man who first\nput forth this doctrine. In his \u201cCommentary on the Psalms,\u201d he makes the\nfollowing statement on Psalm xcii. respecting the change of the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cWherefore as they [the Jews] rejected it [the Sabbath law] the\n Word [Christ], by the new covenant, TRANSLATED and TRANSFERRED\n the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the\n symbol of true rest, viz., the saving Lord\u2019s day, the first\n [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after\n all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and\n passed the portals of Heaven, having achieved a work superior\n to the six-days\u2019 creation.\u201d[758]\n\n \u201cOn this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true\n Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate\n holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him\n throughout the world, and do those things according to the\n spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the\n Sabbath.\u201d[759]\n\n \u201cAnd all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the\n Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord\u2019s day, as more\n appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence\n and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish\n Sabbath.\u201d[760]\n\nEusebius was under the strongest temptation to please and even to flatter\nConstantine; for he lived in the sunshine of imperial favor. On one\noccasion, he went so far as to say that the city of Jerusalem, which\nConstantine had rebuilt, might be the New Jerusalem predicted in the\nprophecies![761] But perhaps there was no act of Eusebius that could\ngive Constantine greater pleasure than his publication of such doctrine\nas this respecting the change of the Sabbath. The emperor had, by the\ncivil law, given to Sunday a Sabbatical character. Though he had done\nthis while yet a heathen, he found it to his interest to maintain this\nlaw after he obtained a commanding position in the Catholic church.\nWhen, therefore, Eusebius came out and declared that Christ transferred\nthe Sabbath to Sunday, a doctrine never before heard of, and in support\nof which he had no Scripture to quote, Constantine could not but feel in\nthe highest degree flattered that his own Sabbatical edict pertained to\nthe very day which Christ had ordained to be the Sabbath in place of the\nseventh. It was a convincing proof that Constantine was divinely called\nto his high position in the Catholic church, that he should thus exactly\nidentify his work with that of Christ, though he had no knowledge at the\ntime that Christ had done any work of the kind.\n\nAs no writer before Eusebius had ever hinted at the doctrine of the\nchange of the Sabbath, and as there is the most convincing proof, as we\nhave shown, that before his time Sunday possessed no Sabbatic character,\nand as Eusebius does not claim that this doctrine is asserted in the\nScriptures, nor in any preceding ecclesiastical writer, it is certain\nthat he was the father of the doctrine. This new doctrine was not put\nforth without some motive. That motive could not have been to bring\nforward some neglected passages of the Scriptures; for he does not quote\na single text in its support. But the circumstances of the case plainly\nreveal the motive. The new doctrine was exactly adapted to the new order\nof things introduced by Constantine. It was, moreover, peculiarly suited\nto flatter that emperor\u2019s pride, the very thing which Eusebius was under\nthe strongest temptation to do.\n\nIt is remarkable, however, that Eusebius, in the very connection in\nwhich he announces this new doctrine, unwittingly exposes its falsity.\nHe first asserts that Christ changed the Sabbath, and then virtually\ncontradicts it by indicating the real authors of the change. Thus he\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cAll things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath,\n these WE have transferred to the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[762]\n\nThe persons here referred to as the authors of this work are the Emperor\nConstantine, and such bishops as Eusebius, who loved the favor of\nprinces, and Sylvester, the pretended successor of Saint Peter. Two facts\nrefute the assertion of Eusebius that Christ changed the Sabbath: 1. That\nEusebius, who lived three hundred years after the alleged change, is\nthe first man who mentions such change; 2. That Eusebius testifies that\nhimself and others made this change, which they could not have done had\nChrist made it at the beginning. But though the doctrine of the change\nof the Sabbath was thus announced by Eusebius, it was not seconded by\nany writer of that age. The doctrine had never been heard of before,\nand Eusebius had simply his own assertion, but no passage of the Holy\nScriptures to offer in its support.\n\nBut after Constantine, the Sabbath began to recover strength, at least\nin the eastern churches. Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period from\nConstantine to the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath] was continued\n by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law,\n and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout\n Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth\n commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day\n Sabbath (not merely a seventh part of time), and reasoning\n as Christians of the present day are wont to do, viz., that\n _all_ which belonged to the ten commandments was immutable and\n perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the\n seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.\u201d[763]\n\nProf. Stuart, however, connects with this the statement that Sunday\nwas honored by all parties. But the council of Laodicea struck a heavy\nblow at this Sabbath-keeping in the eastern church. Thus Mr. James, in\naddressing the University of Oxford, bears witness:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen the practice of keeping Saturday Sabbaths, which had\n become so general at the close of this century, was evidently\n gaining ground in the eastern church, a decree was passed in\n the council held at Laodicea [A. D. 364] \u2018that members of the\n church should not rest from work on the Sabbath like Jews, but\n should labor on that day, and preferring in honor the Lord\u2019s\n day, then if it be in their power should rest from work as\n Christians.\u2019\u201d[764]\n\nThis shows conclusively that at that period the observance of the Sabbath\naccording to the commandment was extensive in the eastern churches. But\nthe Laodicean council, not only forbade the observance of the Sabbath,\nthey even pronounced a curse on those who should obey the fourth\ncommandment! Prynne thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is certain that Christ himself, his apostles, and the\n primitive Christians for some good space of time, did\n constantly observe the seventh-day Sabbath; ... the evangelists\n and St. Luke in the Acts ever styling it the Sabbath day, ...\n and making mention of its ... solemnization by the apostles\n and other Christians, ... it being still solemnized by many\n Christians after the apostles\u2019 times, even till the council\n of Laodicea [A. D. 364], as ecclesiastical writers and the\n twenty-ninth canon of that council testify, which runs\n thus:[765] \u2018Because Christians ought not to Judaize, and to\n rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day (which many did\n refuse at that time to do). But preferring in honor the Lord\u2019s\n day (there being then a great controversy among Christians\n which of these two days ... should have precedency) if they\n desired to rest they should do this as Christians. Wherefore\n if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed\n from Christ.\u2019... The seventh-day Sabbath was ... solemnized\n by Christ, the apostles and primitive Christians, till the\n Laodicean council did in a manner quite abolish the observation\n of it.... The council of Laodicea [A. D. 364] ... first settled\n the observation of the Lord\u2019s day, and prohibited ... the\n keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema.\u201d[766]\n\nThe action of this council did not extirpate the Sabbath from the eastern\nchurches, though it did materially weaken its influence, and cause its\nobservance to become with many only a nominal thing, while it did most\neffectually enhance the sacredness and the authority of the Sunday\nfestival. That it did not wholly extinguish Sabbath-keeping is thus\ncertified by an old English writer, John Ley:\u2014\n\n \u201cFrom the apostles\u2019 time until the council of Laodicea, which\n was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews\u2019\n Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea,\n notwithstanding the decree of that council against it.\u201d[767]\n\nAnd Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, about A. D. 372, uses this expostulation:\u2014\n\n \u201cWith what eyes can you behold the Lord\u2019s day, when you despise\n the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and\n that in slighting the one, you affront the other?\u201d[768]\n\nThis testimony is valuable in that it marks the progress of apostasy\nconcerning the Sabbath. The Sunday festival entered the church, not as\na divine institution, but as a voluntary observance. Even as late as A.\nD. 200, Tertullian said that it had only tradition and custom in its\nsupport.[769]\n\nBut in A. D. 372, this human festival had become the sister and equal\nof that day which God hallowed in the beginning and solemnly commanded\nin the moral law. How worthy to be called the sister of the Sabbath the\nSunday festival actually was, may be judged from what followed. When this\nself-styled sister had gained an acknowledged position in the family, she\nexpelled the other, and trampled her in the dust. In our days, the Sunday\nfestival claims to be the very day intended in the fourth commandment.\n\nThe following testimonies exhibit the authority of church councils in its\ntrue light. Jortin is quoted by Cox as saying:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn such assemblies, the best and the most moderate men seldom\n have the ascendant, and they are often led or driven by others\n who are far inferior to them in good qualities.\u201d[770]\n\nThe same writer gives us Baxter\u2019s opinion of the famous Westminster\nAssembly. Baxter says:\u2014\n\n \u201cI have lived to see an assembly of ministers, where three or\n four leading men were so prevalent as to form a confession\n in the name of the whole party, which had that in it which\n particular members did disown. And when about a controverted\n article, one man hath charged me deeply with questioning the\n words of the church, others, who were at the forming of that\n article have laid it all on that same man, the rest being loth\n to strive much against him; and so it was he himself was the\n church whose authority he so much urged.\u201d[771]\n\nSuch has been the nature of councils in all ages; yet they have ever\nclaimed infallibility, and have largely used that infallibility in the\nsuppression of the Sabbath and the establishment of the festival of\nSunday. Of first-day sacredness prior to, and as late as, the time of\nChrysostom, Kitto thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThough in later times we find considerable reference to a sort\n of _consecration of the day_, it does not seem at any period\n of the ancient church to have assumed the form of such an\n observance as some modern religious communities have contended\n for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege\n _any divine command, or even apostolic practice_, in support\n of it.... Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies\n by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary\n occupations.\u201d[772]\n\nIt was reserved for modern theologians to discover the divine or\napostolic authority for Sunday observance. The ancient doctors of the\nchurch were unaware that any such authority existed; and hence they\ndeemed it lawful and proper to engage in usual worldly business on that\nday when their religious worship was concluded. Thus, Heylyn bears\nwitness concerning St. Chrysostom that he\n\n \u201cConfessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly\n business on the Lord\u2019s day, after the congregation was\n dismissed.\u201d[773]\n\nSt. Jerome, a few years after this, at the opening of the fifth century,\nin his commendation of the lady Paula, shows his own opinion of Sunday\nlabor. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cPaula, with the women, as soon as they returned home on the\n Lord\u2019s day, they sat down severally to their work, and made\n clothes for themselves and others.\u201d[774]\n\nMorer justifies this Sunday labor in the following terms:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf we read they did any work on the Lord\u2019s day, it is to be\n remembered that this application to their daily tasks was\n not till their worship was quite over, when they might with\n innocency enough resume them, because the length of time or\n the number of hours assigned for piety was not then so well\n explained as in after ages. The state of the church is vastly\n different from what it was in those early days. Christians then\n for some centuries of years were under persecution and poverty;\n and besides their own wants, they had many of them severe\n masters who compelled them to work, and made them bestow less\n time in spiritual matters than they otherwise would. In St.\n Jerome\u2019s age their condition was better, because Christianity\n had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet\n for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord\u2019s day\n proceeded slowly: and that it was the work of time to bring\n it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church\n made in her constitutions, and from the decrees of emperors\n and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and\n civil business advanced by degrees from one species to another,\n till the day had got a considerable figure in the world. Now,\n therefore, the case being so much altered, the most proper use\n of citing those old examples is only, in point of doctrine, to\n show that ordinary work, as being a compliance with providence\n for the support of natural life, is not sinful even on the\n Lord\u2019s day, when necessity is loud, and the laws of that church\n and nation where we live are not against it. This is what the\n first Christians had to say for themselves, in the works they\n did on that day. And if those works had been then judged a\n prophanation of the festival, I dare believe, they would have\n suffered martyrdom rather than been guilty.\u201d[775]\n\nThe bishop of Ely thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn St Jerome\u2019s days, and in the very place where he was\n residing, the devoutest Christians did ordinarily work upon the\n Lord\u2019s day, when the service of the church was ended.\u201d[776]\n\nSt. Augustine, the cotemporary of Jerome, gives a synopsis of the\nargument in that age for Sunday observance, in the following words:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt appears from the sacred Scriptures, that this day was a\n solemn one; it was the first day of the age, that is of the\n existence of our world; in it the elements of the world were\n formed; on it the angels were created; on it Christ rose also\n from the dead; on it the Holy Spirit descended from Heaven upon\n the apostles as manna had done in the wilderness. For these and\n other such circumstances the Lord\u2019s day is distinguished; and\n therefore the holy doctors of the church have decreed that all\n the glory of the Jewish Sabbath is transferred to it. Let us\n therefore keep the Lord\u2019s day as the ancients were commanded to\n do the Sabbath.\u201d[777]\n\nIt is to be observed that Augustine does not assign among his reasons\nfor first-day observance, the change of the Sabbath by Christ or his\napostles, or that the apostles observed that day, or that John had\ngiven it the name of Lord\u2019s day. These modern first-day arguments were\nunknown to Augustine. He gave the credit of the work, not to Christ or\nhis inspired apostles, but to the holy doctors of the church, who, of\ntheir own accord, had transferred the glory of the ancient Sabbath to the\nvenerable day of the sun. The first day of the week was considered in\nthe fifth century the most proper day for giving holy orders, that is,\nfor ordinations, and about the middle of this century, says Heylyn,\n\n \u201cA law [was] made by Leo then Pope of Rome, and generally since\n taken up in the western church, that they should be conferred\n upon no day else.\u201d[778]\n\nAccording to Dr. Justin Edwards, this same pope made also this decree in\nbehalf of Sunday:\u2014\n\n \u201cWE ORDAIN, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost,\n and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the sacred day\n wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease\n from labor.\u201d[779]\n\nSoon after this edict of the pope, the emperor Leo, A. D. 469, put forth\nthe following decree:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is our will and pleasure, that the holy days dedicated to\n the most high God, should not be spent in sensual recreations,\n or otherwise prophaned by suits of law, especially the Lord\u2019s\n day, which we decree to be a venerable day, and therefore\n free it of all citations, executions, pleadings, and the\n like avocations. Let not the circus or theater be opened,\n nor combating with wild beasts be seen on it.... If any will\n presume to offend in the premises, if he be a military man, let\n him lose his commission; or if other, let his estate or goods\n be confiscated.\u201d[780]\n\nAnd this emperor determined to mend the breach in Constantine\u2019s law, and\nthus prohibit agriculture on Sunday. So he adds:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe command therefore all, as well husbandmen as others, to\n forbear work on this day of our restoration.\u201d[781]\n\nThe holy doctors of the church had by this time very effectually\ndespoiled the Sabbath of its glory, transferring it to the Lord\u2019s day of\nPope Sylvester; as Augustine testifies; yet was not Sabbatical observance\nwholly extinguished even in the Catholic church. The historian Socrates,\nwho wrote about the middle of the fifth century, thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor although almost all churches throughout the world\n celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week,\n yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of\n some ancient tradition, refuse to do this. The Egyptians\n in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of\n Thebais, hold their religious meetings on the Sabbath, but do\n not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among\n Christians in general\u2014for after having eaten and satisfied\n themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening, making their\n oblations, they partake of the mysteries.\u201d[782]\n\nAs the church of Rome had turned the Sabbath into a fast some two hundred\nyears before this, in order to oppose its observance, it is probable that\nthis was the ancient tradition referred to by Socrates. And Sozomen, the\ncotemporary of Socrates, speaks on the same point as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe people of Constantinople, and of several other cities,\n assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day;\n which custom is never observed at Rome, or at Alexandria. There\n are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to\n the usages established elsewhere, the people meet together on\n Sabbath evenings; and although they have dined previously,\n partake of the mysteries.\u201d[783]\n\nOn the statement of these historians, Cox remarks:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was their practice to Sabbatize on Saturday, and to\n celebrate Sunday as a day of rejoicing and festivity. While,\n however, in some places a respect was thus generally paid\n to both of these days, the Judaizing practice of observing\n Saturday was by the leading churches expressly condemned,\n and all the doctrines connected with it steadfastly\n resisted.\u201d\u2014_Sabbath Laws_, p. 280.\n\nThe time had now come, when, as stated by Coleman, the observance of\nthe Sabbath was deemed heretical; and the close of the fifth century\nwitnessed its effectual suppression in the great body of the Catholic\nchurch.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nSUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES.\n\n The pope becomes the head of all the churches\u2014The people of\n God retire into the wilderness\u2014Sunday to be traced through the\n Dark Ages in the history of the Catholic church\u2014State of that\n festival in the sixth century\u2014It did not acquire the title of\n Sabbath for many ages\u2014Time when it became a day of abstinence\n from labor in the east\u2014When in the west\u2014Sunday canon of the\n first council of Orleans\u2014Of the council of Arragon\u2014Of the\n third council of Orleans\u2014Of a council at Mascon\u2014At Narbon\u2014At\n Auxerre\u2014Miracles establishing the sacredness of Sunday\u2014The\n pope advises men to atone, by the pious observance of Sunday,\n for the sins of the previous week\u2014The Sabbath and Sunday both\n strictly kept by a class at Rome who were put down by the\n pope\u2014According to Twisse they were two distinct classes\u2014The\n Sabbath, like its Lord, crucified between two thieves\u2014Council\n of Chalons\u2014At Toledo, in which the Jews were forbidden to keep\n the Sabbath and commanded to keep Sunday\u2014First English law for\n Sunday\u2014Council at Constantinople\u2014In England\u2014In Bavaria\u2014Canon of\n the archbishop of York\u2014Statutes of Charlemagne and canons of\n councils which he called\u2014The pope aids in the work\u2014Council at\n Paris originates a famous first-day argument\u2014The councils fail\n to establish Sunday sacredness\u2014The emperors besought to send\n out some more terrible edict in order to compel the observance\n of that day\u2014The pope takes the matter in hand in earnest and\n gives Sunday an effectual establishment\u2014Other statutes and\n canons\u2014Sunday piety of a Norwegian king\u2014Sunday consecrated to\n the mass\u2014Curious but obsolete first-day arguments\u2014The eating\n of meat forbidden upon the Sabbath by the pope\u2014Pope Urban\n II. ordains the Sabbath of the Lord to be a festival for the\n worship of the Virgin Mary\u2014Apparition from St. Peter\u2014The pope\n sends Eustace into England with a roll that fell from Heaven\n commanding Sunday observance under direful penalties\u2014Miracles\n which followed\u2014Sunday established in Scotland\u2014Other Sunday laws\n down to the Reformation\u2014Sunday always only a human ordinance.\n\n\nThe opening of the sixth century witnessed the development of the great\napostasy to such an extent that the man of sin might be plainly seen\nsitting in the temple of God.[784] The western Roman Empire had been\nbroken up into ten kingdoms, and the way was now prepared for the work\nof the little horn.[785] In the early part of this century, the bishop\nof Rome was made head over the entire church by the emperor of the east,\nJustinian.[786] The dragon gave unto the beast his power, and his seat,\nand great authority. From this accession to supremacy by the Roman\npontiff, date the \u201ctime, times, and dividing of time,\u201d or twelve hundred\nand sixty years of the prophecies of Daniel and John.[787]\n\nThe true people of God now retired for safety into places of obscurity\nand seclusion, as represented by the prophecy: \u201cThe woman fled into the\nwilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should\nfeed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.\u201d[788] Leaving\ntheir history for the present, let us follow that of the Catholic church,\nand trace in its record the history of the Sunday festival through the\nperiod of the Dark Ages. Of the fifth and sixth centuries, Heylyn bears\nthe following testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe faithful being united better than before, became more\n uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did\n agree together to give the Lord\u2019s day all the honors of an holy\n festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees;\n the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it\n came into that height which hath since continued. The emperors\n and the prelates in these times had the same affections; both\n [being] earnest to advance this day above all other; and to\n the edicts of the one and ecclesiastical constitutions of the\n other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and\n exemptions which it still enjoyeth.\u201d[789]\n\nBut Sunday had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Thus Brerewood\nbears testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe name of the Sabbath remained appropriated to the old\n Sabbath; and was never attributed to the Lord\u2019s day, not of\n many hundred years after our Saviour\u2019s time.\u201d[790]\n\nAnd Heylyn says of the term Sabbath in the ancient church:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than that\n which formerly it had, the _Sabbath_. So that whenever for a\n thousand years and upwards, we meet with _Sabbatum_ in any\n writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but\n _Saturday_.\u201d[791]\n\nDr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, also testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen the ancient fathers distinguish and give proper names\n to the particular days of the week, they always style the\n Saturday, _Sabbatum_, the Sabbath, and the Sunday, or first day\n of the week, _Dominicum_, the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[792]\n\nIt should be observed, however, that the earliest mention of Sunday\nas the Lord\u2019s day, is in the writings of Tertullian; Justin Martyr,\nsome sixty years before, styling it \u201cthe day called Sunday;\u201d while the\nauthoritative application of that term to Sunday was by Sylvester, bishop\nof Rome, more than one hundred years after the time of Tertullian. The\nearliest mention of Sunday as Christian Sabbath is thus noted by Heylyn:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe first who ever used it to denote the Lord\u2019s day (the\n first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus\n Alfonsus\u2014he lived about the time that Rupertus did\u2014[which was\n the beginning of the twelfth century] who calls the Lord\u2019s day\n by the name of Christian Sabbath.\u201d[793]\n\nOf Sunday labor in the eastern church, Heylyn says:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was near nine hundred years from our Saviour\u2019s birth if\n not quite so much, before restraint of husbandry on this day\n had been first thought of in the east; and probably being thus\n restrained did find no more obedience there than it had done\n before in the western parts.\u201d[794]\n\nOf Sunday labor in the western church, Dr. Francis White thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Catholic church for more than six hundred years after\n Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian\n people to work upon the Lord\u2019s day, at such hours as they\n were not commanded to be present at the public service by the\n precept of the church.\u201d[795]\n\nBut let us trace the several steps by which the festival of Sunday\nincreased in strength until it attained its complete development. These\nwill be found at present mostly in the edicts of emperors, and the\ndecrees of councils. Morer tells us that,\n\n \u201cUnder Clodoveus king of France met the bishops in the first\n council of Orleans [A. D. 507], where they obliged themselves\n and their successors, to be always at the church on the Lord\u2019s\n day, except in case of sickness or some great infirmity. And\n because they, with some other of the clergy in those days,\n took cognizance of judicial matters, therefore by a council at\n Arragon, about the year 518 in the reign of Theodorick, king\n of the Goths, it was decreed that \u2018No bishop or other person\n in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil\n controversy on the Lord\u2019s day.\u2019\u201d[796]\n\nThis shows that civil courts were sometimes held on Sunday by the bishops\nin those days; otherwise such a prohibition would not have been put\nforth. Hengstenberg, in his notice of the third council of Orleans, gives\nus an insight into the then existing state of the Sunday festival:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe third council of Orleans, A. D. 538, says in its\n twenty-ninth canon: \u2018The opinion is spreading amongst the\n people, that it is wrong to ride, or drive, or cook food, or\n do anything to the house, or the person on the Sunday. But\n since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian, that shall\n be lawful in future, which has been so to the present time.\n On the other hand agricultural labor ought to be laid aside,\n _in order that the people may not be prevented from attending\n church_.\u2019\u201d[797]\n\nObserve the reason assigned. It is not lest they violate the law of\nthe Sabbath, but it is that they may not be kept from church. Another\nauthority states the case thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cLabor in the country [on Sunday] was not prohibited till the\n council of Orleans, A. D. 538. It was thus an institution of\n the church, as Dr. Paley has remarked. The earlier Christians\n met in the morning of that day for prayer and singing hymns in\n commemoration of Christ\u2019s resurrection, and then went about\n their usual duties.\u201d[798]\n\nIn A. D. 588, another council was holden, the occasion of which is thus\nstated:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd because, notwithstanding all this care, the day was not\n duly observed, the bishops were again summoned to Mascon, a\n town in Burgundy, by King Gunthrum, and there they framed\n this canon: \u2018Notice is taken that Christian people, very much\n neglect and slight the Lord\u2019s day, giving themselves as on\n other days to common work, to redress which irreverence, for\n the future, we warn every Christian who bears not that name in\n vain, to give ear to our advice, knowing we have a concern on\n us for your good, and a power to hinder you to do evil. Keep\n then the Lord\u2019s day, the day of our new birth.\u2019\u201d[799]\n\nFurther legislation being necessary, we are told:\u2014\n\n \u201cAbout a year forward, there was a council at Narbon, which\n forbid all persons of what country or quality soever, to do\n any servile work on the Lord\u2019s day. But if any man presumed to\n disobey this canon he was to be fined if a freeman, and if a\n servant, severely lashed. Or as Surius represents the penalty\n in the edict of King Recaredus, which he put out, near the same\n time to strengthen the decrees of the council, \u2018Rich men were\n to be punished with the loss of a moiety of their estates,\n and the poorer sort with perpetual banishment,\u2019 in the year\n of grace 590. Another synod was held at Auxerre a city in\n Champain, in the reign of Clotair king of France, where it was\n decreed ... \u2018that no man should be allowed to plow, nor cart,\n or do any such thing on the Lord\u2019s day.\u2019\u201d[800]\n\nSuch were some of the efforts made in the sixth century to advance the\nsacredness of the Sunday festival. And Morer tells us that,\n\n \u201cFor fear the doctrine should not take without miracles to\n support it, Gregory of Tours [about A. D. 590] furnishes us\n with several to that purpose.\u201d[801]\n\nMr. Francis West, an English first-day writer, gravely adduces one of\nthese miracles in support of first-day sacredness:\u2014\n\n \u201cGregory of Tours reporteth, \u2018that a husbandman, who upon the\n Lord\u2019s day went to plough his field, as he cleansed his plough\n with an iron, the iron stuck so fast in his hand that for two\n years he could not be delivered from it, but carried it about\n continually, to his exceeding great pain and shame.\u2019\u201d[802]\n\nIn the conclusion of the sixth century, Pope Gregory exhorted the people\nof Rome to \u201cexpiate on the day of our Lord\u2019s resurrection what was\nremissly done for the six days before.\u201d[803] In the same epistle, this\npope condemned a class of men at Rome who advocated the strict observance\nof both the Sabbath and the Sunday, styling them the preachers of\nAntichrist.[804] This shows the intolerant feeling of the papacy toward\nthe Sabbath, even when joined with the strict observance of Sunday. It\nalso shows that there were Sabbath-keepers even in Rome itself as late\nas the seventh century; although so far bewildered by the prevailing\ndarkness that they joined with its observance a strict abstinence from\nlabor on Sunday.\n\nIn the early part of the seventh century arose another foe to the Bible\nSabbath in the person of Mahomet. To distinguish his followers alike from\nthose who observed the Sabbath and those who observed the festival of\nSunday, he selected Friday, the sixth day of the week, as their religious\nfestival. And thus \u201cthe Mahometans and the Romanists crucified the\nSabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the Lord of the Sabbath, between\ntwo thieves, the sixth and first day of the week.\u201d[805] For Mahometanism\nand Romanism each suppressed the Sabbath over a wide extent of territory.\nAbout the middle of the seventh century, we have further canons of the\nchurch in behalf of Sunday:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt Chalons, a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there\n was a provincial synod which confirmed what had been done by\n the third council of Orleans, about the observation of the\n Lord\u2019s day, namely that \u2018none should plow or reap, or do any\n other thing belonging to husbandry, on pain of the censures\n of the church; which was the more minded, because backed with\n the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended\n herein; who if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free,\n had three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part\n of their patrimony, and if still obstinate were made slaves\n for the future. And in the first year of Eringius, about the\n time of Pope Agatho there sat the twelfth council of Toledo in\n Spain, A. D. 681, where the Jews were forbid to keep their own\n festivals, but so far at least observe the Lord\u2019s day as to\n do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express their\n contempt of Christ or his worship.\u2019\u201d[806]\n\nThese were weighty reasons indeed for Sunday observance. Nor can it be\nthought strange that in the Dark Ages a constant succession of such\nthings should eventuate in the universal observance of that day. Even the\nJews were to be compelled to desist from Sabbath observance, and to honor\nSunday by resting on that day from their labor. The earliest mention of\nSunday in English statutes appears to be the following:\u2014\n\n A. D. 692. \u201cIna, king of the west Saxons, by the advice of\n Cenred his father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with\n all his aldermen and sages, in a great assembly of the servants\n of God, for the health of their souls, and common preservation\n of the kingdom, made several constitutions, of which this was\n the third: \u2018If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master\u2019s\n order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings;\n but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either\n beaten with stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman,\n if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom or pay sixty\n shillings; if he be a priest, double.\u2019\u201d[807]\n\nThe same year that this law was enacted in England, the sixth general\ncouncil convened at Constantinople, which decreed that,\n\n \u201cIf any bishop or other clergyman, or any of the laity,\n absented himself from the church three Sundays together, except\n in cases of very great necessity, if a clergyman, he was to be\n deposed; if a layman, debarred the holy communion.\u201d[808]\n\nIn the year 747, a council of the English clergy was called under\nCuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert, king of Kent,\nand this constitution made:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is ordered that the Lord\u2019s day be celebrated with due\n veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that\n all abbots and priests, on this most holy day, remain in their\n respective monasteries and churches, and there do their duty\n according to their places.\u201d[809]\n\nAnother ecclesiastical statute of the eighth century was enacted at\nDingosolinum in Bavaria, where a synod met about 772 which decreed that,\n\n \u201cIf any man shall work his cart on this day, or do any such\n common business, his team shall be presently forfeited to the\n public use, and if the party persists in his folly, let him be\n sold for a bondman.\u201d[810]\n\nThe English were not behind their neighbors in the good work of\nestablishing the sacredness of Sunday. Thus we read:\u2014\n\n A. D. 784. \u201cEgbert, archbishop of York, to show positively\n what was to be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by\n prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this\n canon: \u2018Let nothing else, saith he, be done on the Lord\u2019s\n day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms and spiritual\n songs. Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for seven\n days.\u2019\u201d[811]\n\nIn the conclusion of the eighth century, further efforts were made in\nbehalf of this favored day:\u2014\n\n \u201cCharles the Great summoned the bishops to Friuli, in Italy,\n where ... they decreed [A. D. 791] that all people should, with\n due reverence and devotion, honor the Lord\u2019s day.... Under the\n same prince another council was called three years later at\n Frankford in Germany, and there the limits of the Lord\u2019s day\n were determined from Saturday evening to Sunday evening.\u201d[812]\n\nThe five councils of Mentz, Rheims, Tours, Chalons, and Arles, were\nall called in the year 813 by Charlemagne. It would be too irksome to\nthe reader to dwell upon the several acts of these councils in behalf\nof Sunday. They are of the same character as those already quoted.\nThe council of Chalons, however, is worthy of being noticed in that,\naccording to Morer,\n\n \u201cThey entreated the help of the secular power, and desired the\n emperor [Charlemagne] to provide for the stricter observation\n of it [Sunday]. Which he accordingly did, and left no stone\n unturned to secure the honor of the day. His care succeeded;\n and during his reign, the Lord\u2019s day bore a considerable\n figure. But after his day, it put on another face.\u201d[813]\n\nThe pope lent a helping hand in checking the profanation of Sunday:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd thereupon Pope Eugenius, in a synod held at Rome about\n 826, ... gave directions that the parish priest should admonish\n such offenders and wish them to go to church and say their\n prayers, lest otherwise they might bring some great calamity on\n themselves and neighbors.\u201d[814]\n\nAll this, however, was not sufficient, and so another council was\nsummoned. At this council was brought forward\u2014perhaps for the first\ntime\u2014the famous first-day argument now so familiar to all, that Sunday is\nproved to be the true Sabbath because that men are struck by lightning\nwho labor on that day. Thus we read:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut these paternal admonitions turning to little account, a\n provincial council was held at Paris three years after ... in\n 829, wherein the prelates complain that \u2018The Lord\u2019s day was\n not kept with reverence as became religion ... which was the\n reason that God had sent several judgments on them, and in a\n very remarkable manner punished some people for slighting and\n abusing it. For, say they, many of us by our own knowledge, and\n some by hearsay know, that several countrymen following their\n husbandry on this day have been killed with lightning, others,\n being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably\n perished. Whereby it is apparent how high the displeasure of\n God was upon their neglect of this day.\u2019 And at last they\n conclude that \u2018in the first place the priests and ministers,\n then kings and princes, and all faithful people be beseeched to\n use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored\n to its honor, and for the credit of Christianity more devoutly\n observed for the time to come.\u2019\u201d[815]\n\nFurther legislation being necessary,\n\n \u201cIt was decreed about seven years after in a council at Aken,\n under Lewis the Godly, that neither pleadings nor marriages\n should be allowed on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[816]\n\nBut the law of Charlemagne, though backed with the authority of the\nchurch, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, by\nthe remissness of Lewis, his successor became very feeble. It is evident\nthat canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention\nof terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not yet\nsufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute\nthan any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor. Thus we read:\u2014\n\n \u201cThereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and\n Lotharius, that they would be pleased to take some care in it,\n and send out some precept or injunction more severe than what\n was hitherto extant, to strike terror into their subjects,\n and force them to forbear their ploughing, pleading, and\n marketing, then grown again into use; which was done about the\n year 853; and to that end a synod was called at Rome under the\n popedom of Leo IV.\u201d[817]\n\nThe advocates of the first-day Sabbath have in all ages sought for a\nlaw capable of striking terror into those who do not hallow that day.\nThey still continue the vain endeavor. But if they would honor the day\nwhich God set apart for the Sabbath, they would find in that law of fire\nwhich proceeded from his right hand a statute which renders all human\nlegislation entirely unnecessary.[818]\n\nAt this synod the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Thus\nHeylyn testifies that under the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, a synod\nwas held at Rome A. D. 853, under pope Leo IV.,\n\n \u201cWhere it was ordered more precisely than in former times that\n no man should from thenceforth dare to make any markets on the\n Lord\u2019s day, no, not for things that were to eat: neither to\n do any kind of work that belonged to husbandry. Which canon\n being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards\n incorporated as it was into the body of the canon law, became\n to be admitted, without further question, in most parts of\n Christendom; especially when the popes had attained their\n height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their\n devotion. For then the people, who before had most opposed it,\n might have justly said, \u2018Behold two kings stood not before him,\n how then shall we stand?\u2019 Out of which consternation all men\n presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay\n by their labors; and amongst those, the miller, though his work\n was easiest, and least of all required his presence.\u201d[819]\n\nThis was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five\nyears after this we read as follows:\u2014\n\n A. D. 858. \u201cThe Bulgarians sent some questions to Pope\n Nicholas, to which they desired answers. And that [answer]\n which concerned the Lord\u2019s day was that they should desist from\n all secular work, etc.\u201d[820]\n\nMorer informs us respecting the civil power, that,\n\n \u201cIn this century the emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed\n the philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which,\n according to Constantine\u2019s toleration, were permitted in the\n east. The same care was taken in the west, by Theodorius, king\n of the Bavarians, who made this order, that \u2018If any person\n on the Lord\u2019s day yoked his oxen, or drove his wain, his\n right-side ox should be forthwith forfeited; or if he made hay\n and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist,\n which if he did not, he was to receive no less than fifty\n stripes.\u2019\u201d[821]\n\nOf Sunday laws in England in this century, we read:\u2014\n\n A. D. 876. \u201cAlfred the Great, was the first who united the\n Saxon Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to\n make a law that among other festivals this day more especially\n might be solemnly kept, because it was the day whereon our\n Saviour Christ overcame the devil; meaning Sunday, which is\n the weekly memorial of our Lord\u2019s resurrection, whereby he\n overcame death, and him who had the power of death, that is the\n devil. And whereas before the single punishment for sacrilege\n committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the\n thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any\n person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord\u2019s day,\n he should be doubly punished.\u201d[822]\n\nNineteen years later, the pope and his council still further strengthened\nthe sacred day. The council of Friburgh in Germany, A. D. 895, under\nPope Formosus, decreed that the Lord\u2019s day, men \u201cwere to spend in\nprayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be\nprovoked to anger.\u201d[823] The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in\nEngland was carried steadily forward:\u2014\n\n \u201cKing Athelston, ... in the year 928, made a law that there\n should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord\u2019s day,\n under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine\n of thirty shillings for each offense.\u201d[824]\n\nIn a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed\nthat all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, &c., on Sunday\nshould cease. \u201cAnd whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a\nfreeman, he was to pay twelve or\u00e6, if a servant, be severely whipt.\u201d We\nare further informed that,\n\n \u201cAbout the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it\n decreed that above all things the Lord\u2019s day should be kept\n with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient\n practice.\u201d[825]\n\n A. D. 967. King Edgar \u201ccommanded that the festival should be\n kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till\n day-break on Monday.\u201d[826]\n\n \u201cKing Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, coming to the crown\n about the year 1009, called a general council of all the\n English clergy, under Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and\n Wolstan, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all\n persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and\n what belonged to it.\u201d[827]\n\nNor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn\ntells us of the piety of a Norwegian king by the name of Olaus, A. D.\n1028.\n\n \u201cFor being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and\n having in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and\n whittled it as men do sometimes, when their minds are troubled\n or intent on business. And when it had been told him as by way\n of jest how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he\n gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and\n set fire unto them, that so, saith Crantzius, he might revenge\n that on himself what unawares he had committed against God\u2019s\n commandment.\u201d[828]\n\nIn Spain also the work went forward. A council was held at Coy, in\nSpain, A. D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of Pope\nLeo IX., where it was decreed that the Lord\u2019s day \u201cwas to be entirely\nconsecrated to hearing of mass.\u201d[829]\n\nTo strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the\npeople, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the\nfollowing statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani,\n who lived A. D. 1056, that every Lord\u2019s day they were\n manumitted from their pains and fluttered up and down the lake\n Avernus, in the shape of birds.\u201d[830]\n\nAt the same time, another argument of a similar kind was brought forward\nto render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us respecting\nthat class who in this age were most zealous advocates of Sunday\nobservance:\u2014\n\n \u201cYet still the others went on in their way; and to induce their\n proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care,\n they brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to\n the damned in hell, who during the day, have some respite from\n their torments, and the ease and liberty they have is more or\n less according to the zeal and degrees of keeping it well.\u201d[831]\n\nIf therefore they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their\nfriends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their\ntorments on that day! In a council at Rome, A. D. 1078, Pope Gregory\nVII. decreed that as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast day,\nthose who desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from\neating meat.[832] In the eastern division of the Catholic church, in the\neleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal\nin sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the\nwestern division of that church:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they\n did labor and fast.... And this, with little opposition or\n interruption, save that which had been made in the city of Rome\n in the beginning of the seventh century, and was soon crushed\n by Gregory then bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever\n Urban of that name the second, did consecrate it to the weekly\n service of the blessed virgin, and instituted in the council\n held at Clermont, A. D. 1095, that our lady\u2019s office should be\n said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian folks should\n worship her with their best devotion.\u201d[833]\n\nIt would seem that this was a crowning indignity to the Most High. The\nmemorial of the great Creator was set apart as a festival on which to\nworship Mary, under the title of mother of God! In the middle of the\ntwelfth century, the king of England was admonished not to suffer men\nto work upon Sunday. Henry II. entered on the government about the year\n1155.\n\n \u201cOf him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff\n (... in South Wales) which from St. Peter charged him, that\n upon Sundays throughout his dominions, there should be no\n buying or selling, and no servile work done.\u201d[834]\n\nThe sacredness of Sunday was not yet sufficiently established, because\na divine warrant for its observance was still unprovided. The manner\nin which this urgent necessity was met is related by Roger Hoveden, a\nhistorian of high repute who lived at the very time when this much-needed\nprecept was furnished by the pope. Hoveden informs us that Eustace the\nabbot of Flaye in Normandy, came into England in the year 1200, to\npreach the word of the Lord, and that his preaching was attended by many\nwonderful miracles. He was very earnest in behalf of Sunday. Thus Hoveden\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt London also, and many other places throughout England, he\n effected by his preaching, that from that time forward people\n did not dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the\n Lord\u2019s Day.\u201d[835]\n\nBut Hoveden tells us that \u201cthe enemy of mankind raised against this\nman of God the ministers of iniquity,\u201d and it seems that having no\ncommandment for Sunday he was in a strait place. The historian continues:\u2014\n\n \u201cHowever, the said abbot, on being censured by the ministers\n of Satan, was unwilling any longer to molest the prelates of\n England by his preaching, but returned to Normandy, unto his\n place whence he came.\u201d[836]\n\nBut Eustace, though repulsed, had no thought of abandoning the contest.\nHe had no commandment from the Lord when he came into England the first\ntime. But one year\u2019s sojourn on the continent was sufficient to provide\nthat which he lacked. Hoveden tells us how he returned the following year\nwith the needed precept:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the same year [1201], Eustace, abbot of Flaye, returned to\n England, and preaching therein the word of the Lord from city\n to city, and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a\n market of goods on sale upon the Lord\u2019s day. For he said that\n the commandment under-written, as to the observance of the\n Lord\u2019s day, had come down from Heaven:\u2014\n\n \u201cTHE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD\u2019S DAY,\n\n \u201cWhich came from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the\n altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified\n for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle,\n which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, and after\n looking upon which, three days and three nights, some men fell\n upon the earth, imploring mercy of God. And after the third\n hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias, the archbishop, and\n they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from\n God. And when they had taken the same they found this writing\n therein:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2018I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day\n of the Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented\n of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, \u201cHeaven and earth\n shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.\u201d Whereas,\n I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of\n life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the\n pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have\n not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord\u2019s day\n holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you\n fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more,\n it is my will, that no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday\n until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work except that which is\n good.\n\n \u201c\u2018And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make\n amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this\n command, verily, I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my\n seat and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy\n seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle,\n but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you\n stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may\n take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy\n all wicked men.\n\n \u201c\u2018This do I say unto you; for the Lord\u2019s holy day, you shall\n die the death, and for the other festivals of my saints which\n you have not kept: I will send unto you beasts that have the\n heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and\n they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh,\n and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and\n to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take\n away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send\n darkness upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another,\n and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy\n upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and\n of all of those who do not keep as holy the day of the Lord.\n\n \u201c\u2018Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for\n the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance\n for your sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and\n Gomorrah shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by\n the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy\n angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and\n wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For\n the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you\n show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all.\n The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for\n your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water.\n\n \u201c\u2018I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not\n kept. I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not\n observed. For you I was born into the world, and my festive day\n ye knew not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord\u2019s day\n of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that\n if you do not observe the Lord\u2019s day, and the festivals of my\n saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that they may\n slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others,\n and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against\n you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your\n women. I will curse those who on the Lord\u2019s day have wrought\n evil.\n\n \u201c\u2018Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse.\n Those who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the\n earth, will I curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the\n prince of this world. Give heed to my voice, and you shall have\n the blessing of mercy. But you cease not from your bad works,\n nor from the works of the devil. Because you are guilty of\n perjuries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall surround\n you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.\u2019\u201d[837]\n\nThat such a document was actually brought into England at this time,\nand in the manner here described, is so amply attested as to leave no\ndoubt.[838] Matthew Paris, like Hoveden, was actually a cotemporary of\nEustace. Hoveden properly belongs to the twelfth century, for he died\nshortly after the arrival of Eustace with his roll. But Matthew Paris\nbelongs to the thirteenth, as he was but young at the time this roll\n(A. D. 1201) was brought into England. Both have a high reputation for\ntruthfulness. In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears\nthe following testimony to the credibility of Matthew Paris:\u2014\n\n \u201cAmong the historians, the _first place_ is due to Matthew\n Paris, a writer of the _highest merit_, both in point of\n _knowledge_ and _prudence_.\u201d[839]\n\nAnd Dr. Murdock says of him:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe is accounted the best historian of the Middle Ages,\n learned, independent, honest, and judicious.\u201d[840]\n\nMatthew Paris relates the return of the abbot Eustachius (as he spells\nthe name) from Normandy, and gives us a copy of the roll which he\nbrought, and an account of its fall from Heaven as related by the abbot\nhimself. He also tells us how the abbot came by it, tracing the history\nof the roll from the point when the patriarch gathered courage to take it\ninto his hands, till the time when our abbot was commissioned to bring it\ninto England. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had\n diligently examined the contents of this epistle, it was\n decreed in a general deliberation that the epistle should be\n sent to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, seeing that whatever\n he decreed to be done, would please all. And when at length the\n epistle had come to the knowledge of the lord pope, immediately\n he ordained heralds, who being sent through different parts of\n the world, preached every where the doctrine of this epistle,\n the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs\n following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a\n devout and learned man, having entered the kingdom of England\n did there shine with many miracles.\u201d[841]\n\nNow we know what the abbot was about during the year that he was\nabsent from England. He could not establish first-day sacredness by his\nfirst mission to England, for he had no divine warrant in its behalf.\nHe therefore retired from the mission long enough to make known the\nnecessities of the case to the \u201clord pope.\u201d But when he came the second\ntime he brought the divine mandate for Sunday, and with it the commission\nof the pope, authorizing him to proclaim that mandate to the people, and\ninforming them that it was sent to His Holiness from Jerusalem by those\nwho saw it fall from Heaven. Had Eustace framed this document himself,\nand then forged a commission from the pope, a few months would have\ndiscovered the imposture. But their genuineness was never questioned as\nis shown by the preservation of this roll by the best historians of that\ntime. We therefore trace the responsibility for this roll directly to\nthe pope of Rome. The statement of the pope that he received it from the\nhands of those who saw it fall from Heaven is the guaranty given by His\nHoliness to the people that the roll came from God. The historians then\nliving, who record this transaction, were able to satisfy themselves that\nEustace brought the roll from the pope; and they believed the pope\u2019s\nstatement that he had received it from Heaven. It was Innocent III. who\nfilled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cInnocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal\n power and authority to the highest pitch, and we shall see him\n improving, with great address, every opportunity that offered\n to compass that end.\u201d[842]\n\nAnother eminent authority makes this statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe external circumstances of his time also furthered\n Innocent\u2019s views, and enabled him to make his pontificate the\n most marked in the annals of Rome; the culminating point of\n the temporal as well as the spiritual supremacy of the Roman\n See.\u201d[843]\n\n \u201cHis pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the\n period of the highest power of the Roman See.\u201d[844]\n\nThe dense darkness of the Dark Ages still covered the earth when that\npontiff filled the papal throne who raised the papacy to its highest\nelevation. Two facts worthy of much thought should here be named in\nconnection:\u2014\n\n1. The first act of papal usurpation was by an edict in behalf of\nSunday.[845]\n\n2. The utmost hight of papal usurpation was marked by the pope\u2019s act of\nfurnishing a divine precept for Sunday observance.\n\nThe mission of Eustace was attested by miracles which are worthy of\nperusal by those who believe in first-day sacredness because their\nfathers thus believed. Here they may learn what was done six centuries\nsince, to fix these ideas in the minds of their fathers. Eustace came to\nYork, in the north of England, and, meeting an honorable reception,\n\n \u201cPreached the word of the Lord, and on the breaking of the\n Lord\u2019s day and the other festivals, and imposed upon the people\n penance and gave absolution, upon condition that in future\n they would pay due reverence to the Lord\u2019s day and the other\n festivals of the saints, doing therein no servile work.\u201d[846]\n\n \u201cUpon this, the people who were dutiful to God at his\n preaching, vowed before God that, for the future, on the\n Lord\u2019s day, they would neither buy nor sell any thing, unless,\n perchance, victuals and drink to wayfarers.\u201d[847]\n\nThe abbot also made provision for the collection of alms for the benefit\nof the poor, and forbade the use of the churches for the sale of goods,\nand for the pleading of causes. Upon this, the king interfered as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cAccordingly, through these and other warnings of this\n holy man, the enemy of mankind being rendered envious,\n he put it into the heart of the king and of the princes\n of darkness to command that all who should observe the\n before stated doctrines, and more especially all those who\n had discountenanced the markets on the Lord\u2019s day, should\n be brought before the king\u2019s court of justice, to make\n satisfaction as to the observance of the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[848]\n\nThe markets on the Lord\u2019s day, it seems, were held in the churches, and\nEustace was attempting to suppress these when he forbade the sale of\ngoods in the churches. And now to confirm the authority of the roll,\nand to neutralize the opposition of the king, some very extraordinary\nprodigies were reported. The roll forbade labor \u201cfrom the ninth hour\n(that is 3 P. M.) on Saturday until sunrise on Monday.\u201d Now read what\nhappened to the disobedient:\u2014\n\n \u201cOne Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the\n ninth hour of the day was, contrary to the wholesome advice\n of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being\n struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the\n ninth hour, on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of\n the web, persisted in so doing, fell to the ground, struck\n with paralysis, and lost her voice. At Rafferton also, a vill\n belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a\n loaf and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on\n Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the\n morning, but when he broke it on the Lord\u2019s day blood started\n forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore witness, and his\n testimony is true.\n\n \u201cAt Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after\n the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly\n came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the\n vessel placed beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the\n mill-wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the\n water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, \u2018Spare\n us, O Lord, spare thy people!\u2019\n\n \u201cAlso, in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and\n taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she\n placed it in the oven, which was then at a very great heat; but\n when she took it out, she found it raw, on which she again put\n it into the oven, which was very hot; and, both on the next\n day, and on Monday, when she supposed that she should find the\n loaves baked, she found raw dough.\n\n \u201cIn the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her\n dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to\n her, \u2018It is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it\n one side till Monday;\u2019 on which the woman, obeying her husband,\n did as he commanded; and so, having covered over the dough with\n a linen cloth, on coming the next day to look at the dough, to\n see whether it had not, in rising, through the yeast that was\n in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the\n loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked, without\n any fire of the material of this world. This was a change\n wrought by the right hand of Him on high.\u201d[849]\n\nThe historian laments that these miracles were lost upon the people, and\nthat they feared the king more than they feared God, and so \u201clike a dog\nto his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[850]\nSuch was the first attempt in England after the apparition of St. Peter,\nA. D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. \u201cIt shows,\u201d\nas Morer quaintly observes, \u201chow industrious men were in those times\nto have this great day solemnly observed.\u201d[851] And Gilfillan, who has\noccasion to mention the story of the roll from Heaven, has not one word\nof condemnation for the pious fraud in behalf of Sunday, but he simply\nspeaks of our abbot as \u201cThis ardent person.\u201d[852]\n\nTwo years after the arrival of Eustace in England with his roll, A. D.\n1203, a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and\nestablishment of the Lord\u2019s day in that kingdom.[853] The roll that had\nfallen from Heaven to supply the lack of scriptural testimony in behalf\nof this day, was admirably adapted to the business of this council,\nthough Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch were so ready to comply\nwith the pope\u2019s wishes that the packet from the court of Heaven and the\naccompanying miracles were not needed.[854] Yet Morer asserts that the\npacket was actually produced on this occasion:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo that end it was again produced and read in a council of\n Scotland, held under [pope] Innocent III., ... A. D. 1203, in\n the reign of King William, who ... passed it into a law that\n Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and\n that no man shall deal in such worldly business as on feast\n days were forbidden. As also that at the tolling of a bell, the\n people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons\n and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a\n penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the\n year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted,\n in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III., king of the Scots,\n that none should fish in any waters, from Saturday after\n evening prayer, till sunrising on Monday, which was afterward\n confirmed by King James I.\u201d[855]\n\nThe sacredness of this papal Lord\u2019s day seems to have been more easily\nestablished by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work\nof establishing this institution was everywhere carried steadily forward.\nOf England we read:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the year 1237, Henry III. being king, and Edmund de Abendon\n archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made, requiring\n every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of\n markets on the Lord\u2019s day, and leaving the church, where they\n ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word\n of God. And this on pain of excommunication.\u201d[856]\n\nOf France we are informed:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it\n restrained the people from their ordinary work on the Lord\u2019s\n day, and other festivals on pain of ecclesiastical censures.\u201d\n\n A. D. 1282. The council of Angeirs in France \u201cforbid millers by\n water or otherwise to grind their corn from Saturday evening\n till Sunday evening.\u201d[857]\n\nNor were the Spaniards backward in this work:\u2014\n\n A. D. 1322. This year \u201ca synod was called at Valladolid in\n Castile, and then was ratified what was formerly required,\n that \u2018none should follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any\n mechanical employment on the Lord\u2019s day, or other holy days,\n but where it was a work of necessity or charity, of which the\n minister of the parish was to be judge.\u2019\u201d[858]\n\nThe rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in\nestablishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes\nshow that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its\nobservance:\u2014\n\n A. D. 1358. \u201cIstippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great\n concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: \u2018We have it from\n the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places\n within our province, a very naughty, nay, damnable custom has\n prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord\u2019s day....\n Wherefore by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge\n and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people\n faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them\n to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the\n Lord\u2019s day.... And as for such who are obstinate and speak\n or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to\n restrain them by ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful\n means put a stop to these extravagances.\u2019\n\n \u201cNor was the civil power silent; for much about that time King\n Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple\n on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of\n King Henry VI., Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury,\n A. D. 1444, it was decreed that fairs and markets should no\n more be kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord\u2019s day, or\n other festivals, except in time of harvest.\u201d[859]\n\nObserve that fairs and markets were held in the churches in England on\nSundays as late as 1444! And even later than this such fairs were allowed\nin harvest time. On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday\nwas persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n A. D. 1532. \u201cThe Lord\u2019s day and other festivals were instituted\n for this purpose, that faithful Christians abstaining from\n external work, might more freely, and with greater piety devote\n themselves to God\u2019s worship.\u201d[860]\n\nThey did not seem to be aware of the fact however that when the fear of\nGod is taught by the precepts of men such worship is vain.[861] The\ncouncil of Rheims, which sat the next year, made this decree:\u2014\n\n A. D. 1533. \u201cLet the people assemble at their parish churches\n on the Lord\u2019s day, and other holidays, and be present at mass,\n sermons and vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to\n plays or dances, especially during service.\u201d And the historian\n adds: \u201cIn the same year another synod at Tours, ordered the\n Lord\u2019s day and other holidays to be reverently observed under\n pain of excommunication.\u201d[862]\n\nA council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the\ndivine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which\nhas supplanted it:\u2014\n\n A. D. 1584. \u201cLet all Christians remember that the seventh day\n was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed,\n not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship\n God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the\n Lord\u2019s day. A day therefore to be kept, by forbearing all\n worldly business, suits, contracts, carriages, &c., and by\n sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the contemplation\n of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works of\n charity, say prayers, and sing psalms.\u201d[863]\n\nWe have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a\nperiod subsequent to the Reformation. That it is an ordinance of man\nwhich has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath is most distinctly\nconfessed by the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends\nfor their violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity,\nprayers, and psalms: a course too often adopted at the present time to\nexcuse the violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long\nlist of Sunday laws, not from the \u201cone Law-giver who is able to save and\nto destroy,\u201d but from popes, emperors, and councils, without adopting the\nsentiment of Neander: \u201cThe festival of Sunday, like all other festivals,\nwas always only a human ordinance?\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES.\n\n The Dark Ages defined\u2014Difficulty of tracing the people\n of God during this period\u2014The Sabbath effectually\n suppressed in the Catholic church at the close of the fifth\n century\u2014Sabbath-keepers in Rome about A. D. 600\u2014The Culdees\n of Great Britain\u2014Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper\u2014The\n Waldenses\u2014Their antiquity\u2014Their wide extent\u2014Their\n peculiarities\u2014Sabbatarian character of a part of this\n people\u2014Important facts respecting the Waldenses and the\n Romanists\u2014Other bodies of Sabbatarians\u2014The Cathari\u2014The\n Arnoldist\u00e6\u2014The Passaginians\u2014The Petrobruysians\u2014Gregory VII.\n about A. D. 1074 condemns the Sabbath-keepers\u2014The Sabbath\n in Constantinople in the eleventh century\u2014A portion of the\n Anabaptists\u2014Sabbatarians in Abyssinia and Ethiopia\u2014The\n Armenians of the East Indies\u2014The Sabbath retained through the\n Dark Ages by those who were not in the communion of the Romish\n church.\n\n\nWith the accession of the Roman bishop to supremacy began the Dark\nAges;[864] and as he increased in strength, the gloom of darkness settled\nwith increasing intensity upon the world. The highest elevation of the\npapal power marks the latest point in the Dark Ages before the first\ngray dawn of twilight.[865] That power was providentially weakened\npreparatory to the reformation of the sixteenth century, when the light\nof advancing day began to manifestly dissipate the gross darkness which\ncovered the earth. The difficulty of tracing the true people of God\nthrough this period is well set forth in the following language of\nBenedict:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we\n know of them is from accounts of their enemies, which were\n always uttered in the style of censure and complaint; and\n without which we should not have known that millions of them\n ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate\n every vestige of opposition to her doctrines and decrees;\n everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the\n faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray.\n In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books\n and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed\n to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in\n the fifteenth century, all books were made with the pen; the\n copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much\n more difficult than it would be now; and if a few of them\n escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would soon be\n worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved\n in the public libraries of the Catholics, from the ravages of\n time and of the hands of barbarians with which all parts of\n Europe were at different periods overwhelmed.\u201d[866]\n\nThe first five centuries of the Christian era accomplished the\nsuppression of the Sabbath in those churches which were under the\nspecial control of the Roman pontiff. Thenceforward we must look for the\nobservers of the Sabbath outside the communion of the church of Rome. It\nwas predicted that the Roman power should cast down the truth to the\nground.[867] The Scriptures set forth the law of God as his truth.[868]\nThe Dark Ages were the result of this work of the great apostasy. So\ndense and all-pervading was the darkness, that God\u2019s pure truth was more\nor less obscured even with the true people of God in their places of\nretirement.\n\nAbout the year 600, as we have seen, there was in the city of Rome\nitself a class of Sabbath-keeping Christians who were very strict in\nthe observance of the fourth commandment. It has been said of them that\nthey joined with this a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday. But Dr.\nTwisse, a learned first-day writer who has particularly examined the\nrecord respecting them, asserts that this Sunday observance pertained to\n\u201cother persons, different from the former.\u201d[869] These Sabbath-keepers\nwere not Romanists, and the pope denounced them in strong language.\n\nThe Christians of Great Britain, before the mission of Augustine to that\ncountry, A. D. 596, were not in subjection to the bishop of Rome. They\nwere in an eminent degree Bible Christians. They are thus described:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Scottish church, when it first meets the eye of\n civilization, is not Romish, nor even prelatical. When the\n monk Augustine, with his forty missionaries, in the time of\n the Saxon Heptarchy, came over to Britain under the auspices\n of Gregory, the bishop of Rome, to convert the barbarian\n Saxons, he found the northern part of the island already\n well-nigh filled with Christians and Christian institutions.\n These Christians were the Culdees, whose chief seat was the\n little island of Hi or Iona, on the western coast of Scotland.\n An Irish presbyter, Columba, feeling himself stirred with\n missionary zeal, and doubtless knowing the wretched condition\n of the savage Scots and Picts, in the year 565, took with him\n twelve other missionaries, and passed over to Scotland. They\n fixed their settlement on the little island just named, and\n from that point became the missionaries of all Scotland, and\n even penetrated into England.[870]\n\n \u201cThe people in the south of England converted by Augustine and\n his assistants, and those in the north who had been won by\n Culdee labor, soon met, as Christian conquest advanced from\n both sides; and when they came together, it was soon seen\n that Roman and Culdee Christianity very decidedly differed in\n a great many respects. The Culdees, for the most part, had a\n simple and primitive form of Christianity, while Rome presented\n a vast accumulation of superstitions, and was arrayed in her\n well-known pomp.[871]\n\n \u201cThe Culdee went to Iona that in quiet, with meditation, study,\n and prayer, he might fit himself for going out into the world\n as a missionary. Indeed, Iona was a great mission institute,\n where preachers were trained who evangelized the rude tribes of\n Scotland in a very short time. To have done such a work as this\n in less than half a century implies apostolic activity, purity,\n and success.[872]\n\n \u201cAfter the success of Agustine and his monks in England, the\n Culdees had shut themselves up within the limits of Scotland,\n and had resisted for centuries all the efforts of Rome to win\n them over. At last, however, they were overthrown by their own\n rulers.\u201d[873]\n\nThere is strong incidental evidence that Columba, the leading minister\nof his time among the Culdees, was an observer of the ancient Sabbath\nof the Bible. On this point I quote two standard authors of the Roman\nCatholics. They certainly have no motive to put such words as I here\nquote, fraudulently into the mouth of Columba, for they claim him as a\nsaint, and they are no friends of the Bible Sabbath. Nor can we see how\nColumba could have used these words with satisfaction, as he evidently\ndid, when dying, had he all his life long been a violator of the ancient\nrest-day of the Lord. Here are the words of Dr. Alvan Butler:\u2014\n\n \u201cHaving continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years,\n he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday the\n ninth of June said to his disciple Diermit: \u2018This day is called\n the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, and such will it truly\n be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.\u2019\u201d[874]\n\nAnother distinguished Catholic author gives us his dying words thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo-day is Saturday, the day which the Holy Scriptures call the\n Sabbath, or rest. And it will be truly my day of rest, for it\n shall be the last of my laborious life.\u201d[875]\n\nThese words show, 1. That Columba believed that Saturday was the true\nBible Sabbath. 2. That he did not believe the Sabbath had been changed to\nSunday. 3. That this confession of faith respecting the Bible Sabbath was\nmade with evident satisfaction, though in view of immediate death. Did\nany first-day man ever recur with pleasure on his death-bed to the fact\nthat Saturday is the Bible Sabbath?\n\nBut Gilfillan quotes these words of Columba as spoken in behalf of\nSunday! In giving a list of eminent men who have asserted the change of\nthe Sabbath, or who have called Sunday the Sabbath, and have taught that\nit should be observed as a day of sacred rest, he brings in Columba\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe testimony of Columba is specially interesting, as it\n expresses the feelings of the heart at a moment which tests\n the sincerity of faith, and the value of a creed: \u2018This day,\u2019\n he said to his servant, \u2018in the sacred volume is called the\n Sabbath, that is, rest; and will indeed be a Sabbath to me,\n for it is to me the last day of this toilsome life, the\n day on which I am to rest (sabbatize), after all my labors\n and troubles, for on this coming sacred night of the Lord\n (_Dominica nocte_), at the midnight hour, I shall, as the\n Scriptures speak, go the way of my fathers.\u2019\u201d[876]\n\nBut this day which Columba said \u201cwill indeed be a Sabbath to me\u201d was not\nSunday but Saturday.\n\nAmong the dissenters from the Romish church in the period of the Dark\nAges, the first place perhaps is due to the Waldenses, both for their\nantiquity and the wide extent of their influence and doctrine. Benedict\nquotes from their enemies respecting the antiquity of their origin:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe have already observed from Claudius Seyssel, the popish\n archbishop, that one Leo was charged with originating the\n Waldensian heresy in the valleys, in the days of Constantine\n the Great. When those severe measures emanated from the Emperor\n Honorious against rebaptizers, the Baptists left the seat of\n opulence and power, and sought retreats in the country, and in\n the valleys of Piedmont; which last place in particular became\n their retreat from imperial oppression.\u201d[877]\n\nDean Waddington quotes the following from Rainer Saccho, a popish writer,\nwho had the best means of information respecting them:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three\n reasons: first, it is the most ancient\u2014some say as old as\n Sylvester [pope in Constantine\u2019s time], others as the apostles\n themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated: there\n is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly,\n while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the\n utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe\n nothing respecting God which is not good.\u201d[878]\n\nMr. Jones gives Saccho\u2019s own opinion as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cTheir enemies confirm their great antiquity. Reinerius Saccho,\n an inquisitor, and one of their most cruel persecutors, who\n lived only eighty years after Waldo [A. D. 1160], admits\n that the Waldenses flourished five hundred years before that\n preacher. Gretser, the Jesuit, who also wrote against the\n Waldenses, and had examined the subject fully, not only admits\n their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the\n Toulousians and Albigenses condemned in the years 1177 and\n 1178, were no other than the Waldenses.\u201d[879]\n\nJortin dates their withdrawal into the wilderness of the Alps as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cA. D. 601. In the seventh century, Christianity was propagated\n in China by the Nestorians; and the Valdenses, who abhorred the\n papal usurptions, are supposed to have settled themselves in\n the valleys of Piedmont. Monkery flourished prodigiously, and\n the monks and popes were in the firmest union.\u201d[880]\n\nPresident Edwards says:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome of the popish writers themselves own, that this people\n never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish\n writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the\n Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed\n that they first betook themselves to this place among the\n mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen\n persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great. And\n thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the\n serpent. Rev. 12:6, 14. \u2018And to the woman were given two wings\n of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into\n her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and\n half a time, from the face of the serpent.\u2019 The people being\n settled there, their posterity continued [there] from age to\n age; and being, as it were, by natural walls, as well as by\n God\u2019s grace, separated from the rest of the world, they never\n partook of the overflowing corruption.\u201d[881]\n\nBenedict makes other quotations relative to their origin:\u2014\n\n \u201cTheodore Belvedre, a popish monk, says that the heresy had\n always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible\n the translators say that they [the Waldenses] have always had\n the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy\n Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the\n apostles; having in fair MSS. preserved the entire Bible in\n their native tongue from generation to generation.\u201d[882]\n\nOf the extent to which they spread in the countries of Europe, Benedict\nthus speaks:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic\n historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of\n complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches,\n or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany,\n the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania,\n Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Veleponetine,\n Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia,\n Livonia, Sarmatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton and Piedmont.\u201d[883]\n\nAnd Dr. Edgar gives the words of an old historian as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through\n France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and\n appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany,\n Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania.\u201d[884]\n\nAccording to the testimony of their enemies, they were to some extent\ndivided among themselves. Dr. Allix quotes an old Romish writer who says\nof that portion of them who were called Cathari:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey are also divided amongst themselves; so what some of them\n say is again denied by others.\u201d[885]\n\nAnd Crosby makes a similar statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere were several sects of Waldenses or Albigenses, like as\n there are of Dissenters in England. Some of these did deny all\n baptism, others only the baptism of infants. That many of them\n were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories\n of this people, as well ancient as modern.\u201d[886]\n\nSome of their enemies affirm that they reject the Old Testament;\nbut others, with much greater truthfulness, bear a very different\ntestimony.[887] Thus a Romish inquisitor, as quoted by Allix, bears\ntestimony concerning those in Bohemia:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments\n by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and\n expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of\n Scripture.... [They say] that the doctrine of Christ and\n the apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church\n statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church\n are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that\n greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions\n than on the keeping of the law of God. Why do you transgress\n the law of God by your traditions?... They contemn all\n approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in\n the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the\n reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on\n Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other\n festivals of Christ and the saints, because of their being\n multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as\n good as another, and work upon holy days, where they can do it\n without being taken notice of.\u201d[888]\n\nDr. Allix quotes a Waldensian document of A. D. 1100, entitled the \u201cNoble\nLesson,\u201d and remarks:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe author upon supposal that the world was drawing to an\n end, exhorts his brethren to prayer, to watchfulness, to a\n renouncing of all worldly goods....\n\n \u201cHe sets down all the judgments of God in the Old Testament\n as the effects of a just and good God; and in particular the\n decalogue as a law given by the Lord of the whole world. He\n repeats the several articles of the law, not forgetting that\n which respects idols.\u201d[889]\n\nTheir religious views are further stated by Allix:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey declare themselves to be the apostles\u2019 successors,\n to have apostolical authority, and the keys of binding and\n loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the whore of\n Babylon, and that all that obey her are damned, especially\n the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope\n Sylvester.... They hold that none of the ordinances of the\n church that have been introduced since Christ\u2019s ascension\n ought to be observed, as being of no worth; the feasts, fasts,\n orders, blessings, offices of the church and the like, they\n utterly reject.\u201d[890]\n\nA considerable part of the people called Waldenses bore the significant\ndesignation of _Sabbati_, or _Sabbatati_, or _Insabbatati_. Mr. Jones\nalludes to this fact in the following words:\u2014\n\n \u201cBecause they would not observe saints\u2019 days, they were falsely\n supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called _Insabbatati_\n or _Insabbathists_.\u201d[891]\n\nMr. Benedict makes the following statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe find that the Waldenses were sometimes called\n _Insabbathos_, that is, regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner\n supposes this name was given to them because they observed\n not the Romish festivals, and rested from their ordinary\n occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that\n it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did\n regard not the first-day Sabbath.\u201d[892]\n\nMr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting\nthe meaning of these names, which were borne by the Waldenses. But\nhe rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to these\nconclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, and not by the facts.\nHere are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome of these Christians were called _Sabbati_, _Sabbatati_,\n _Insabbatati_, and more frequently _Inzabbatati_. Led astray\n by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so\n named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the\n Saturday for the Lord\u2019s day. Another says they were so called\n because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low\n Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously\n observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and\n additions have said after him, they were called so from _sabot_\n or _zabot_, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves\n from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part\n with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not\n descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives\n through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt\n danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes? Besides the\n shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it\n was of a different fashion, and was called abarca.\u201d[893]\n\nMr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own\njudgment that they were so called because they lived in the mountains.\nThese four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning\nof these names. But Robinson\u2019s own explanation is purely fanciful, and\nseems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however,\nconclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name\nfrom their shoes. There remain, therefore, only the first and second\nof these four statements, which are that they were called by these\nnames because they kept the Saturday for the Lord\u2019s day, and because\nthey did not keep the sabbaths of the papists. These two statements\ndo not conflict. In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly\nfollows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such\nfacts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true\npeople of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and\nobvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking\ncharacteristic of the people who bore them.\n\nJones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the\nWaldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on\nthe contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the\nRomish festivals.[894] Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because\nthey kept the seventh day.[895] But let us now see who they are that\nmake these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the\nWaldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place. He quotes out of\nGretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cInsabbatati [they were called] not because they were\n circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.\u201d[896]\n\nGoldastus was \u201ca learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell in\nSwitzerland in 1576.\u201d He died in 1635.[897] He was a Calvinist writer of\nnote.[898] He certainly had no motive to favor the cause of the seventh\nday. Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses\nexterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the\nworld for men who had God\u2019s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still\nfurther objects that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but\nthis charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in\nthe present chapter.\n\nRobinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher.\nThough that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from\ntheir shoes, he frankly acknowledges that MANY understood that they\nwere given to them because they worshiped on the Jewish Sabbath. This\ntestimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted\nthe observance of \u201cthe Saturday for the Lord\u2019s day\u201d by the people who\nwere called Sabbatati.[899]\n\nIn consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and because also\nof their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely\nscattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different\nages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some\nof these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas\nSylvius says that those in Bohemia hold \u201cthat we are to cease from\nworking on no day except the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d[900] This statement, let it\nbe observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that\nthe Waldenses were so distinct from the church of Rome they could not\nhave received the Sunday Lord\u2019s day from thence, and must, therefore,\nhave received it from the apostles! But a few words from D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 will\nsuffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an\ninterview between \u0152colampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been\nsent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont, to open\ncommunication with the reformers. It was at Basle, in 1530. Many things\nwhich they said pleased \u0152colampadius, but some things he disapproved.\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 makes this statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little\n confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their\n juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the\n Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they\n confessed that through weakness and fear _they had their\n children baptized by Romish priests_, and that _they even\n communicated with them and sometimes attended mass_. This\n unexpected avowal startled the meek \u0152colampadius.\u201d[901]\n\nWhen the deputation returned word to the Waldenses that the reformers\ndemanded of them \u201ca stricter reform,\u201d D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 says that it was\n\u201csupported by some, and rejected by others.\u201d He also informs us that the\ndemand that the Waldenses should \u201cseparate entirely from Rome\u201d \u201ccaused\ndivisions among them.\u201d[902]\n\nThis is a very remarkable statement. The light of many of these ancient\nwitnesses was almost ready to go out in darkness when God raised up the\nreformers. They had suffered that woman Jezebel to teach among them, and\nto seduce the servants of God. They had even come to practice infant\nbaptism, and the priests of Rome administered the rite! And in addition\nto all this, they sometimes joined with them in the service of the mass!\nIf a portion of the Waldenses in southern Europe at the time of the\nReformation had exchanged believers\u2019 baptism for the baptism of children\nby Romish priests, it is not difficult to see how they could also accept\nthe Sunday-Lord\u2019s day from the same source in place of the hallowed\nrest-day of the Lord. All had not done this, but some certainly had.\n\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 makes a very interesting statement respecting the French\nWaldenses in the fifteenth century. His language implies that they had\na different Sabbath from the Catholics. He tells us some of the stories\nwhich the priests circulated against the Waldenses. These are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cPicardy in the north and Dauphiny in the south were the two\n provinces of France best prepared [at the opening of the\n Protestant Reformation] to receive the gospel. During the\n fifteenth century many Picardins, as the story ran, went to\n _Vaudery_. Seated round the fire during the long nights,\n simple Catholics used to tell one another how the _Vaudois_\n (Waldenses) met in horrible assembly in solitary places, where\n they found tables spread with numerous and dainty viands. These\n poor Christians loved indeed to meet together from districts\n often very remote. They went to the rendezvous by night and\n along by-roads. The most learned of them used to recite some\n passages of Scripture, after which they conversed together\n and prayed. But such humble conventicles were ridiculously\n travestied. \u2018Do you know what they do to get there,\u2019 said the\n people, \u2018so that the officers may not stop them? The devil\n has given them a certain ointment, and when they want to go\n to _Vaudery_, they smear a little stick with it. As soon as\n they get astride it, they are carried up through the air, and\n arrive at _their Sabbath_ without meeting anybody. In the midst\n of them sits a goat with a monkey\u2019s tail: this is Satan, who\n receives their adoration.\u2019... These stupid stories were not\n peculiar to the people: they were circulated particularly by\n the monks. It was thus that the inquisitor Jean de Broussart\n spoke in 1460 from a pulpit erected in the great square at\n Arras. An immense multitude surrounded him; a scaffold was\n erected in front of the pulpit, and a number of men and women,\n kneeling and wearing caps with the figure of the devil painted\n on them, awaited their punishment. Perhaps the faith of these\n poor people was mingled with error. But be that as it may, they\n were all burnt alive after the sermon.\u201d[903]\n\nIt seems that these Waldenses had a Sabbath peculiar to themselves. And\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 himself alludes to something peculiar in their faith which he\ncannot confess as the truth, and does not choose to denounce as error. He\nsays, \u201cPerhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error.\u201d To\nspeak of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by\nNew-Testament Christians, subjects a conscientious first-day historian to\nthis very dilemma. We have a further account of the Waldenses in France,\njust before the commencement of the Reformation of the sixteenth century:\u2014\n\n \u201cLouis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of\n the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence,\n that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent\n the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne,\n who was confessor to His Majesty, to make inquiry into this\n matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited\n all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places\n of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor\n signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the\n ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover\n any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the\n contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance\n of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed\n their children in the articles of the Christian faith and the\n commandments of God. The king having heard the report of his\n commissioners, said with an oath that they were better men than\n himself or his people.\u201d[904]\n\nWe further read concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe respectable French historian, De Thou, says that the\n Vaudois keep the commandments of the decalogue, and allow among\n them of no wickedness, detesting perjuries, imprecations,\n quarrels, seditions, &c.\u201d[905]\n\nIt maybe proper to add that in 1686 the Waldenses were all driven out\nof the valleys of Piedmont, and that those who returned and settled in\nthose valleys three years afterward, and from whom the present race of\nWaldenses is descended, fought their way back, sword in hand, pursuing\nin all respects a course entirely different from that of the ancient\nWaldenses.[906]\n\nAnother class of witnesses to the truth during the Dark Ages, bore the\nname of Cathari, that is, Puritans. Jones speaks of them as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey were a plain, unassuming, harmless, and industrious race\n of Christians, patiently bearing the cross after Christ, and,\n both in their doctrines and manners, condemning the whole\n system of idolatry and superstition which reigned in the\n church of Rome, placing true religion in the faith, hope and\n obedience of the gospel, maintaining a supreme regard to the\n authority of God in his word, and regulating their sentiments\n and practices by that divine standard. Even in the twelfth\n century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne,\n in Flanders, the South of France, Savoy, and Milan. \u2018They were\n increased,\u2019 says Egbert, \u2018to great multitudes, throughout all\n countries.\u2019\u201d[907]\n\nThat the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified\nby their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of\nthe twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics, the Cathari, the\nPassagii, and the Arnoldist\u00e6. Allix says of this Romish writer that,\n\n \u201cHe lays it down also as one of their opinions, \u2018that the\n law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that\n the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal\n observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ\n the Son of God is not equal with the Father, and that the\n Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three persons, are not one\n God and one substance; and as a surplus to these their errors,\n they judge and condemn all the doctors of the church, and\n universally the whole Roman church. Now since they endeavor\n to defend this their error by testimonies drawn from the New\n Testament and prophets, I shall with [the] assistance of the\n grace of Christ stop their mouths, as David did Goliah\u2019s, with\n their own sword.\u2019\u201d[908]\n\nDr. Allix quotes another Romish author to the same effect:\u2014\n\n \u201cAlanus attributes to the Cathari almost the very same opinions\n [as those just enumerated] in his first book against heretics,\n which he wrote about the year 1192.\u201d[909]\n\nMr. Elliott mentions an incident concerning the Cathari, which is in\nharmony with what these historians assert respecting their observance of\nthe seventh day. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn this year [A. D. 1163] certain heretics of the sect of the\n Cathari, coming from the parts of Flanders to Cologne, took\n up their abode secretly in a barn near the city. But, as _on\n the Lord\u2019s day_ they did not go to church, they were seized\n by the neighbors, and detected. On their being brought before\n the Catholic church, when, after long examination respecting\n their sect, they would be convinced by no evidence however\n convincing, but most pertinaciously persisted in their doctrine\n and resolution, they were cast out from the church, and\n delivered into the hands of laics. These, leading them without\n the city committed them to the flames: being four men and one\n little girl.\u201d[910]\n\nThese statements are made respecting three classes of Christian people\nwho lived during the Dark Ages: The Cathari, or Puritans, the Arnoldist\u00e6,\nand the Passaginians. Their views are presented in the uncandid language\nof their enemies. But the testimony of ancient Catholic historians is\ndecisive that they were observers of the seventh day. The charge that\nthey observed circumcision also, will be noticed presently. Mr. Robinson\nunderstands that the Passaginians were that portion of the Waldenses who\nlived in the passes of the mountains. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is very credible that the name Passageros or Passagini ...\n was given to such of them as lived in or near the passes or\n passages of the mountains, and who subsisted in part by guiding\n travelers or by traveling themselves for trade.\u201d[911]\n\nMr. Elliott says of the _name_ Passagini:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe explanation of the term as meaning _Pilgrims_, in both the\n spiritual and missionary sense of the word, would be but the\n translation of their recognized Greek appellation \u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, and\n a title as distinctive as beautiful.\u201d[912]\n\nMosheim gives the following account of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn Lombardy, which was the principal residence of the Italian\n heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what\n reason I cannot tell, by the denomination of Passaginians, and\n also by that of the circumcised. Like the other sects already\n mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and\n discipline of the church of Rome; but they were at the same\n time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar\n to themselves. The first was a notion that the observance\n of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of\n sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence\n of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from\n those meats the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic\n economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet\n that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the\n doctrine of three persons in the divine nature.\u201d[913]\n\nMr. Benedict speaks of them as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly\n a slanderous story forged by their enemies, and probably\n arose in this way: because they observed the seventh day they\n were called by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are\n frequently at this day; and if they were Jews, it followed of\n course that they either did, or ought to, circumcise their\n followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies;\n but that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether\n improbable.\u201d[914]\n\nAn eminent church historian, Michael Geddes, thus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis [act] of fixing something that is justly abominable\n to all mankind upon her adversaries, has been the constant\n practice of the church of Rome.\u201d[915]\n\nDr. Allix states the same fact, which needs to be kept in mind whenever\nwe read of the people of God in the records of the Dark Ages:\u2014\n\n \u201cI must desire the reader to consider that it is no great sin\n with the church of Rome to spread lies concerning those that\n are enemies of that faith.\u201d[916]\n\n \u201cThere is nothing more common with the Romish party than to\n make use of the most horrid calumnies to blacken and expose\n those who have renounced her communion.\u201d[917]\n\nOf the origin of the Petrobrusians, we have the following account by Mr.\nJones:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut the Cathari or Puritans were not the only sect which,\n during the twelfth century, appeared in opposition to the\n superstition of the church of Rome. About the year 1110,\n in the south of France, in the provinces of Languedoc and\n Provence, appeared Peter de Bruys, preaching the gospel of the\n kingdom of Heaven, and exerting the most laudable efforts to\n reform the abuses and remove the superstition which disfigured\n the beautiful simplicity of the gospel worship. His labors\n were crowned with abundant success. He converted a great\n number of disciples to the faith of Christ, and after a most\n indefatigable ministry of twenty years\u2019 continuance, he was\n burned at St. Giles, a city of Languedoc in France, A. D.\n 1130, by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy, who\n apprehended their traffic to be in danger from this new and\n intrepid reformer.\u201d[918]\n\nThat this body of French Christians, who, in the very midnight of the\nDark Ages witnessed for the truth in opposition to the Romish church,\nwere observers of the ancient Sabbath is expressly certified by Dr.\nFrancis White, lord bishop of Ely. He was appointed by the king of\nEngland to write against the Sabbath in opposition to Brabourne, who had\nappealed to the king in its behalf. To show that Sabbatic observance is\ncontrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church\u2014a weighty argument with\nan Episcopalian\u2014he enumerates various classes of heretics who had been\ncondemned by the Catholic church for keeping holy the seventh day. Among\nthese heretics he places the Petrobrusians:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn St. Bernard\u2019s days it was condemned in the\n Petrobruysans.\u201d[919]\n\nWe have seen that, according to Catholic writers, the Cathari held to the\nobservance of the seventh day. Dr. Allix confirms the statement of Dr.\nWhite that the Petrobrusians observed the ancient Sabbath, by stating\nthat the doctrines of these two bodies greatly resembled each other.\nThese are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cPetrus Cluniacensis has handled five questions against the\n Petrobrusians which bear a great resemblance with the belief of\n the Cathari of Italy.\u201d[920]\n\nThe Sabbath-keepers in the eleventh century were of sufficient importance\nto call down upon themselves the anathema of the pope. Dr. Heylyn says\nthat,\n\n \u201cGregory, of that name the seventh [about A. D. 1074],\n condemned those who taught that it was not lawful to do work on\n the day of the Sabbath.\u201d[921]\n\nThis act of the pope corroborates the testimonies we have adduced in\nproof of the existence of Sabbath-keepers in the Dark Ages. Gregory the\nSeventh was one of the greatest men that ever filled the papal chair.\nWhatever class he anathematized was of some consequence. Gregory wasted\nnothing on trifles.[922]\n\nIn the eleventh century, there were Sabbath-keepers also in\nConstantinople and its vicinity. The pope, in A. D. 1054, sent\nthree legates to the emperor of the East, and to the patriarch of\nConstantinople, for the purpose of re-uniting the Greek and the Latin\nchurches. Cardinal Humbert was the head of this legation. The legates,\non their arrival, set themselves to the work of refuting those doctrines\nwhich distinguish the church of Constantinople from that of Rome. After\nthey had attended to the questions which separated the two churches,\nthey found it also necessary to discuss the question of the Sabbath. For\none of the most learned men of the East had put forth a treatise, in\nwhich he maintained that ministers should be allowed to marry; that the\nSabbath should be kept holy; and that leavened bread should be used in\nthe supper; all of which the church of Rome held to be deadly heresies.\nWe quote from Mr. Bower a concise statement of the treatment which this\nSabbatarian writer received:\u2014\n\n \u201cHumbert, likewise answered a piece that had been published\n by a monk of the monastery of Studium, [near Constantinople,]\n named Nicetas, who was deemed _one of the most learned men\n at the time in the east_. In that piece the monk undertook\n to prove, that leavened bread only should be used in the\n eucharist, _that the Sabbath ought to be kept holy_, and that\n priests should be allowed to marry. But the emperor, who wanted\n by all means to gain the pope, for the reasons mentioned above,\n was, or rather pretended to be, so fully convinced with the\n arguments of the legate, confuting those alleged by Nicetas,\n that he obliged the monk publickly to recant, and anathematize\n _all who held the opinion_ that he had endeavored to establish,\n with respect to unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage\n of priests.\n\n \u201cAt the same time Nicetas, in compliance with the command\n of the emperor, anathematized all who should question the\n primacy of the Roman church with respect to all other Christian\n churches, or should presume to censure her ever orthodox faith.\n The monk having thus retracted all he had written against\n the Holy See, his book was burnt by the emperor\u2019s order,\n and he absolved, by the legates, from the censures he had\n incurred.\u201d[923]\n\nThis record shows that, in the dense darkness of the eleventh century,\n\u201cone of the most learned men at that time in the east\u201d wrote a book\nto prove that \u201cthe Sabbath ought to be kept holy,\u201d and in opposition\nto the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. It also shows how\nthe church of Rome caste down the truth of God by means of the sword of\nemperors and kings. Though Nicetas retracted, under fear of the emperor\nand the pope, it appears that there were others who held the same\nopinions, for he was \u201cobliged\u201d to anathematize all such, and there is no\nevidence that any of these persons turned from the truth because of the\nfall of their leader. Indeed, if there had not been a considerable body\nof these Sabbatarians, the papal legate would never have deemed it worthy\nof his dignity to write a reply to Nicetas.\n\nThe Anabaptists are often referred to in the records of the Dark Ages.\nThe term signifies rebaptizers, and was applied to them because they\ndenied the validity of infant baptism. The designation is not accurate,\nhowever, because those persons whom they baptized, they considered as\nnever having been baptized before, although they had been sprinkled or\neven immersed in infancy. This people have been overwhelmed in obloquy in\nconsequence of the fanatical insurrection which broke out in their name\nin the time of Luther. Of those engaged in this insurrection, Buck says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe first insurgents groaned under severe oppressions, and\n took up arms in defense of their civil liberties; and of\n these commotions the Anabaptists seem rather to have availed\n themselves, than to have been the prime movers. That a great\n part were Anabaptists seems indisputable; at the same time\n it appears from history that a great part also were Roman\n Catholics, and a still greater part of those who had scarcely\n any religious principles at all.\u201d[924]\n\nThis matter is placed in the true light by Stebbing:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe overthrow of civil society, and fatal injuries to religion\n were threatened by those who called themselves Anabaptists. But\n large numbers appear to have disputed the validity of infant\n baptism who had nothing else in common with them, yet who for\n that one circumstance were overwhelmed with the obloquy, and\n the punishment richly due to a fanaticism equally fraudulent\n and licentious.\u201d[925]\n\nThe ancient Sabbath was retained and observed by a portion of the\nAnabaptists, or, to use a more proper term, Baptists. Dr. Francis White\nthus testifies:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey which maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force,\n comply with some Anabaptists.\u201d[926]\n\nIn harmony with this statement of Dr. White, is the testimony of a French\nwriter of the sixteenth century. He names all the classes of men who have\nborne the name of Anabaptists. Of one of these classes he writes thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome have endured great torments, because they would not keep\n Sundays and festival days, in despite of Antichrist: seeing\n they were days appointed by Antichrist, they would not hold\n forth any thing which is like unto him. Others observe these\n days, but it is out of charity.\u201d[927]\n\nThus it is seen that within the limits of the old Roman Empire, and in\nthe midst of those countries that submitted to the rule of the pope, God\nreserved unto himself a people that did not bow the knee to Baal, and\namong these the Bible Sabbath was observed from age to age. We are now\nto search for the Sabbath among those who were never subjected to the\nRoman pontiff. In Central Africa, from the first part of the Christian\nera\u2014possibly from the time of the conversion of the Ethiopian officer of\ngreat authority[928] but very certainly as early as A. D. 330[929]\u2014have\nexisted the churches of Abyssinia and Ethiopia. About the time of the\naccession of the Roman Bishop to supremacy, they were lost sight of by\nthe nations of Europe. \u201cEncompassed on all sides,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cby the\nenemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years,\nforgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten.\u201d[930] In the latter\npart of the fifteenth century, they were again brought to the knowledge\nof the world by the discovery of Portuguese navigators. Undoubtedly\nthey have been greatly affected by the dense darkness of pagan and\nMahometan errors with which they are encompassed; and in many respects\nthey have lost the pure and spiritual religion of our divine Redeemer. A\nmodern traveler says of them: \u201cThey have divers errors and many ancient\ntruths.\u201d[931] Michael Geddes says of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule\n of the Christian faith; insomuch that they deny it to be in\n the power of a general council to oblige people to believe\n anything as an article of faith without an express warrant from\n thence.\u201d[932]\n\nThey practice circumcision, but for other reasons than that of a\nreligious duty.[933] Geddes further states their views:\u2014\n\n \u201cTransubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread\n in the sacrament, were what the Abyssinians abhorred.... They\n deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme\n unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday\n and Sunday.\u201d[934]\n\nTheir views of the Sabbath are stated by the ambassador of the king of\nEthiopia, at the court of Lisbon, in the following words, explaining\ntheir abstinence from all labor on that day:\u2014\n\n \u201cBecause God, after he had finished the creation of the world,\n rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the holy\n of holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor\n and devotion, seems to be plainly contrary to God\u2019s will and\n precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner\n than his word; and that especially, since Christ came not to\n destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It is not therefore in\n imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy\n apostles, that we observe that day.\u201d[935]\n\nThe ambassador states their reasons for first-day observance in these\nwords:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe do observe the Lord\u2019s day after the manner of all other\n Christians in memory of Christ\u2019s resurrection.\u201d[936]\n\nHe had no scripture to offer in support of this festival, and evidently\nrested its observance upon tradition. This account was given by the\nambassador in 1534. In the early part of the next century the emperor of\nAbyssinia was induced to submit to the pope in these words: \u201cI confess\nthat the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the\nsovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I\noffer my person and kingdom.\u201d[937] No sooner had the Roman bishop thus\nbrought the emperor to submit to him than that potentate was compelled\nto gratify the popish hatred of the Sabbath by an edict forbidding its\nfurther observance. In the words of Geddes, he \u201cset forth a proclamation\nprohibiting all his subjects upon severe penalties to observe Saturday\nany longer.\u201d[938] Or as Gibbon expresses it, \u201cThe Abyssinians were\nenjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath.\u201d But the tyranny of the\nRomanists, after a terrible struggle, caused their overthrow and\nbanishment, and the restoration of the ancient faith. The churches\nresounded with a song of triumph, \u201c\u2018that the sheep of Ethiopia were now\ndelivered from the hy\u00e6nas of the West;\u2019 and the gates of that solitary\nrealm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism\nof Europe.\u201d[939]\n\nWe have proved in a former chapter that the Sabbath was extensively\nobserved as late as the middle of the fifth century in the so-called\nCatholic church, especially in that portion most intimately connected\nwith the Abyssinians; and that from various causes, Sunday obtained\ncertain Sabbatic honors, in consequence of which the two days were\ncalled sisters. We have also shown in another chapter that the effectual\nsuppression of the Sabbath in Europe is mainly due to papal influence.\nAnd so for a thousand years we have been tracing its history in the\nrecords of those men which the church of Rome has sought to kill.\n\nThese facts are strikingly corroborated by the case of the Abyssinians.\nIn consequence of their location in the interior of Africa, the\nAbyssinians ceased to be known to the rest of Christendom about the fifth\ncentury. At this point, the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Catholic church\nwere counted sisters. One thousand years later, these African churches\nare visited, and though surrounded by the thick darkness of pagan and\nMahometan superstition, and somewhat affected thereby, they are found at\nthe end of this period holding the Sabbath and first-day substantially\nas held by the Catholic church when they were lost sight of by it. The\nCatholics of Europe on the contrary had, in the meantime, trampled the\nancient Sabbath in the dust. Why was this great contrast? Simply because\nthe pope ruled in Europe, while central Africa, whatever else it may have\nsuffered, was not cursed with his presence nor with his influence. But\nso soon as the pope learned of the existence of the Abyssinian churches,\nhe sought to gain control of them, and when he had gained it, one of\nhis first acts was to suppress the Sabbath! In the end, the Abyssinians\nregained their independence, and thenceforward till the present time have\nheld fast the Sabbath of the Lord.\n\nThe Armenians of the East Indies are peculiarly worthy of our attention.\nJ. W. Massie, M. R. I. A., says of the East Indian Christians:\u2014\n\n \u201cRemote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous\n seats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the\n eastern Piedmontese, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses\n prophesying in sackcloth through revolving centuries, though\n indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city\n which they had once peopled.\u201d[940]\n\nGeddes says of those in Malabar:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe three great doctrines of popery, the pope\u2019s supremacy,\n transubstantiation, the adoration of images, were never\n believed nor practiced at any time in this ancient apostolical\n church.... I think one may venture to say that before the time\n of the late Reformation, there was no church that we know of,\n no, not that of the Vaudois, ... that had so few errors in\n doctrine as the church of Malabar.\u201d He adds concerning those\n churches that \u201cwere never within the bounds of the Roman\n Empire,\u201d \u201cIt is in those churches that we are to meet with the\n least of the leaven of popery.\u201d[941]\n\nMr. Massie further describes these Christians:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe creed which these representatives of an ancient line of\n Christians cherished was not in conformity with papal decrees,\n and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine\n articles of the Anglican episcopacy. Separated from the western\n world for a thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of\n many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the\n Lateran; and _their conformity with the faith and practice of\n the first ages_, laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of\n heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. \u2018We\n are Christians and not idolaters,\u2019 was their expressive reply\n when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary....\n La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many\n towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and\n declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity\n and primitive truth of their faith since they came, and their\n bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from the place\n where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.\u201d[942]\n\nThe Sabbatarian character of these Christians is hinted by Mr. Yeates.\nHe says that Saturday \u201camongst them is a festival day, _agreeable to the\nancient practice of the church_.\u201d[943]\n\n\u201cThe ancient practice of the church,\u201d as we have seen, was to hallow\nthe seventh day in memory of the Creator\u2019s rest. This practice has been\nsuppressed wherever the great apostasy has had power to do it. But the\nChristians of the East Indies, like those of Abyssinia, have lived\nsufficiently remote from Rome to be preserved in some degree from its\nblasting influence. The same fact is further hinted by the same writer in\nthe following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe inquisition was set up at Goa in the Indies, at the\n instance of Francis Xaverius [a famous Romish saint] who\n signified by letters to Pope John III., Nov. 10, 1545, \u2018That\n the JEWISH WICKEDNESS spread every day more and more in the\n parts of the East Indies subject to the kingdom of Portugal,\n and therefore he earnestly besought the said king, that to cure\n so great an evil he would take care to send the office of the\n inquisition into those countries.\u2019\u201d[944]\n\n\u201cThe Jewish wickedness\u201d was doubtless the observance of Saturday as \u201ca\nfestival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church\u201d of which\nthis author had just spoken. The history of the past, as we have seen,\nshows the hatred of the papal church toward the Sabbath. And the struggle\nof that church to suppress the Sabbath in Abyssinia, and to subject that\npeople to the pope which at this very point of time was just commencing,\nshows that the Jesuits would not willingly tolerate Sabbatic observance\nin the East Indies, even though united with the observance of Sunday\nalso.\n\nIt appears therefore that this Jesuit missionary desired the pope and the\nking of Portugal to establish the inquisition in that part of the Indies\nsubject to Portugal, in order to root out the Sabbath from those ancient\nchurches. The inquisition was established in answer to this prayer, and\nXavier was subsequently canonized as a saint! Nothing can more clearly\nshow the malignity of the Roman pontiff toward the Sabbath of the Lord;\nand nothing more clearly illustrates the kind of men that he canonizes as\nsaints.\n\nSince the time of Xavier, the East Indies have fallen under British rule.\nA distinguished clergyman of the church of England some years since\nvisited the British Empire in India, for the purpose of acquainting\nhimself with these churches. He gave the following deeply interesting\nsketch of these ancient Christians, and in it particularly marks their\nSabbatarian character:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe history of the Armenian church is very interesting.\n Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved\n themselves most free from Mahometan and papal corruptions. The\n pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with\n little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented\n to an union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian\n Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their\n ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship, to this day. \u2018It\n is marvelous,\u2019 says an intelligent traveler who was much among\n them, \u2018how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith,\n equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahometans,\n their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Romish\n church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored,\n by missionaries, priests and monks, to attach them to her\n communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and\n expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in\n vain.\u2019\n\n \u201cThe Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the\n fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history\n of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent\n judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La\n Cruze calls it the \u2018Queen of Versions.\u2019 This Bible has ever\n remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many\n illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in\n their history....\n\n \u201cThe Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They\n acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the\n Sophi in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They\n have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines\n are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible.\n Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian\n worship throughout our empire, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they\n have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we\n ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgment\n on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be\n ranked by us with Jews, Mahometans, and Hindoos?\u201d[945]\n\nIt has been said, however, that Buchanan might have intended Sunday by\nthe term \u201cseventh day.\u201d This is a very unreasonable interpretation of\nhis words. Episcopalian clergymen are not accustomed to call Sunday\nthe seventh day. We have, however, testimony which cannot with candor\nbe explained away. It is that of Purchas, written in the seventeenth\ncentury. The author speaks of several sects of the eastern Christians\n\u201ccontinuing from ancient times,\u201d as Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians,\nMaronites, and Armenians. Of the Syrians, or Surians, as he variously\nspells the name, who, from his relation, appear to be identical with the\nArmenians, he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful but\n on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat\n flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.\u201d[946]\n\nThis author speaks of these Christians disrespectfully, but he uses the\nuncandid statements of their adversaries, which, indeed, are no worse\nthan those often made in these days concerning those who hallow the\nBible Sabbath. These facts clearly attest the continued observance of\nthe Sabbath during the whole period of the Dark Ages. The church of Rome\nwas indeed able to exterminate the Sabbath from its own communion, but\nit was retained by the true people of God, who were measurably hidden\nfrom the papacy in the wilds of Central Europe; while those African and\nEast Indian churches, that were never within the limits of the pope\u2019s\ndominion, have steadfastly retained the Sabbath to the present day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nPOSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY.\n\n The Reformation arose in the Catholic church\u2014The Sabbath had\n been crushed out of that church, and innumerable festivals\n established in its stead\u2014Sunday as observed by Luther,\n Melancthon, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, and Tyndale\u2014The\n position of Calvin stated at length and illustrated\u2014Knox agreed\n with Calvin\u2014Sunday in Scotland A. D. 1601\u2014How we should view\n the Reformers.\n\n\nThe great Reformation of the sixteenth century arose from the bosom of\nthe Catholic church itself. From that church the Sabbath had long been\nextirpated; and instead of that merciful institution ordained by the\ndivine Law-giver for the rest and refreshment of mankind, and that man\nmight acknowledge God as his Creator, the papacy had ordained innumerable\nfestivals, which, as a terrible burden, crushed the people to the earth.\nThese festivals are thus enumerated by Dr. Heylyn:\u2014\n\n \u201cThese holy days as they were named particularly in Pope\n Gregory\u2019s decretal, so was a perfect list made of them in the\n Synod of Lyons, A. D. 1244, which being celebrated with a\n great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the\n canons and decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general\n admittance. The holy days allowed of there, were these that\n follow; viz., the feast of Christ\u2019s nativity, St. Stephen,\n St. John the evangelist, the Innocents, St. Sylvester, the\n circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with\n the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in\n rogation week, the day of Christ\u2019s ascension, Whitsunday, with\n the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the\n twelve apostles, all the festivities of our Lady, St. Lawrence,\n ALL THE LORD\u2019S DAYS IN THE YEAR, St. Michael the Archangel, All\n Saints, St. Martin\u2019s, the wakes, or dedication of particular\n churches, together with the feasts of such topical or local\n saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor\n with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every\n one of them, the people were restrained as before was said from\n many several kinds of work, on pain of ecclesiastical censures\n to be laid on them which did offend, unless on some emergent\n causes, either of charity or necessity they were dispensed with\n for so doing.... Peter de Aliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, in a\n discourse by him exhibited to the council of Constance [A. D.\n 1416] made public suit unto the fathers there assembled, that\n there might [be] a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that\n excepting Sundays and the greater festivals it might be lawful\n for the people, after the end of divine service to attend their\n business; the poor especially, as having little time enough\n on the working days to get their living. But these were only\n the expressions of well-wishing men. The popes were otherwise\n resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found\n established, in the same state in which they found them, but\n added others daily as they saw occasion.... Thus stood it as\n before I said, both for the doctrine and the practice, till men\n began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman church\n with a more serious eye than before they did.\u201d[947]\n\nSuch was the state of things when the reformers began their labors. That\nthey should give up these festivals and return to the observance of the\nancient Sabbath, would be expecting too much of men educated in the bosom\nof the Romish church. Indeed, it ought not to surprise us that, while\nthey were constrained to strike down the authority of these festivals,\nthey should nevertheless retain the most important of them in their\nobservance. The reformers spoke on this matter as follows: The Confession\nof the Swiss churches declares that,\n\n \u201cThe observance of the Lord\u2019s day is founded not on any\n commandment of God, but on the authority of the church; and,\n That the church may alter the day at pleasure.\u201d[948]\n\nWe further learn that,\n\n \u201cIn the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon\n [and approved by Luther], to the question, \u2018What ought we to\n think of the Lord\u2019s day?\u2019 it is answered that the Lord\u2019s day,\n Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept\n because they are appointed by the church, that all things may\n be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to\n be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them,\n if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a\n sin.\u201d[949]\n\nZwingle declared \u201cthat it was lawful on the Lord\u2019s day, after divine\nservice, for any man to pursue his labors.\u201d[950] Beza taught that \u201cno\ncessation of work on the Lord\u2019s day is required of Christians.\u201d[951]\nBucer goes further yet, \u201cand doth not only call it a superstition, but an\napostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord\u2019s day, in itself\nconsidered, is a sinful thing.\u201d[952] And Cranmer, in his Catechism,\npublished in 1548, says:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do;\n but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days as the\n magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to\n obey.\u201d[953]\n\nTyndale said:\u2014\n\n \u201cAs for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet\n change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,\n or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause\n why.\u201d[954]\n\nIt is plain that both Cranmer and Tyndale believed that the ancient\nSabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was only a human ordinance which\nit was in the power of the magistrates and the church lawfully to change\nwhenever they saw cause for so doing. And Dr. Hessey gives the opinion\nof Zwingle respecting the present power of each individual church to\ntransfer the so-called Lord\u2019s day to another day, whenever necessity\nurges, as, for example, in harvest time. Thus Zwingle says:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf we would have the Lord\u2019s day so bound to time that it\n shall be wickedness to transfer it to another time, in which\n resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the\n word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so\n solicitously observed, would obtrude on us as a ceremony. For\n we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us,\n that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity\n urges (as is usual to be done in harvest time), to transfer the\n solemnity and rest of the Lord\u2019s day, or Sabbath, to some other\n day.\u201d[955]\n\nZwingle could not, therefore, have considered Sunday as a divinely\nappointed memorial of the resurrection, or, indeed, as anything but a\nchurch festival.\n\nJohn Calvin said, respecting the origin of the Sunday festival:\u2014\n\n \u201cHowever, the ancients have not without sufficient reason\n substituted what _we_ call the Lord\u2019s day in the room of the\n Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and\n consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the\n ancient Sabbath; the same day which put an end to the shadows,\n admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet\n I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number that I\n would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor\n will I condemn those churches, which have other solemn days\n for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from\n superstition.\u201d[956]\n\nIt is worthy of notice that Calvin does not assign to Christ and his\ndisciples the establishment of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. He\nsays this was done by the \u201cancients,\u201d[957] or as another translates it,\n\u201cthe old fathers.\u201d Nor does he say \u201cthe day which _John_ called the\nLord\u2019s day,\u201d but \u201cthe day which _we_ call the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d And what is\nworthy of particular notice he did not insist that the day which should\nbe appropriated to worship should be one day in every seven; for he\nwas not tied to \u201cthe septenary number.\u201d The day might come once in six\ndays, or once in eight. And this proves conclusively that he did not\nregard Sunday as a divine institution in the proper sense of the word;\nfor if he had, he would most assuredly have felt that the festival must\nbe septenary, that is, weekly, and that he must urge \u201cthe church to an\ninvariable adherence to it.\u201d But Calvin does not leave the matter here.\nHe condemns as \u201cFALSE PROPHETS\u201d those who attempt to enforce the Sunday\nfestival by means of the fourth commandment; and who to do this say\nthat the ceremonial part, which requires the observance of the definite\nseventh day, is abolished, while the moral part, which simply commands\nthe observance of one day in seven, still remains in force. Here are his\nwords:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past\n ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming\n that nothing but the ceremonial part of the commandment, which\n according to them is the appointment of the seventh day, has\n been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is the\n observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only\n changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the\n same opinion of the holiness of a day.\u201d[958]\n\nYet these very \u201cdreams of false prophets,\u201d to use the words of Calvin,\nconstitute the foundation of the modern doctrine of the change of the\nSabbath. For whatever may be said of first-day sacredness in the New\nTestament, the fourth commandment can only be made to recognize that\nday by means of this very doctrine of one day in seven which Calvin\nso sharply denounces. Now I state another important fact. Calvin\u2019s\ncommentaries on the New Testament cover all the books from which\nquotations are made in behalf of Sunday except the book of Revelation.\nWhat does Calvin say concerning the change of the Sabbath in the record\nof Christ\u2019s resurrection?[959] Not one word. He does not even hint at\nany sacredness in the day, nor any commemoration of the day. Does he say\nthat the meeting \u201cafter eight days\u201d was upon Sunday? He does not say what\nday it was.[960] What does he say of Sunday in treating of the day of\nPentecost?[961] Nothing. He does not so much as say that this festival\nwas on the first day of the week. What does he say of the breaking of\nbread at Troas? He thinks it took place upon the ancient Sabbath! He\nsays:\u2014\n\n \u201cEither he doth mean the first day of the week, which was\n next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which\n latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause,\n because _that day was more fit for an assembly, according to\n custom_.\u201d[962]\n\nHe says, however, that this place might \u201cvery well\u201d be translated \u201cthe\nmorrow after the Sabbath.\u201d But he adheres to his own translation, \u201cone\nday of the Sabbaths,\u201d and not \u201cfirst day of the week.\u201d He says further:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only\n that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also,\n it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that\n the day before his departure he might the more easily gather\n all the disciples into one place.\u201d[963]\n\n \u201cTherefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn\n day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among\n themselves, which might be commodious for them all.\u201d[964]\n\nThis shows conclusively that Calvin believed the Sabbath, and not the\nfirst day of the week, to have been the day for meetings in the apostolic\nchurch. But what does he say of the laying by in store on the first day\nof the week? He says that Paul\u2019s precept relates, not to the first day\nof the week, but to the Sabbath! And he marks the Sabbath as the day on\nwhich the sacred assemblies were held, and the communion celebrated, and\nsays that on account of these things this was the most convenient day for\ncollecting their contribution. Thus he writes:\u2014\n\n \u201c_On one of the Sabbaths._ The end is this\u2014that they may have\n their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to\n wait till he came, as any thing that is done suddenly, and in\n a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath\n what might seem good, and according as every one\u2019s ability\n might enable\u2014that is on the day on which they held their sacred\n assemblies.[965]\n\n \u201cFor he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther,\n that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints\n is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I\n inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom\u2014that the term\n _Sabbath_ is employed here to mean the _Lord\u2019s day_ (Rev.\n 1:10), for the probability is, that the apostles, at the\n beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that\n afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they\n set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the _Lord\u2019s\n day_ was made choice of chiefly because our Lord\u2019s resurrection\n put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts\n us in mind of our Christian liberty.\u201d[966]\n\nThese words are very remarkable. They show first, that by the Sabbath\nday Calvin means, not the first day, but the seventh; second, that in his\njudgment as late as the time of this epistle, and of the meeting at Troas\n[A. D. 60], the Sabbath was the day for the sacred assemblies of the\nChristians, and for the celebration of the communion; third, \u201cbut that\nAFTERWARDS, constrained by THE SUPERSTITION OF THE JEWS, they set aside\nthat day, and substituted another.\u201d\n\nCalvin did not therefore believe that Christ changed the Sabbath to\nSunday to commemorate his resurrection; for he says that the resurrection\nabolished the Sabbath,[967] and yet he believes that the Sabbath was the\nsacred day of the Christians to the entire exclusion of Sunday as late as\nthe year 60. Nor could he believe that the apostles set apart Sunday to\ncommemorate the resurrection of Christ, for he thinks that they did not\nmake choice of that day till after the year 60, and even then they did it\nmerely because constrained so to do by the superstition of the Jews!\n\nDr. Hessey illustrates Calvin\u2019s ideas of Sunday observance by the\nfollowing incident:\u2014\n\n \u201cKnox was the intimate friend of Calvin\u2014visited Calvin, and, it\n is said, on one occasion found him enjoying the recreation of\n bowls on Sunday.\u201d[968]\n\nWithout doubt Calvin was acting in exact harmony with his ideas of the\nnature of the Sunday festival. But the famous case of Michael Servetus\nfurnishes us a still more pointed illustration of his views of the\nsacredness of that day. Servetus was arrested in Geneva on the personal\napplication of John Calvin to the magistrates of that city. Such is the\nstatement of Theodore Beza, the life-long friend of Calvin.[969] Beza\u2019s\ntranslator adds to this fact the following remarkable statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cPromptness induced him to have this heresiarch arrested on a\n Sunday.\u201d[970]\n\nThe same fact is stated by Robinson:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhile he waited for a boat to cross the lake in his way to\n Zurich, by some means Calvin got intelligence of his arrival;\n and although it was on a Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the\n chief syndic to arrest and imprison him. On that day by the\n laws of Geneva no person could be arrested except for a capital\n crime; but this difficulty was easily removed, for John Calvin\n pretended that Servetus was a heretic, and that heresy was a\n capital crime.\u201d[971]\n\n \u201cThe doctor was arrested and imprisoned on Sunday the\n thirteenth of August [A. D. 1553]. That very day he was brought\n into court.\u201d[972]\n\nCalvin\u2019s own words respecting the arrest are these:\u2014\n\n \u201cI will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my\n application.\u201d[973]\n\nThe warmest friends of first-day sacredness will not deny that the\nleast sinful part of this transaction was that it occurred on Sunday.\nNevertheless the fact that Calvin caused the arrest of Servetus on that\nday shows that he had no conviction that the day possessed any inherent\nsacredness.\n\nJohn Barclay,[974] a learned man of Scotch descent, and a moderate Roman\nCatholic, who was born soon after the death of Calvin, and whose early\nlife was spent in eastern France, not very remote from Geneva, published\nthe statement that Calvin and his friends at Geneva\n\n \u201cDebated whether the reformed, for the purpose of estranging\n themselves more completely from the Romish church, should not\n adopt Thursday as the Christian Sabbath.\u201d\n\nAnother reason assigned by Calvin for this proposed change was,\n\n \u201cThat it would be a proper instance of Christian liberty.\u201d[975]\n\nThis statement has been credited by many learned Protestants,[976] some\nof whom must be acknowledged as men of candor and judgment. But Dr.\nTwisse[977] discredits Barclay because he did not name the individuals\nwith whom Calvin consulted, and produce them as witnesses; and because\nthat King James I. of England at one time suspected Barclay of treachery\ntoward him. But no such crime was ever proved, nor does it appear that\nthe king continued always to hold him in that light.[978] His veracity\nhas never been impeached. The statement of Barclay may possibly be\nincorrect, but it is not inconsistent with Calvin\u2019s doctrine that the\nchurch is not tied to a festival that should come once in _seven_ days,\neven as Tyndale said that they could change the Sabbath into Monday or\ncould \u201cmake every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why,\u201d and it\nis in perfect harmony with Calvin\u2019s idea of Sunday sacredness as shown in\nhis acts already noticed. Like the other reformers, Calvin is not always\nconsistent with himself in his statements. Nevertheless, we have his\njudgment concerning the several texts which are used to prove the change\nof the Sabbath, and also respecting the theory that the commandment may\nbe used to enforce, not the seventh day, but one day in seven, and it is\nfatal to the modern first-day doctrine.\n\nJohn Knox, the great Scottish reformer, was the intimate friend of\nCalvin, with whom he lived at Geneva during a portion of his exile from\nScotland. Though the foundation of the Presbyterian church of Scotland\nwas laid by Knox, or rather by Calvin, for Knox carried out Calvin\u2019s\nsystem, and though that church is now very strict in the observance of\nSunday as the Sabbath, yet Knox himself was of Calvin\u2019s mind as to the\nobligation of that day. The original Confession of Faith of that church\nwas drawn up by Knox in A. D. 1560.[979] In that document Knox states the\nduties of the first table of the law as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo have one God, to worship and honor him; to call upon him in\n all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word;\n to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments,\n are the works of the first table.\u201d[980]\n\nIt is plain that Knox believed the Sabbath commandment to have been\nstricken out of the first table. Dr. Hessey, after speaking of certain\nreferences to Sunday in a subsequent work of his, makes this statement\nrespecting the present doctrine of the Sabbath in the Presbyterian\nchurch:\u2014\n\n \u201cOn the whole, whatever the language held at present in\n Scotland may be, it is certainly not owing to the great man\n whom the Scotch regard as the apostle of the Reformation in\n their country.\u201d[981]\n\nThat church now holds Sunday to be the divinely authorized memorial of\nthe resurrection of Christ, enforced by the authority of the fourth\ncommandment. But not thus was it held by Calvin and Knox. A British\nwriter states the condition of things with respect to Sunday in Scotland\nabout the year 1601:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt the commencement of the seventeenth century, tailors,\n shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen were accustomed to work\n till eight or nine every Sunday morning. While violation\n of the prescribed ritual observances was punished by fine,\n the exclusive consecration of the Sunday which subsequently\n prevailed was then unknown. Indeed, there were regular\n \u2018play Sundays\u2019 in Scotland till the end of the sixteenth\n century.\u201d[982]\n\nBut the Presbyterian church, after Knox\u2019s time, effected an entire change\nwith respect to Sunday observance. The same writer says:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Presbyterian Kirk introduced into Scotland the Judaical\n observance of the Sabbath [Sunday], retaining with some\n inconsistency the Sunday festival of the Catholic church,\n while rejecting all the other feasts which its authority had\n consecrated.\u201d[983]\n\nDr. Hessey shows the method of doing this. He says:\u2014\n\n \u201cOf course some difficulties had to be got over. The Sabbath\n was the seventh day, Sunday was the first day of the week. But\n an ingenious theory that one day in seven was the essence of\n the fourth commandment speedily reconciled them to this.\u201d[984]\n\nThe circumstances under which this new doctrine was framed, the name\nof its author, and the date of its publication, will be given in their\nplace. That the body of the reformers should have failed to recognize the\nauthority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn men from\nthe Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret\nrather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of\ndivine truth is forcibly set forth in the following language:\u2014\n\n \u201cLuther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the\n discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in\n doctrine; but they left other things of far greater moment just\n as they found them.... It was great merit in them to go as far\n as they did, and it is not they but we who are to blame if\n their authority induce us to go no further. We should rather\n imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called\n in question and rectified so many long-established errors; and\n availing ourselves of their labors, make further progress than\n they were able to do. Little reason have we to allege their\n name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we\n do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those\n who opposed and counteracted them, willing to keep things as\n they were.\u201d[985]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nLUTHER AND CARLSTADT.\n\n The case of Carlstadt worthy of notice\u2014His difficulty with\n Luther respecting the Epistle of James\u2014His boldness in\n standing with Luther against the pope\u2014What Carlstadt did\n during Luther\u2019s captivity\u2014How far he came under fanaticism\u2014Who\n acted with Carlstadt in the removal of images from the\n churches, the suppression of masses, and the abolition of\n the law of celibacy\u2014Luther on returning restored the mass\n and suppressed the simple ordinance of the supper\u2014Carlstadt\n submitted to Luther\u2019s correction\u2014After two years, Carlstadt\n felt constrained to oppose Luther respecting the supper\u2014The\n grounds of their difference respecting the Reformation\u2014Luther\n said Christ\u2019s flesh and blood were literally present IN the\n bread and wine\u2014Carlstadt said they were simply represented\n by them\u2014The controversy which followed\u2014Carlstadt refuted by\n banishment\u2014His cruel treatment in exile\u2014He was not connected\n with the disorderly conduct of the Anabaptists\u2014Why Carlstadt\n has been so harshly judged\u2014D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s estimate of this\n controversy\u2014Carlstadt\u2019s labors in Switzerland\u2014Luther writes\n against him\u2014Luther and Carlstadt reconciled\u2014D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s\n estimate of Carlstadt as a scholar and a Christian\u2014Carlstadt a\n Sabbatarian\u2014Wherein Luther benefited Carlstadt\u2014Wherein Luther\n might have been benefited by Carlstadt.\n\n\nIt is worthy of notice that at least one of the reformers of considerable\nprominence\u2014Carlstadt\u2014was a Sabbatarian. It is impossible to read the\nrecords of the Reformation without the conviction that Carlstadt was\ndesirous of a more thorough work of reformation than was Luther. And that\nwhile Luther was disposed to tolerate certain abuses lest the Reformation\nshould be endangered, Carlstadt was at all hazards for a complete return\nto the Holy Scriptures.\n\nThe Sabbatarian principles of Carlstadt, his intimate connection with\nLuther, his prominence in the early history of the Reformation, and the\nimportant bearing of Luther\u2019s decision concerning the Sabbath upon the\nentire history of the Protestant church, render the former worthy of\nnotice in the history of the Sabbath. We shall give his record in the\nexact words of the best historians, none of whom were in sympathy with\nhis observance of the seventh day. The manner in which they state his\nfaults shows that they were not partial toward him. Shortly after Luther\nbegan to preach against the merit of good works, his deep interest in\nthe work of delivering men from popish thralldom led him to deny the\ninspiration of some portion of those scriptures which were quoted against\nhim. Dr. Sears thus states the case:\u2014\n\n \u201cLuther was so zealous to maintain the doctrine of\n justification by faith, that he was prepared even to call in\n question the authority of some portions of Scripture, which\n seemed to him not to be reconcilable with it. To the Epistle\n of James, especially, his expressions indicate the strongest\n repugnance.\u201d[986]\n\nBefore Luther\u2019s captivity in the castle of Wartburg, a dispute had arisen\nbetween himself and Carlstadt on this very subject. It is recorded of\nCarlstadt that in the year 1520,\n\n \u201cHe published a treatise \u2018Concerning the Canon of Scripture,\u2019\n which, although defaced by bitter attacks on Luther, was\n nevertheless an able work, setting forth the great principle of\n Protestantism, viz., the paramount authority of Scripture. He\n also at this time contended for the authority of the Epistle\n of St. James, against Luther. On the publication of the bull\n of Leo X. against the reformers, Carlstadt showed a real and\n honest courage in standing firm with Luther. His work on \u2018Papal\n Sanctity\u2019 (1520) attacks the infallibility of the pope on the\n basis of the Bible.\u201d[987]\n\nLuther, as is well known, while returning from the Diet of Worms, was\nseized by the agents of the Elector of Saxony, and hidden from his\nenemies in Wartburg Castle. We read of Carlstadt at this time as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn 1521, during Luther\u2019s confinement in the Wartburg,\n Carlstadt had almost sole control of the reform movement at\n Wittemberg, and was supreme in the university. He attacked\n monachism and celibacy in a treatise \u2018Concerning Celibacy,\n Monachism, and Widowhood.\u2019 His next point of assault was the\n Mass, and a riot of students and young citizens against the\n Mass soon followed. On Christmas, 1521, he gave the sacrament\n in both kinds to the laity, and in German; and in January,\n 1522, he married. His headlong zeal led him to do whatever he\n came to believe right, at once and arbitrarily. But he soon\n outran Luther, and one of his great mistakes was in putting the\n Old Testament on the same footing as the New. On Jan. 24, 1522,\n Carlstadt obtained the adoption of a new church constitution at\n Wittemberg, which is of interest only as the first Protestant\n organization of the Reformation.\u201d[988]\n\nThere were present at this time in Wittemberg certain fanatical teachers,\nwho, from the town whence they came, were called \u201cthe prophets of\nZwickau.\u201d They brought Carlstadt for a time so far under their influence,\nthat he concluded academical degrees to be sinful, and that, as the\ninspiration of the Spirit was sufficient, there was no need of human\nlearning. He therefore advised the students of the university to return\nto their homes.[989] That institution was in danger of dissolution. Such\nwas Carlstadt\u2019s course in Luther\u2019s absence. With the exception of this\nlast movement, his acts were in themselves right.\n\nThe changes made at Wittemberg during Luther\u2019s absence, whether timely or\nnot, are generally set down to Carlstadt\u2019s account, and said to have been\nmade by him on his individual responsibility, and in a fanatical manner.\nBut this was quite otherwise. Dr. Maclaine thus states the case:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe reader may perhaps imagine, from Dr. Mosheim\u2019s account of\n this matter, that Carlstadt introduced these changes merely by\n his own authority; but this was far from being the case; the\n suppression of private masses, the removal of images out of the\n churches, the abolition of the law which imposed celibacy upon\n the clergy; which are the changes hinted at by our historian as\n rash and perilous, were effected by Carlstadt, in conjunction\n with Bugenhagius, Melancthon, Jonas Amsdorf, and others, and\n were confirmed by the authority of the Elector of Saxony;\n so that there is some reason to apprehend that one of the\n principal causes of Luther\u2019s displeasure at these changes, was\n their being introduced in his absence; unless we suppose that\n he had not so far shaken off the fetters of superstition, as to\n be sensible of the absurdity and the pernicious consequences of\n the use of images.\u201d[990]\n\nCarlstadt had given the cup to the laity of which they had long been\ndeprived by Rome. He had set aside the worship of the consecrated bread.\nDr. Sears rehearses this work of Carlstadt, and then tells us what Luther\ndid concerning it on his return. These are his words:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe [Carlstadt] had so far restored the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\n supper as to distribute the wine as well as the bread to the\n laity. Luther, \u2018in order not to offend weak consciences,\u2019\n insisted on distributing the bread only, and prevailed. He\n [Carlstadt] rejected the practice of elevating and adoring the\n host. Luther allowed it, and introduced it again.\u201d[991]\n\nThe position of Carlstadt was at this time very trying. He had not\nreceived \u201cmany things taught by the new teachers\u201d from Zwickau. But\nhe had publicly taught some of their fanatical ideas relative to the\ninfluence of the Spirit of God superseding the necessity of study. But\nin the suppression of the idolatrous services of the Romanists, he was\nessentially right. He had the pain to see much of this set up again.\nMoreover the elector would not allow him either to preach or write upon\nthe points wherein he differed from Luther. D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 states his course\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cNevertheless, he sacrificed his self-love for the sake of\n peace, restrained his desire to vindicate his doctrine, was\n reconciled, at least in appearance, to his colleague [Luther],\n and soon after resumed his studies in the university.\u201d[992]\n\nAs Luther taught some doctrines which Carlstadt could not approve, he\nfelt at last that he must speak. Dr. Sears thus writes:\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter Carlstadt had been compelled to keep silence, from 1522\n to 1524, and to submit to the superior power and authority of\n Luther, he could contain himself no longer. He, therefore,\n left Wittemberg, and established a press at Jena, through\n which he could, in a series of publications, give vent to his\n convictions, so long pent up.\u201d[993]\n\nThe principles at the foundation of their ideas of the Reformation were\nthese: Carlstadt insisted on rejecting everything in the Catholic church\nnot authorized in the Bible; Luther was determined to retain everything\nnot expressly forbidden. Dr. Sears thus states their primary differences:\u2014\n\n \u201cCarlstadt maintained, that \u2018we should not, in things\n pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but\n look simply to the word of God. Others,\u2019 he adds, \u2018say that,\n on account of the weak, we should not _hasten_ to keep the\n commands of God; but wait till they become wise and strong.\u2019 In\n regard to the ceremonies introduced into the church, he judged\n as the Swiss reformers did, that all were to be rejected which\n had not a warrant in the Bible. \u2018It is sufficiently against the\n Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.\u2019\n\n \u201cLuther asserted, on the contrary, \u2018Whatever is not against\n the Scriptures is for the Scriptures, and the Scriptures for\n it. Though Christ hath not commanded adoring of the host,\n so neither hath he forbidden it.\u2019 \u2018Not so,\u2019 said Carlstadt,\n \u2018we are bound to the Bible, and no one may decide after the\n thoughts of his own heart.\u2019\u201d[994]\n\nIt is of interest to know what was the subject which caused the\ncontroversy between them, and what was the position of each. Dr. Maclaine\nthus states the occasion of the conflict which now arose:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis difference of opinion between Carlstadt and Luther\n concerning the eucharist, was the true cause of the violent\n rupture between those two eminent men, and it tended\n very little to the honor of the latter; for, however the\n explication, which the former gave of the words of the\n institution of the Lord\u2019s supper, may appear forced, yet the\n sentiments he entertained of that ordinance as a commemoration\n of Christ\u2019s death, and not as a celebration of his bodily\n presence, in consequence of a consubstantiation with the bread\n and wine, are infinitely more rational than the doctrine\n of Luther, which is loaded with some of the most palpable\n absurdities of transubstantiation; and if it be supposed that\n Carlstadt strained the rule of interpretation too far, when\n he alleged, that Christ pronounced the pronoun _this_ (in\n the words _This is my body_) pointing to his body, and not\n to the bread, what shall we think of Luther\u2019s explaining the\n nonsensical doctrine of consubstantiation by the similitude of\n a red-hot iron, in which two elements are united, as the body\n of Christ is with the bread of the eucharist?\u201d[995]\n\nDr. Sears also states the occasion of this conflict in 1524:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe most important difference between him and Luther, and\n that which most embittered the latter against him, related to\n the Lord\u2019s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but\n consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and\n adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the\n second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the\n real presence, he says: \u2018In the sacrament is the real body of\n Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy\n and ungodly partake of it; and \u201cpartake of it corporally\u201d too,\n and not spiritually as Carlstadt will have it.\u2019\u201d[996]\n\nThat Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be\nacknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 cannot\nrefrain from censuring him:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen once the question of the supper was raised, Luther\n threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took\n his stand for _himself_ and _his church_ in an _exclusive\n Lutheranism_.\u201d[997]\n\nThe controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears:\u2014\n\n \u201cA furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds\n of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in\n the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He\n sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their\n disorders. Luther made the most of this.\u201d[998]\n\nIt is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive\nadvantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony\ninterfered and banished Carlstadt! D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 thus states the case:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and\n banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of\n the electorate.\u201d[999]\n\n \u201cLuther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of\n the prince: it was foreign to his disposition,\u2014and this he\n afterward proved.\u201d[1000]\n\nCarlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all\nProtestants, concerning the supper, and for denying Luther\u2019s doctrine\nthat Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless\nwanderer for years. His banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus\ndescribed:\u2014\n\n \u201cFrom this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany,\n pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and\n Papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence\n and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and\n hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear\n of the charge of complicity with Muntzer\u2019s rebellion. Yet he\n was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and\n he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right\n in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere\n zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under\n the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and\n foes.\u201d[1001]\n\nSuch language seems quite unwarranted by the facts. There was no justice\nin this persecution of Carlstadt. He did for a brief time hold some\nfanatical ideas, but these he did not afterward maintain. The same writer\nspeaks further in the same strain:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt cannot be denied that in many respects he was apparently in\n advance of Luther, but his error lay in his haste to subvert\n and abolish the external forms and pomps before the hearts of\n the people, and doubtless his own, were prepared by an internal\n change. Biographies of him are numerous, and the Reformation no\n doubt owes him much of good for which he has not the credit, as\n it was overshadowed by the mischief he produced.\u201d[1002]\n\nImportant truth relative to the services of Carlstadt is here stated,\nbut it is connected with intimations of evil which have no sufficient\nfoundation in fact. Dr. Sears speaks thus of the bitter language\nconcerning him:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor three centuries, Carlstadt\u2019s moral character has been\n treated somewhat as Luther\u2019s would have been, if only Catholic\n testimony had been heard. The party interested has been both\n witness and judge. What if we were to judge of Zwingle\u2019s\n Christian character by Luther\u2019s representations? The truth\n is, Carlstadt hardly showed a worse spirit, or employed more\n abusive terms toward Luther, than Luther did toward him.\n Carlstadt knew that in many things the truth was on his side;\n and yet, in these, no less than in others, he was crushed by\n the civil power, which was on the side of Luther.\u201d[1003]\n\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 speaks thus of the contest between these two men:\u2014\n\n \u201cEach turns against the error which, to his mind, seems most\n noxious, and in assailing it, goes\u2014it may be\u2014beyond the truth.\n But this being admitted, it is still true that both are right\n in the prevailing turn of their thoughts, and though ranking in\n different hosts, the two great teachers are nevertheless found\n under the same standard\u2014that of Jesus Christ, who alone is\n TRUTH in the full import of that word.\u201d[1004]\n\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 says of them after Carlstadt had been banished:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is impossible not to feel a pain at contemplating these two\n men, once friends, and both worthy of our esteem, thus angrily\n opposed.\u201d[1005]\n\nSometime after Carlstadt\u2019s banishment from Saxony he visited Switzerland.\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9 speaks of the result of his labors in that country, and what\nLuther did toward him:\u2014\n\n \u201cHis instructions soon attracted an attention nearly equal to\n that which had been excited by the earliest theses put forth by\n Luther. Switzerland seemed almost gained over to his doctrine.\n Bucer and Capito also appeared to adopt his views.\n\n \u201cThen it was that Luther\u2019s indignation rose to its hight; and\n he put forth one of the most powerful but also most OUTRAGEOUS\n of his controversial writings,\u2014his book \u2018_Against the Celestial\n Prophets_.\u2019\u201d[1006]\n\nDr. Sears also mentions the labors of Carlstadt in Switzerland, and\nspeaks of Luther\u2019s uncandid book:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe work which he wrote against him, he entitled \u2018The book\n against the Celestial Prophets.\u2019 This was uncandid; for the\n controversy related chiefly to the sacrament of the supper.\n In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found\n more adherents than Luther. Banished as an Anabaptist, he was\n received as a Zwinglian.\u201d[1007]\n\nDr. Maclaine tells something which followed, which is worthy of the\nbetter nature of these two illustrious men:\u2014\n\n \u201cCarlstadt, after his banishment from Saxony, composed a\n treatise against enthusiasm in general, and against the\n extravagant tenets and the violent proceedings of the\n Anabaptists in particular. This treatise was even addressed\n to Luther, who was so affected by it, that, repenting of his\n unworthy treatment of Carlstadt, he pleaded his cause, and\n obtained from the elector a permission for him to return into\n Saxony.\u201d[1008]\n\n \u201cAfter this reconciliation with Luther, he composed a treatise\n on the eucharist, which breathes the most amiable spirit of\n moderation and humility; and having perused the writings of\n Zwingle, where he saw his own sentiments on that subject\n maintained with the greatest perspicuity and force of evidence,\n he repaired the second time to Zurich, and thence to Basil,\n where he was admitted to the offices of pastor and professor of\n divinity, and where, after having lived in the exemplary and\n constant practice of every Christian virtue, he died, amidst\n the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, on the 25th of\n December, 1541.\u201d[1009]\n\nOf Carlstadt\u2019s scholarship, and of his conscientiousness, D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\nspeaks thus:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2018He was well acquainted,\u2019 says Dr. Scheur, \u2018with Latin, Greek,\n and Hebrew;\u2019 and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior\n in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed\n to his convictions fame, station, country, and even his\n bread.\u201d[1010]\n\nHis Sabbatarian character is attested by Dr. White, lord bishop of Ely:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe same [the observance of the seventh day] likewise being\n revived in Luther\u2019s time by Carolastadius, Sternebergius, and\n by some sectaries among the Anabaptists hath both then and\n ever since been censured as Jewish and heretical.\u201d[1011]\n\nDr. Sears alludes to Carlstadt\u2019s observance of the seventh day, but as\nis quite usual with first-day historians in such cases, does it in such\na manner as to leave the fact sufficiently obscure to be passed over\nwithout notice by the general reader. He writes thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cCarlstadt differed essentially from Luther in regard to the\n use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of\n Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong\n aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion.\n Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the\n Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe\n any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing\n it.\u201d[1012]\n\nWe have, however, Luther\u2019s own statement respecting Carlstadt\u2019s views of\nthe Sabbath. It is from his book \u201cAgainst the Celestial Prophets:\u201d\u2014\n\n \u201cIndeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath,\n Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath\u2014that is to say,\n Saturday\u2014must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all\n things, and we should come to be circumcised: for that is true,\n and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep\n one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem\n all necessary, and keep them all.\u201d[1013]\n\nThe various historians who treat of the difficulty between Luther and\nCarlstadt, speak freely of the motives of each. But of such matters it is\nbest to speak little; the day of Judgment will show the hearts of men,\nand we must wait till then. We may, however, freely speak of their acts,\nand may with propriety name the things wherein each would have benefited\nthe other. Carlstadt\u2019s errors at Wittemberg were not because he rejected\nLuther\u2019s help, but because he was deprived of it by Luther\u2019s captivity.\nLuther\u2019s error in those things wherein Carlstadt was right were because\nhe saw it best to reject Carlstadt\u2019s doctrine.\n\n1. Carlstadt\u2019s error in the removal of the images, the suppression of\nmasses, the abolition of monastic vows, or vows of celibacy, and in\ngiving the wine as well as the bread in the supper, and in performing the\nservice in German instead of Latin, if it was an error, was one of time\nrather than of doctrine. Had Luther been with him, probably all would\nhave been deferred for some months or perhaps some years.\n\n2. Carlstadt would probably have been saved by Luther\u2019s presence from\ncoming under the influence of the Zwickau prophets. As it was, he did for\na brief season accept, not their teaching in general, but their doctrine\nthat the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in believers renders human\nlearning vain and worthless. But in both these things Carlstadt submitted\nto Luther\u2019s correction. Had Luther regarded Carlstadt, he would have been\nbenefited in the following particulars:\u2014\n\n1. In his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith, he would have\nbeen saved from the denial of the inspiration of the epistle of James,\nand would not have called it a \u201cstrawy or chaffy epistle.\u201d[1014]\n\n2. Instead of exchanging transubstantiation, which is the Romish doctrine\nthat the bread and wine of the supper become Christ\u2019s literal flesh and\nblood, for consubstantiation, the doctrine which he fastened upon the\nLutheran church that Christ\u2019s flesh and blood are actually present _in_\nthe bread and wine, he would have given to that church the doctrine that\nthe bread and wine simply represent the body and blood of Christ, and are\nused in commemoration of his sacrifice for our sins.\n\n3. Instead of holding fast every thing in the Romish church not expressly\nforbidden in the Bible, he would have laid all aside which had not the\nactual sanction of that holy book.\n\n4. Instead of the Catholic festival of Sunday, he would have observed and\ntransmitted to the Protestant church the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.\n\nCarlstadt needed Luther\u2019s help, and he accepted it. Did not Luther\nalso need that of Carlstadt? Is it not time that Carlstadt should be\nvindicated from the great obloquy thrown upon him by the prevailing\nparty? And would not this have been done long since had not Carlstadt\nbeen a decided Sabbatarian?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nSABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n The judgment of the martyr Frith\u2014The Reformation brings\n Sabbath-keepers to light in various countries\u2014In\n Transylvania\u2014In Bohemia\u2014In Russia\u2014In Germany\u2014In Holland\u2014In\n France\u2014In England.\n\n\nJohn Frith, an English reformer of considerable note and a martyr, was\nconverted by the labors of Tyndale about 1525, and assisted him in the\ntranslation of the Bible. He was burned at Smithfield, July 4, 1533.\nHe is spoken of in the highest terms by the historians of the English\nReformation.[1015] His views respecting the Sabbath and first-day are\nthus stated by himself:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Jews have the word of God for their Saturday, sith [since]\n it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the\n seventh day solemn. And we have not the word of God for us, but\n rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day, as the Jews\n do, but the first, which is not commanded by God\u2019s law.\u201d[1016]\n\nWhen the Reformation had lifted the vail of darkness that covered the\nnations of Europe, Sabbath-keepers were found in Transylvania, Bohemia,\nRussia, Germany, Holland, France, and England. It was not the Reformation\nwhich gave existence to these Sabbatarians, for the leaders of the\nReformation, as a body, were not friendly to such views. On the contrary,\nthese observers of the Sabbath appear to be remnants of the ancient\nSabbath-keeping churches that had witnessed for the truth during the Dark\nAges.\n\nTransylvania, a country which now constitutes one of the eastern\ndivisions of the Austrian Empire, was, in the sixteenth century, an\nindependent principality. About the middle of that century, the country\nwas under the rule of Sigismund. The historian of the Baptists, Robinson,\ngives the following interesting record of events in that age and country:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe prince received his first religious impressions under his\n chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal he chose\n Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed\n of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of\n that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called\n Coloswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by\n others, Claudiopolis. He was a man of learning, address, and\n piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the\n principles of the Reformation than many of his cotemporaries.\n In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to\n come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the\n Reformation.[1017]\n\n \u201cSeveral other foreigners, who had been persecuted elsewhere,\n sought refuge in this country, where persecution for religion\n was unknown. These refugees were Unitarian Baptists, and\n through their indefatigable industry and address, the prince,\n the greatest part of the senate, a great number of ministers,\n and a multitude of the people went heartily into their plan of\n Reformation.[1018]\n\n \u201cIn the end the Baptists became by far the most numerous\n party, and were put in possession of a printing office, and an\n academy, and the cathedral was given to them for a place of\n worship. They obtained these without any violence, and while\n they formed their own churches according to the convictions of\n their members, they persecuted nobody, but allowed the same\n liberty to others, and great numbers of Catholics, Lutherans\n and Calvinists resided in perfect freedom.\u201d[1019]\n\nMr. Robinson further informs us that Davidis took extreme Unitarian\nground with respect to the worship of Christ, which seems to have\nbeen the only serious error that can be laid to his charge. Davidis\nwas a Unitarian Baptist minister, intrusted by his brethren with the\nsuperintendency of the churches in Transylvania. His influence in that\ncountry at one period was very great. His views of the Sabbath are thus\nstated:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe supposed the Jewish Sabbath not abrogated, and he therefore\n kept holy the seventh day. He believed also the doctrine of the\n millennium, and like an honest man, what he believed he taught.\n He was considered by the Transylvanian churches as an apostle,\n and had grown gray in their service; but the Catholics,\n the Lutherans, and the Calvinists, thought him a Turk, a\n blasphemer, and an atheist, and his Polish Baptist brethren\n said he was half a Jew. Had he been a whole Jew he ought not to\n have been imprisoned for his speculations.[1020]\n\n \u201cBy what means the Supreme Searcher of hearts only knows, but\n by some methods till then unknown in Transylvania, the old\n man was arrested, and by the senate condemned to die. He was\n imprisoned in the castle, and providence by putting a period to\n his life there, saved his persecutors from the disgrace of a\n public execution.\u201d[1021]\n\nMr. Robinson says that \u201cmany have been blamed\u201d for the death of Davidis,\n\u201cbut perhaps the secret springs of this event may never be known till\nthe Judge of the world maketh inquisition for blood.\u201d There were many\nSabbatarians in Transylvania at this time, for Mr. Robinson enumerates\nmany persons of distinction who were of the same views with Davidis.\nThe ambassador Bequessius, general of the army; the princess, sister of\nprince John; the privy counselor, Chaquius, and the two Quendi; general\nAndrassi, and many others of high rank; Somer, the rector of the academy\nat Claudiopolis; Matthias Glirius, Adam Neusner, and Christian Francken,\na professor an the academy at Claudiopolis.\n\n \u201cThese,\u201d says Robinson, \u201cwere all of the same sentiments as\n Davidis, as were many more of different ranks, who after\n his death in prison, defended his opinion against Socinus.\n Pal\u00e6ologus was of the same mind; he had fled into Moravia, but\n was caught by the emperor, at the request of Pope Gregory XIV.,\n and carried to Rome, where he was burnt for a heretick. He\n was an old man, and was terrified at first into a recantation,\n but he recollected himself and submitted to his fate like a\n Christian.\u201d[1022]\n\nThese persons must have been Sabbatarians. Mosheim, after saying\nthat Davidis \u201cleft behind him disciples and friends, who strenuously\nmaintained his sentiments,\u201d adds:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe most eminent of these were Jacob Pal\u00e6ologus, of the isle\n of Chio, who was burned at Rome in 1585; Christian Francken,\n who had disputed in person with Socinus; and John Somer, who\n was master of the academy of Clausenberg. This little sect\n is branded by the Socinian writers, with the ignominious\n appellation of SEMI-JUDAIZERS.\u201d[1023]\n\nWe have a further record of Sabbatarians in Transylvania to the effect\nthat in the time of Davidis,\n\n \u201cJohn Gerendi [was] head of the Sabbatarians, a people who did\n not keep Sunday but Saturday, and whose disciples took the name\n of Genoldists.\u201d[1024]\n\nSabbath-keepers, also, were found in Bohemia, a country of Central\nEurope, at the time of the Reformation. We are dependent upon those who\ndespised their faith and practice for a knowledge of their existence.\nErasmus speaks of them as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cNow we hear that among the Bohemians a new kind of Jews has\n arisen called Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath with so\n much superstition, that if on that day anything falls into\n their eyes they will not remove it; as if the Lord\u2019s day would\n not suffice for them instead of the Sabbath, which to the\n apostles also was sacred; or as if Christ had not sufficiently\n expressed how much should be allowed upon the Sabbath.\u201d[1025]\n\nWe need say nothing relative to the alleged superstition of these\nSabbath-keepers. The statement sufficiently refutes itself, and\nindicates the bitter prejudice of those who speak of them thus. But that\nSabbath-keepers were found at this time in Bohemia admits of no doubt.\nThey were of some importance, and they must also have published their\nviews to the world; for Cox tells us that,\n\n \u201cHospinian of Zurich, in his treatise \u2018Concerning the Feasts\n of the Jews and of the Gentiles,\u2019 chapter iii. (Tiguri, 1592)\n replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians.\u201d[1026]\n\nThe existence of this body of Sabbatarians in Bohemia at the time of the\nReformation is strong presumptive proof that the Waldenses of Bohemia,\nnoticed in the preceding chapter, though claimed as observers of Sunday,\nwere actually observers of the ancient Sabbath.\n\nIn Russia, the observers of the seventh day are numerous at the present\ntime. Their existence can be traced back nearly to the year 1400. They\nare, therefore, at least one hundred years older than the work of\nLuther. The first writer that I quote speaks of them as \u201chaving left the\nChristian faith.\u201d But even in our time, it is very common for people to\nspeak of those who turn from the first day to the seventh that they have\nrenounced Christ for Moses.[1027] He also speaks of them as holding\nto circumcision. Even Carlstadt was charged with this by Luther as a\nnecessary deduction from the fact that he observed the day enjoined in\nthe fourth commandment. Such being a common method of characterizing\nSabbath-keepers in our time, and such also having been the case in\npast ages\u2014for when men lack argument, they use opprobrious terms\u2014the\nhistorian, who makes up his record of these people from the statements of\nthe popular party, will certainly represent them as rejecting Christ and\nthe gospel, and accepting instead Moses and the ceremonial law. I give\nthe statements of the historians as they are, and the reader must judge.\nRobert Pinkerton gives the following account of them:\u2014\n\n \u201c_Seleznevtschini._ This sect are, in modern time, precisely\n what the Strigolniks originally were. They are Jews in\n principle; maintain the divine obligation of circumcision;\n observe the Jewish Sabbath, and the ceremonial law. There\n are many of them about Tula, on the river Kuma, and in other\n provinces, and they are very numerous in Poland and Turkey,\n where, having left the Christian faith, they have joined the\n seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, in rejecting the\n Messiah and the gospel.\u201d[1028]\n\nThe ancient Russian name of this people was _Strigolniks_. Dr. Murdock\ngives the following account of them:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian\n church, about the middle of the seventeenth century, in the\n time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian\n annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two\n hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances\n which took place in his time, only proved the means of\n augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into\n public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared\n in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of\n _Strigolniks_.\n\n \u201cA Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and\n Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who\n gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous,\n that a national council was called, towards the close of the\n fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards, one Karp, an\n excommunicated deacon, joined the _Strigolniks_; and accused\n the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and\n of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was\n withdrawn from it. He was a very successful propagator of this\n sect.\u201d[1029]\n\nIt is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping\nChristians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of\nthe seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ\nto Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian\nprinciples in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to\nsuspect them of being Sabbath-keepers. Pinkerton speaks of these Russian\nSabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the\nsecond. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting\nChrist, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are\nspeaking of the same people.\n\nWhat was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was\nnot from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in\nexistence at least one century before that event. We have seen that\nthe Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the\ncountries of Europe. And so also were the people called Cathari, if,\nindeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact\nthat they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria,\nLivonia, Albania, and Sarmatia.[1030] These countries are now parts\nof the Russian Empire. Sabbath-keepers were numerous in Russia before\nthe time of Luther. The Sabbath of the Lord was certainly retained by\nmany of the ancient Waldenses and Cathari, as we have seen. In fact,\nthe very things said of the Russian Sabbath-keepers, that they held to\ncircumcision and the ceremonial law, were also said of the Cathari, and\nof that branch of the Waldenses called Passaginians.[1031] Is there any\nreasonable doubt that in these ancient Christians we have the ancestors\nof the Russian Sabbath-keepers of the fifteenth century?\n\nMr. Maxson makes the following statement:\u2014\n\n \u201cWe find that Sabbath-keepers appear in Germany late in the\n fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century according to\n \u2018Ross\u2019s Picture of All Religions.\u2019 By this we are to understand\n that their numbers were such as to lead to organization,\n and attract attention. A number of these formed a church,\n and emigrated to America, in the early settlement of this\n country.\u201d[1032]\n\nMr. Utter makes the following statement respecting Sabbath-keepers in\nGermany and in Holland:\u2014\n\n \u201cEarly in the sixteenth century there are traces of\n Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The Old Dutch Martyrology gives\n an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict,\n somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in\n Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the\n seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him\n was Barbary von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed\n on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her\n rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also\n the Mass.\u201d[1033]\n\nWe give her declaration of faith respecting Sundays and holy days:\u2014\n\n \u201cGod has commanded us to rest on the seventh day. Beyond this\n she did not go: but with the help and grace of God she would\n persevere therein, and in death abide thereby; for it is the\n true faith, and the right way in Christ.\u201d[1034]\n\nAnother martyr, Christina Tolingerin, is mentioned thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cConcerning holy days and Sundays, she said: \u2018In six days\n the Lord made the world, on the seventh day he rested. The\n other holy days have been instituted by popes, cardinals, and\n archbishops.\u2019\u201d[1035]\n\nThere were at this time Sabbath-keepers in France:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn France also there were Christians of this class, among\n whom were M. de la Roque, who wrote in defense of the Sabbath\n against Bossuet, Catholic bishop of Meaux.\u201d[1036]\n\nM. de la Roque is referred to by Dr. Wall in his famous history of\ninfant baptism \u201cas a learned man in other points,\u201d but in great error\nfor asserting that \u201cthe primitive church did not baptize infants.\u201d[1037]\nIt is worthy of notice that Sabbath-keepers are always observers of\nscriptural baptism\u2014the burial of penitent believers in the watery grave.\nNo people retaining infant baptism, or the sprinkling of believers, have\nobserved the seventh day.[1038]\n\nThe origin of the Sabbatarians of England cannot now be definitely\nascertained. Their observance of believers\u2019 baptism and the keeping\nof the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, strongly attest their\ndescent from the persecuted heretics of the Dark Ages, rather than from\nthe reformers of the sixteenth century, who retained infant baptism and\nthe festival of Sunday. That these heretics had long been numerous in\nEngland, is thus certified by Crosby:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor in the time of William the Conqueror [A. D. 1070] and\n his son William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and\n their disciples out of France, Germany, and Holland, had\n their frequent recourse, and did abound in England.... The\n Beringarian, or Waldensian heresy, as the chronologer calls it,\n had, about A. D. 1080, generally corrupted all France, Italy,\n and England.\u201d[1039]\n\nMr. Maxson says of the English Sabbatarians:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. Dr. Chambers\n says: \u2018They arose in England in the sixteenth century,\u2019\n from which we understand that they then became a distinct\n denomination in that kingdom.\u201d[1040]\n\nMr. Benedict speaks thus of the origin of English Sabbatarians:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt what time the Seventh-day Baptists began to form churches\n in this kingdom does not appear; but probably it was at an\n early period; and although their churches have never been\n numerous, yet there have been among them almost for two hundred\n years past, some very eminent men.\u201d[1041]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nHOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.\n\n The light of the Reformation destroyed many of the best\n Sunday arguments of the preceding Dark Ages\u2014The controversy\n between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of England\n brings Sunday sacredness to the test\u2014The former discover the\n means of enforcing the observance of Sunday by the fourth\n commandment\u2014How this can be done\u2014Effects of this extraordinary\n discovery\u2014History of the Sunday festival concluded.\n\n\nThe light of the Reformation necessarily dissipated into thin air many\nof the most substantial arguments by which the Sunday festival had\nbeen built up during the Dark Ages. The roll that fell from Heaven\u2014the\napparition of St. Peter\u2014the relief of souls in purgatory, and even of the\ndamned in hell\u2014and many prodigies of fearful portent\u2014none of these, nor\nall of them combined, were likely longer to sustain the sacredness of the\nvenerable day. True it was that when these were swept away there remained\nto sustain the festival of Sunday, the canons of councils, the edicts of\nkings and emperors, the decrees of the holy doctors of the church, and,\ngreatest of all, the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiff. Yet these\ncould be adduced also in behalf of the innumerable festivals ordained\nby the same great apostate church. Such authority would answer for the\nEpiscopalian, who devoutly accepts of all these festivals, because\ncommanded so to do by the church; but for those who acknowledge the\nBible as the only rule of faith, the case was different. In the latter\npart of the sixteenth century, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of\nEngland were involved in such a controversy as brought this matter to an\nissue. The Episcopalians required men to observe all the festivals of the\nchurch; the Presbyterians observed Sunday, and rejected all the rest. The\nEpiscopalians showed the inconsistency of this discrimination, inasmuch\nas the same church authority had ordained them all. As the Presbyterians\nrejected the authority of the church, they would not keep Sunday upon\nthat ground, especially as it would involve the observance also of all\nthe other festivals. They had to choose therefore between the giving up\nof Sunday entirely, and the defense of its observance by the Bible. There\nwas indeed another and a nobler choice that they might have made, viz.,\nto adopt the Sabbath of the Lord, but it was too humiliating for them\nto unite with those who retained that ancient and sacred institution.\nThe issue of this struggle is thus related by a distinguished German\ntheologian, Hengstenberg:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe opinion that the Sabbath was transferred to the Sunday\n was first broached in its perfect form, and with all its\n consequences, in the controversy which was carried on in\n England between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The\n Presbyterians, who carried to extremes the principle, that\n every institution of the church must have its foundation in the\n Scriptures, and would not allow that God had given, in this\n respect, greater liberty to the church of the New Testament,\n which his Spirit had brought to maturity, than to that of\n the Old, charged the Episcopalians with popish leaven, and\n superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men, because\n they retained the Christian feasts. The Episcopalians, on the\n other hand, as a proof that greater liberty was granted to\n the New-Testament church in such matters as these, appealed\n to the fact that even the observance of the Sunday was only\n an arrangement of the church. The Presbyterians were now in a\n position which compelled them either to give up the observance\n of the Sunday, or to maintain that a divine appointment from\n God separated it from the other festivals. The first they could\n not do, for their Christian experience was too deep for them\n not to know how greatly the weakness of human nature stands in\n need of regularly returning periods, devoted to the service of\n God. They therefore decided upon the latter.\u201d[1042]\n\nThus much for the occasion of that wonderful discovery by which the\nScriptures are made to sustain the divine appointment of Sunday as the\nChristian Sabbath. The date of the discovery, the name of the discoverer,\nand the manner in which he contrived to enforce the first day of the\nweek by the authority of the fourth commandment, are thus set forth by a\ncandid first-day historian, Lyman Coleman:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath was first\n promulgated by an English dissenter, the Rev. Nicholas Bound,\n D. D., of Norton, in the county of Suffolk. About the year\n 1595, he published a famous book, entitled, \u2018Sabbathum Veteris\n et Novi Testamenti,\u2019 or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath. In\n this book he maintained \u2018that the seventh part of our time\n ought to be devoted to God\u2014that Christians are bound to rest on\n the Lord\u2019s day as much as the Jews were on the Mosaic Sabbath,\n the commandment about rest being moral and perpetual; and that\n it was not lawful for persons to follow their studies or\n worldly business on that day, nor to use such pleasures and\n recreations as are permitted on other days.\u2019 This book spread\n with wonderful rapidity. The doctrine which it propounded\n called forth from many hearts a ready response, and the result\n was a most pleasing reformation in many parts of the kingdom.\n \u2018It is almost incredible,\u2019 says Fuller, \u2018how taking this\n doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and partly for\n the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it; so that the\n Lord\u2019s day, especially in corporations, began to be precisely\n kept; people becoming a law unto themselves, forbearing such\n sports as yet by statute permitted; yea, many rejoicing at\n their own restraint herein.\u2019 The law of the Sabbath was indeed\n a religious principle, after which the Christian church had,\n for centuries, been darkly groping. Pious men of every age had\n felt the necessity of divine authority for sanctifying the\n day. Their conscience had been in advance of their reason.\n Practically they had kept the Sabbath better than their\n principles required.\n\n \u201cPublic sentiment, however, was still unsettled in regard to\n this new doctrine respecting the Sabbath, though a few at first\n violently opposed it. \u2018Learned men were much divided in their\n judgments about these Sabbatarian doctrines; some embraced them\n as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and\n neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety.\n Others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom; but because\n they tended to the manifest advance of religion, it was a pity\n to oppose them; seeing none have just reason to complain, being\n deceived unto their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out\n with these propositions, as galling men\u2019s necks with a _Jewish\n yoke_ against the liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord\n of the Sabbath, had removed the rigor thereof, and allowed men\n lawful recreations; _that this doctrine put an unequal lustre\n on the Sunday_, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days,\n to the derogation of the authority of the church; that this\n strict observance was set up out of faction, to be a character\n of difference to brand all for libertines who did not entertain\n it.\u2019 No open opposition, however, was at first manifested\n against the sentiments of Dr. Bound. No reply was attempted\n for several years, and \u2018not so much as a feather of a quill in\n print did wag against him.\u2019\n\n \u201cHis work was soon followed by several other treatises in\n defense of the same sentiments. \u2018All the Puritans fell in with\n this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that\n part of sacred time in public, family, and private devotion.\u2019\n Even Dr. Heylyn certified the triumphant spread of those\n puritanical sentiments respecting the Sabbath....\n\n \u201c\u2018This doctrine,\u2019 he says, \u2018carrying such a fair show of piety,\n at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did\n not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace\n and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most\n bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was\n embraced by the people of England.\u2019\u201d[1043]\n\nDr. Bound was not absolutely the inventor of the seventh-part-of-time\ntheory; but he may be said rather to have gathered up and combined the\nscattered hints of his predecessors, and to have added to these something\nof his own production. His grounds for asserting Sunday to be the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment are these:\u2014\n\n \u201cThat which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should\n be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is\n positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the\n creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now\n changed in the church of God.\u201d[1044]\n\nHe says that the meaning of the declaration, \u201cThe seventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God,\u201d is this:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere must be one [day] of seven and not [one] of eight.\u201d[1045]\n\nBut the special key to the whole theory is in the statement that the\nseventh day in the commandment was \u201c_genus_,\u201d that is to say, it was a\nkind of seventh day which comprehended several species of seventh days,\nat least two. Thus he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cSo he maketh the seventh day to be _genus_ in this\n commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it by virtue of\n the commandment to comprehend these two species or kinds:\n the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law\n and of the gospel: so that both of them were comprehended\n in the commandment, even as _genus_ comprehendeth both his\n species.\u201d[1046]\n\nHe enforces the first day by the fourth commandment, as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cSo that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the\n Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a\n diverse time appointed; namely, not the seventh day from the\n creation, but the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection, and the seventh\n from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in\n the fourth commandment.\u201d[1047]\n\nHe means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from\nthe creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since that enforces a\ndifferent seventh day, namely, the seventh from Christ\u2019s resurrection.\nSuch is the perverse ingenuity by which men can evade the law of God and\nyet make it appear that they are faithfully observing it.\n\nSuch was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which the\nseventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one day in\nseven slipped into its place; a doctrine most opportunely framed at\nthe very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the\nsun. With the aid of this theory, the Sunday of \u201cPope and Pagan\u201d was\nable coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment, and then in the\ncharacter of a divine institution, to challenge obedience from all Bible\nChristians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very\nexistence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. In\nthe time of Constantine it ascended the throne of the Roman Empire, and\nduring the whole period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from\nthe chair of St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most\nHigh. And thus a day which God \u201ccommanded not nor spake it, neither came\nit into\u201d his \u201cmind,\u201d was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of\nhis holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound\u2019s work upon the existing\ncontroversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-witness, Dr. Heylyn:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath\n speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only\n \u2018was of God\u2019s appointment, and all the rest observed in the\n church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church\n of Rome;\u2019 the other holy days in this church established,\n were so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well\n recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by\n or besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was\n intended from the first beginning.\u201d[1048]\n\nIn a former chapter, we called attention to the fact that Sunday can\nbe maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of\nfaith acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is, the Bible with\nthe traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the\nsixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to decide\nbetween giving up Sunday as a church festival and maintaining it as\na divine institution by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Yet\nwhile apparently avoiding the charge of observing a Catholic festival,\nby claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of the Bible, the\nutterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences adduced from\nthe Scriptures in support of that day, compelled them to resort to the\ntraditions of the church, and to add these to their so-called biblical\nevidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep Sunday while\nfrankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic church, not\ncommanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you observe it as a\nbiblical institution, and then prove it to be such by adopting the rule\nof faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone, an eminent Italian Catholic\ntheologian, in an important doctrinal work, entitled, \u201cTheological\nLessons,\u201d makes a very impressive statement respecting the acknowledgment\nof tradition by Protestant Sunday-keepers. In his chapter \u201cConcerning\nthe Necessity and Existence of Tradition,\u201d he lays down the proposition\nthat it is necessary to admit doctrines which we can prove only from\ntradition, and cannot sustain from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character\n are rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants\n held with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church,\n could, in any possible manner, be established. The fact is\n placed beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold\n with us the validity of baptism administered by heretics or\n infidels, the validity also of infant baptism, the true form\n of baptism [sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of\n abstaining from blood and anything strangled is not in force;\n also concerning the substitution of the Lord\u2019s day for the\n Sabbath; besides those things which I have mentioned before,\n and not a few others.\u201d[1049]\n\nDr. Bound\u2019s theory of the seventh part of time has found general\nacceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of Rome.\nMost forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some of\n them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome\n with them.\u201d[1050]\n\nOne sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable mother of\nharlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed out of her\ncommunion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted the venerable day\nof the sun, had transformed it into the Lord\u2019s day of the Christian\nchurch. The reformed, flying from her communion, and carrying with\nthem this ancient festival, now found themselves able to justify its\nobservance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath of the Lord! As the\nseamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was torn from him before\nhe was nailed to the cross, so has the fourth commandment been torn\nfrom the rest-day of the Lord, around which it was placed by the great\nLaw-giver, and given to this papal Lord\u2019s day; and this Barabbas the\nrobber, thus arrayed in the stolen fourth commandment, has from that\ntime to the present day, and with astonishing success, challenged the\nobedience of the world as the divinely appointed Sabbath of the most\nhigh God. Here we close the history of the Sunday festival, now fully\ntransformed into the _Christian Sabbath_. A rapid survey of the history\nof English and American Sabbath-keepers will conclude this work.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS.\n\n English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century\u2014Their\n doctrines\u2014John Trask for these doctrines pilloried, whipt, and\n imprisoned\u2014He recants\u2014Character of Mrs. Trask\u2014Her crime\u2014Her\n indomitable courage\u2014She suffers fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment,\n and dies in the prison\u2014Principles of the Traskites\u2014Brabourne\n writes in behalf of the seventh day\u2014Appeals to King Charles I.\n to restore the ancient Sabbath\u2014The king employs Dr. White to\n write against Brabourne, and Dr. Heylyn to write the History of\n the Sabbath\u2014The king intimidates Brabourne and he recants\u2014He\n returns again to the Sabbath\u2014Philip Tandy\u2014James Ockford\n writes \u201cThe Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment\u201d\u2014His book\n burned\u2014Edward Stennett\u2014Wm. Sellers\u2014Cruel Treatment of Francis\n Bampfield\u2014Thomas Bampfield\u2014Martyrdom of John James\u2014How the\n Sabbath cause was prostrated in England.\n\n\nChambers speaks thus of Sabbath-keepers in the sixteenth century:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious\n and independent thinkers (as it had previously done to some\n Protestants in Bohemia), that the fourth commandment required\n of them the observance, not of the first, but of the specified\n _seventh_ day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as a\n service then due to God; while others, though convinced that\n the day had been altered by divine authority, took up the same\n opinion as to the scriptural obligation to refrain from work.\n The former class became numerous enough to make a considerable\n figure for more than a century in England, under the title of\n \u2018Sabbatarians\u2019\u2014a word now exchanged for the less ambiguous\n appellation of \u2018Seventh-day Baptists.\u2019\u201d[1051]\n\nGilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John Stockwood, who\nsays that there were then\n\n \u201cA great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and\n simple sort, concerning the Sabbath day, and the right use of\n the same.\u201d\n\nAnd Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cSome maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable obligation of\n the seventh-day Sabbath.\u201d[1052]\n\nIn 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of the\nSabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been substantially the\nsame in all ages:\u2014\n\n \u201cThey allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the\n Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which\n nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law.\n 3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the\n Sabbath above] all [the other precepts.] 4. ... And of the\n cause of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual,\n which is the memorial and meditation of the works of God; which\n belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.\u201d[1053]\n\nJohn Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as\nthe Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that King James I., and the\narchbishop of Canterbury, published the famous \u201cBook of Sports for\nSunday,\u201d in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very\nzealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting authority\nof the church of England. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of\nthe Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that the civil\nauthorities ought not to constrain men\u2019s consciences in matters of\nreligion. He was brought before the infamous Star Chamber, where a long\ndiscussion was held respecting the Sabbath. It was on this occasion that\nBishop Andrews first brought forward that now famous first-day argument,\nthat the early martyrs were tested by the question, \u201cHast thou kept the\nLord\u2019s day?\u201d[1054]\n\nGilfillan, quoting the words of cotemporary writers, says of Trask\u2019s\ntrial that,\n\n \u201cFor \u2018making of conventicles and factions, by that means which\n may tend to sedition and commotion, and for scandalizing\n the king, the bishops, and the clergy,\u2019 \u2018he was censured in\n the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at Westminster,\n and from thence to be whipt to the fleet, there to remain a\n prisoner.\u2019\u201d[1055]\n\nThis cruel sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke his\nspirit. After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he recanted\nhis doctrine.[1056] The case of his wife is worthy of particular mention.\nPagitt gives her character thus:\n\n \u201cShe was a woman endued with many particular virtues, well\n worthy the imitation of all good Christians, had not error\n in other things, especially a spirit of strange unparalleled\n opinionativeness and obstinacy in her private conceits, spoiled\n her.\u201d[1057]\n\nPagitt says that she was a school teacher of superior excellence. She\nwas particularly careful in her dealings with the poor. He gives her\nreasons thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cThis she professed to do out of conscience, as believing she\n must one day come to be judged for all things done in the\n flesh. Therefore she resolved to go by _the safest rule_,\n rather against than for her private interest.\u201d[1058]\n\nPagitt gives her crime in the following words:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt last for teaching only five days in the week, and resting\n upon Saturday, _it being known upon what account she did it_,\n she was carried to the new prison in Maiden Lane, a place\n then appointed for the restraint of several other persons of\n different opinions from the church of England.\u201d[1059]\n\nObserve the crime: it was not what she did, for a first-day person\nmight have done the same, but because she did it to obey the fourth\ncommandment. Her motive exposed her to the vengeance of the authorities.\nShe was a woman of indomitable courage, and would not purchase her\nliberty by renouncing the Lord\u2019s Sabbath. During her long imprisonment,\nPagitt says that some one wrote her thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cYour constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for\n truth; but being for error, your recantation will be both more\n acceptable to God, and laudable before men.\u201d[1060]\n\nBut her faith and patience held out till she was released by death.\n\n \u201cMrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her\n opinion about the Saturday Sabbath; in all which time she would\n receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she wanted\n much: alleging that it was written, \u2018It is more blessed ...\n to give than to receive.\u2019 Neither would she borrow, because\n it was written, \u2018Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shalt\n not borrow.\u2019 So she deemed it a dishonor to her head, Christ,\n either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part during\n her imprisonment, that is, till a little before her death,\n was bread and water, roots and herbs; no flesh, nor wine, nor\n brewed drink. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings\n a year; what she lacked more to live upon she had of such\n prisoners as did employ her sometimes to do business for\n them.\u201d[1061]\n\nPagitt, who was the cotemporary of Trask, thus states the principles of\nthe Sabbatarians of that time, whom he calls Traskites:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe positions concerning the Sabbath by them maintained were\n these:\u2014\n\n \u201c1. That the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, \u2018Remember\n the Sabbath day, to keep it holy\u2019 [Ex. 20], is a divine\n precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing legally\n ceremonial in whole or in part, and therefore the weekly\n observation thereof ought to be perpetual, and to continue in\n force and virtue to the world\u2019s end.\n\n \u201c2. That the Saturday, or seventh day in every week, ought to\n be an everlasting holy day in the Christian church, and the\n religious observation of this day obligeth Christians under the\n gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ.\n\n \u201c3. That the Sunday, or Lord\u2019s day, is an ordinary working day,\n and it is superstition and will-worship to make the same the\n Sabbath of the fourth commandment.\u201d[1062]\n\nIt was for this noble confession of faith that Mrs. Trask was shut up in\nprison till the day of her death. For the same, Mr. Trask was compelled\nto stand in the pillory, and was whipped from thence to the fleet, and\nthen shut up in a wretched prison, from which he escaped by recantation\nafter enduring its miseries for more than a year.[1063]\n\nMr. Utter mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows:\u2014\n\n \u201cTheophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the\n established church, wrote a book, which was printed at London\n in 1628, wherein he argued \u2018that the Lord\u2019s day is not the\n Sabbath day by divine institution,\u2019 but \u2018that the seventh-day\n Sabbath is now in force.\u2019 Mr. Brabourne published another book\n in 1632, entitled, \u2018A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred\n Ordinance of God\u2019s, the Sabbath Day.\u2019\u201d[1064]\n\nBrabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to use\nhis royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But those\nwho put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F. White,\nbishop of Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work against the\nSabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cNow because this Brabourne\u2019s treatise of the Sabbath was\n dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which\n he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached,\n printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have\n poisoned and infected many people either with this Sabbatarian\n error, or with some other of like quality; it was the king,\n our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise\n should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle\n his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about\n Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient\n and orthodoxal Catholic church. Now that which his sacred\n Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace\u2019s direction [Archbishop\n Laud] obediently performed.\u201d[1065]\n\nThe king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those who kept\nthe day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who by means of Dr.\nBound\u2019s new theory pretended that Sunday was that day. He therefore\njoined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhich burden being held of too great weight for any one to\n undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick\n dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two.\n The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the\n right learned Dr. White, then bishop of Ely, who had given good\n proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books and\n disputations against the papists. The practical and historical\n [was to be written], by Heylyn of Westminster, who had gained\n some reputation for his studies in the ancient writers.\u201d[1066]\n\nThe works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in 1635. Dr.\nWhite, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday observance by\nthe fourth commandment, speaks thus of Brabourne\u2019s arguments, that not\nSunday, but the ancient seventh day, is there enjoined:\u2014\n\n \u201cMaintaining your own principles that the fourth commandment\n is purely and simply moral and of the law of nature, it will\n be impossible for you either in English or in Latin, to solve\n Theophilus Brabourne\u2019s objections.\u201d[1067]\n\nBut the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He was brought\nbefore Archbishop Laud and the court of High Commission, and, moved by\nthe fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for the time to the authority of the\nchurch of England, but sometime afterward wrote other books in behalf\nof the seventh day.[1068] Dr. White\u2019s book has this pithy notice of the\nindefinite-time theory:\u2014\n\n \u201cBecause an indefinite time must either bind to all moments\n of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly\n dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to\n no time at all.\u201d[1069]\n\nMr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne\u2019s case, continues thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cAbout this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the\n northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the\n Sabbath. He was educated in the established church, of which\n he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the\n mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that\n church and \u2018became a mark for many shots.\u2019 He held several\n public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to\n propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in\n England of the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. He\n appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in\n which Trask and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied\n with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book\n in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, \u2018The Doctrine of\n the Fourth Commandment.\u2019 This book, published about the year\n 1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established\n church.\u201d[1070]\n\nThe famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a succession\nof able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the first of these,\nwas born about the beginning of the seventeenth century. His work\nentitled, \u201cThe Royal Law Contended For,\u201d was first published at London\nin 1658. \u201cHe was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from\nthe established church, he was deprived of the means of support.\u201d \u201cHe\nsuffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at\nthat time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause\nof the Sabbath. For this truth he experienced tribulation, not only from\nthose in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much\ndistress from unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his\ninfluence, and ruin his cause.\u201d In 1664, he published a work entitled,\n\u201cThe Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord.\u201d[1071] In 1671, Wm. Sellers\nwrote a work in behalf of the seventh day in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox\nstates its object thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cIn opposition to the opinion _that some one day in seven_ is\n all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the\n writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the\n ground that \u2018God himself directly in the letter of the text\n calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to\n one and the selfsame day, as all men know that ever read the\n commandments.\u2019\u201d[1072]\n\nOne of the most eminent Sabbatarian ministers of the last half of the\nseventeenth century was Francis Bampfield. He was originally a clergyman\nof the church of England. The Baptist historian, Crosby, speaks of him\nthus:\u2014\n\n \u201cBut being utterly unsatisfied in his conscience with the\n conditions of conformity, he took his leave of his sorrowful\n and weeping congregation in ... 1662, and was quickly after\n imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family. So soon was\n his unshaken loyalty to the king forgotten, ... that he was\n more frequently imprisoned and exposed to greater hardships for\n his nonconformity, than most other dissenters.\u201d[1073]\n\nOf his imprisonment, Neale says:\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter the act of uniformity, he continued preaching as he had\n opportunity in private, till he was imprisoned for five days\n and nights, with twenty-five of his hearers in one room ...\n where they spent their time in religious exercises, but after\n some time he was released. Soon after, he was apprehended again\n and lay nine years in Dorchester jail, though he was a person\n of unshaken loyalty to the king.\u201d[1074]\n\nDuring his imprisonment, he preached almost every day, and gathered a\nchurch even under his confinement. And when he was at liberty, he ceased\nnot to preach in the name of Jesus. After his release, he went to London,\nwhere he preached with much success.[1075] Neale says of his labors in\nthat city:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhen he resided in London he formed a church on the principles\n of the Sabbatarian Baptists, at Pinner\u2019s hall, of which\n principles he was a zealous asserter. He was a celebrated\n preacher, and a man of serious piety.\u201d[1076]\n\nOn Feb. 17, 1682, he was arrested while preaching, and on March 28, was\nsentenced to forfeit all his goods and to be imprisoned in Newgate for\nlife. In consequence of the hardships which he suffered in that prison,\nhe died, Feb. 16, 1683.[1077] \u201cBampfield,\u201d says Wood, \u201cdying in the said\nprison of Newgate ... aged seventy years, his body was ... followed\nwith a very great company of factious and schismatical people to his\ngrave.\u201d[1078] Crosby says of him:\u2014\n\n \u201cAll that knew him will acknowledge that he was a man of great\n piety. And he would in all probability have preserved the same\n character, with respect to his learning and judgment, had it\n not been for his opinion in two points, viz., that infants\n ought not to be baptized, and that the Jewish Sabbath ought\n still to be kept.\u201d[1079]\n\nMr. Bampfield published two works in behalf of the seventh day as the\nSabbath, one in 1672, the other in 1677. In the first of these he thus\nsets forth the doctrine of the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe law of the seventh-day Sabbath was given before the law\n was proclaimed at Sinai, even from the creation, given to Adam,\n ... and in him to all the world.[1080]... The Lord Christ\u2019s\n obedience unto this _fourth word_ in observing in his lifetime\n the seventh day as a weekly Sabbath day, ... and no other day\n of the week as such, is a part of that perfect righteousness\n which every sound believer doth apply to himself in order to\n his being justified in the sight of God; and every such person\n is to conform unto Christ in all the acts of his obedience to\n the ten words.\u201d[1081]\n\nHis brother, Mr. Thomas Bampfield, who had been speaker in one of\nCromwell\u2019s parliaments, wrote also in behalf of seventh-day observance,\nand was imprisoned for his religious principles in Ilchester jail.[1082]\nAbout the time of Mr. Bampfield\u2019s first imprisonment, severe persecution\narose against the Sabbath-keepers in London. Crosby thus bears testimony:\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was about this time [A. D. 1661], that a congregation of\n Baptists holding the seventh day as a Sabbath, being assembled\n at their meeting-house in Bull-stake alley, the doors being\n open, about three o\u2019clock P. M. [Oct. 19], whilst Mr. John\n James was preaching, one Justice Chard, with Mr. Wood, an\n headborough, came into the meeting-place. Wood commanded him\n in the king\u2019s name to be silent and come down, having spoken\n treason against the king. But Mr. James, taking little or no\n notice thereof, proceeded in his work. The headborough came\n nearer to him in the middle of the meeting-place and commanded\n him again in the king\u2019s name to come down or else he would pull\n him down; whereupon the disturbance grew so great that he could\n not proceed.\u201d[1083]\n\nThe officer having pulled him down from the pulpit, led him away to\nthe court under a strong guard. Mr. Utter continues this narrative as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \u201cMr. James was himself examined and committed to Newgate, on\n the testimony of several profligate witnesses, who accused him\n of speaking treasonable words against the king. His trial took\n place about a month afterward, at which he conducted himself\n in such a manner as to create much sympathy. He was, however,\n sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[1084] This awful\n sentence did not dismay him in the least. He calmly said,\n \u2018Blessed be God; whom man condemneth, God justifieth.\u2019 While\n he lay in prison, under sentence of death, many persons of\n distinction visited him, who were greatly affected by his piety\n and resignation, and offered to exert themselves to secure his\n pardon. But he seems to have had little hope of their success.\n Mrs. James, by advice of her friends, twice presented petitions\n to the king [Charles II.], setting forth the innocence of\n her husband, the character of the witnesses against him, and\n entreating His Majesty to grant a pardon. In both instances she\n was repulsed with scoffs and ridicule. At the scaffold, on the\n day of his execution, Mr. James addressed the assembly in a\n very noble and affecting manner. Having finished his address,\n and kneeling down, he thanked God for covenant mercies, and for\n conscious innocence; he prayed for the witnesses against him,\n for the executioner, for the people of God, for the removal\n of divisions, for the coming of Christ, for the spectators,\n and for himself, that he might enjoy a sense of God\u2019s favor\n and presence, and an entrance into glory. When he had ended,\n the executioner said, \u2018The Lord receive your soul;\u2019 to which\n Mr. James replied, \u2018I thank thee.\u2019 A friend observing to him,\n \u2018This is a happy day,\u2019 he answered, \u2018I bless God it is.\u2019 Then\n having thanked the sheriff for his courtesy, he said, \u2018Father,\n into thy hands I commit my spirit.\u2019... After he was dead his\n heart was taken out and burned, his quarters were affixed to\n the gates of the city, and his head was set up in White chapel\n on a pole opposite to the alley in which his meeting-house\n stood.\u201d[1085]\n\nSuch was the experience of English Sabbath-keepers in the seventeenth\ncentury. It cost something to obey the fourth commandment in such times\nas those. The laws of England during that century were very oppressive\nto all Dissenters, and bore exceedingly hard upon the Sabbath-keepers.\nBut God raised up able men, eminent for piety, to defend his truth during\nthose troublous times, and, if need be, to seal their testimony with\ntheir blood. In the seventeenth century, eleven churches of Sabbatarians\nflourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be\nfound in various parts of that kingdom. Now, but three of these churches\nare in existence! And only remnants, even of these, remain!\n\nTo what cause shall we assign this painful fact? It is not because their\nadversaries were able to confute their doctrine; for the controversial\nworks on both sides still remain, and speak for themselves. It is not\nthat they lacked men of piety and of learning; for God gave them these,\nespecially in the seventeenth century. Nor is it that fanaticism sprang\nup and disgraced the cause; for there is no record of anything of this\nkind. They were cruelly persecuted, but the period of their persecution\nwas that of their greatest prosperity. Like Moses\u2019 bush, they stood\nunconsumed in the burning fire. The prostration of the Sabbath cause in\nEngland is due to none of these things.\n\nThe Sabbath was wounded in the house of its own friends. They took upon\nthemselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the Sabbath of no\npractical importance, and of treating its violation as no very serious\ntransgression of the law of God. Doubtless they hoped to win men to\nChrist and his truth by this course; but, instead of this, they simply\nlowered the standard of divine truth into the dust. The Sabbath-keeping\nministers assumed the pastoral care of first-day churches, in some cases\nas their sole charge, in others, they did this in connection with the\noversight of Sabbatarian churches. The result need surprise no one; as\nthese Sabbath-keeping ministers and churches said to all men, in thus\nacting, that the fourth commandment might be broken with impunity, the\npeople took them at their word. Mr. Crosby, a first-day historian, sets\nthis matter in a clear light:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf the seventh day ought to be observed as the Christian\n Sabbath, then all congregations that observe the first day\n as such must be Sabbath-breakers.... I must leave those\n gentlemen on the contrary side to their own sentiments; and to\n vindicate the practice of becoming pastors to a people whom\n in their conscience they must believe to be breakers of the\n Sabbath.\u201d[1086]\n\nDoubtless there have been noble exceptions to this course; but the\nbody of English Sabbatarians for many years have failed to faithfully\ndischarge the high trust committed to them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nTHE SABBATH IN AMERICA.\n\n The first Sabbath-keeping church in America\u2014Names of\n its members\u2014Origin of the second\u2014Organization of the\n Seventh-day Baptist General Conference\u2014Statistics of the\n Denomination at that time\u2014Nature of its organization\u2014Present\n Statistics\u2014Educational facilities\u2014Missionary work\u2014The American\n Sabbath Tract Society\u2014Responsibility for the light of the\n Sabbath\u2014The German S. D. Baptists of Pennsylvania\u2014Reference\n to Sabbath-keepers in Hungary\u2014In Siberia\u2014The Seventh-day\n Adventists\u2014Their origin\u2014Labors of Joseph Bates\u2014Of James\n White\u2014The Publishing Association\u2014Systematic Benevolence\u2014The\n work of the preachers mainly in new fields\u2014Organization of the\n S. D. Adventists\u2014Statistics\u2014Peculiarities of their faith\u2014Their\n object\u2014The S. D. Adventists of Switzerland\u2014Why the Sabbath is\n of priceless value to mankind\u2014The nations of the saved observe\n the Sabbath in the new earth.\n\n\nThe first Sabbatarian church in America originated at Newport, R. I. The\nfirst Sabbath-keeper in America was Stephen Mumford, who left London\nthree years after the martyrdom of John James, and forty-four years\nafter the landing of the pilgrim fathers at Plymouth. Mr. Mumford, it\nappears, came as a missionary from the English Sabbath-keepers.[1087] Mr.\nIsaac Backus, the historian of the early New England Baptists, makes the\nfollowing record:\u2014\n\n \u201cStephen Mumford came over from London in 1664, and brought\n the opinion with him that the whole of the ten commandments,\n as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and\n immutable; and that it was the Antichristian power which\n thought to change times and laws, that changed the Sabbath from\n the seventh to the first day of the week. Several members of\n the first church in Newport embraced this sentiment, and yet\n continued with the church for some years, until two men and\n their wives who had so done, turned back to the keeping of the\n first day again.\u201d[1088]\n\nMr. Mumford, on his arrival, went earnestly to work to convert men to\nthe observance of the fourth commandment, as we infer from the following\nrecord:\u2014\n\n \u201cStephen Mumford, the first Sabbath-keeper in America, came\n from London in 1664. Tacy Hubbard commenced keeping the\n Sabbath, March 11, 1665. Samuel Hubbard commenced April 1,\n 1665. Rachel Langworthy, January 15, 1666. Roger Baxter,\n April 15, 1666, and William Hiscox, April 28, 1666. These\n were the first Sabbath-keepers in America. A controversy,\n lasting several years, sprung up between them and members of\n the church. They desired to retain their connection with the\n church, but were, at last, compelled to withdraw, that they\n might peaceably enjoy and keep God\u2019s holy day.\u201d[1089] [Baxter\n is Baster in the _S. D. B. Memorial_.]\n\nThough Mr. Mumford faithfully taught the truth, he seems to have\ncherished the ideas of the English Sabbatarians, that it was possible\nfor first-day and seventh-day observers to walk together in church\nfellowship. Had the first-day people been of the same mind, the light\nof the Sabbath would have been extinguished within a few years, as\nthe history of English Sabbath-keepers clearly proves. But, in the\nprovidence of God, the danger was averted by the opposition which these\ncommandment-keepers had to encounter.\n\nBesides the persons above enumerated, four others embraced the Sabbath\nin 1666, but in 1668 they renounced it. These four were also members of\nthe first-day Baptist church of Newport. Though the Sabbath-keepers who\nretained their integrity thought that they might lawfully commune with\nthe members of the church who were fully persuaded to observe the first\nday, yet they felt otherwise with respect to these who had clearly seen\nthe Sabbath, and had for a time observed it, and then apostatized from\nit. These persons \u201cboth wrote and spoke against it, which so grieved them\nthat they could not sit down at the table of the Lord with them, nor with\nthe church because of them.\u201d But as they were members of a first-day\nchurch, and had \u201cno power to deal with them as of themselves without\nthe help of the church,\u201d they \u201cfound themselves barred as to proceeding\nwith them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to bring\nthe case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from the\nobservation of the seventh day, being contrary-minded as to that.\u201d They\ntherefore sent to the London Sabbath-keepers for advice, and in the mean\ntime refrained from communing with the church.\n\nDr. Edward Stennet wrote them in behalf of the London Sabbath-keepers:\n\u201cIf the church will hold communion with these apostates from the truth,\nyou ought then to desire to be fairly dismissed from the church; which if\nthe church refuse, you ought to withdraw yourselves.\u201d[1090] They decided,\nhowever, not to leave the church. But they told \u201cthe church publicly\nthat they could not have comfortable communion with those four persons\nthat had sinned.\u201d \u201cAnd thus for several months they walked with little\nor no offense from the church; after which the leading or ministering\nbrethren began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts.\u201d Mr.\nTory \u201cdeclared the law to be done away.\u201d Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke \u201cmade\nit their work to preach the non-observation of the law, day after day.\u201d\nBut the Sabbath-keepers replied \u201cthat the ten precepts were still as\nholy, just, good, and spiritual, as ever.\u201d Mr. Tory \u201cwith some unpleasant\nwords said \u2018that their tune was only the fourth precept,\u2019 to which they\nanswered, \u2018that the whole ten precepts were of equal force with them, and\nthat they did not plead for one without the other.\u2019 And they for several\nyears, went on with the church in a halvish kind of fellowship.\u201d[1091]\n\nMr. Bailey thus states the result:\u2014\n\n \u201cAt the time of their change of sentiment and practice,\n [respecting the Bible Sabbath], they had no intention of\n establishing a church with this distinctive feature. God,\n evidently, had a different mission for them, and brought them\n to it, through the severe trial of persecution. They were\n forced to leave the fellowship of the Baptist church, or\n abandon the Sabbath of the Lord their God.\u201d[1092]\n\n \u201cThese left the Baptist church on December 7, 1671.\u201d[1093]\n\n \u201cOn the 23d of December, just sixteen days after withdrawing\n from the Baptist church, they covenanted together in a church\n organization.\u201d[1094]\n\nSuch was the origin of the first Sabbath-keeping church in America.[1095]\nThe second of these churches owes its origin to this circumstance: About\nthe year 1700, Edmund Dunham of Piscataway, N. J., reproved a person for\nlabor on Sunday. He was asked for his authority from the Scriptures. On\nsearching for this, he became satisfied that the seventh day is the only\nweekly Sabbath in the Bible, and began to observe it.\n\n \u201cSoon after, others followed his example, and in 1707 a\n Seventh-day Baptist church was organized, with seventeen\n members. Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor and sent to Rhode\n Island to receive ordination.\u201d[1096]\n\nThe S. D. Baptist General Conference was organized in 1802. At its first\nannual session, it included in its organization eight churches, nine\nordained ministers, and 1130 members.[1097] The Conference was organized\nwith only advisory powers, the individual churches retaining the matters\nof discipline and church government in their own hands.[1098] The\nConference now embraces some eighty churches, and about 8000 members.\nThese churches are found in most of the northern and western States, and\nare divided into five associations, which, however, have no legislative\nnor disciplinary power over the churches which compose them. There\nare, belonging to the denomination, five academies, one college, \u201cand\na university with academic, collegiate, mechanical, and theological\ndepartments in operation.\u201d[1099] The S. D. Baptist missionary society\nsustains several home missionaries who labor principally on the western\nand southern borders of the denomination. They have within a few years\npast met with a good degree of success in this work. It has also a\nmissionary station at Shanghai, China, and a small church there of\nfaithful Christians.\n\nThe American Sabbath Tract Society is the publishing agency of the\ndenomination. Its head-quarters are at Alfred Center, N. Y. It publishes\nthe _Sabbath Recorder_, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, and it also\npublishes a series of valuable works relating to the Sabbath and the law\nof God.\n\nDuring the two hundred years which have elapsed since the organization\nof the first Sabbatarian church in America, God has raised up among this\npeople men of eminent talent and moral worth. He has also in providential\nways called attention to the sacred trust which he so long since confided\nto the S. D. Baptists, and which they have been slow to realize in its\nimmense importance.\n\nAmong those converted to the Sabbath through the agency of this people,\nthe name of J. W. Morton is particularly worthy of honorable mention.\nHe was sent in 1847 a missionary to the island of Hayti by the Reformed\nPresbyterians. Here he came in contact with Sabbatarian publications,\nand after a serious examination became satisfied that the seventh day\nis the Sabbath of the Lord. As an honest man, what he saw to be truth\nhe immediately obeyed, and returning home to be tried for his heresy,\nwas summarily expelled from the Reformed Presbyterian church without\nbeing suffered to state the reasons which had governed his conduct. He\nhas given to the world a valuable work, entitled, \u201cVindication of the\nTrue Sabbath,\u201d in which his experience is related, and his reasons for\nobserving the seventh day set forth with great force and clearness.\n\nThe S. D. Baptists do not lack men of education and of talent, and they\nhave ample means in their possession with which to sustain the cause of\nGod. If in time past they have not fully realized that they were debtors\nto all mankind because of the great truth which God committed to their\ntrust, there is reason to believe that they are now to some extent\nawakening to this vast indebtedness.[1100]\n\nThere is also in the State of Pennsylvania a small body of German S. D.\nBaptists found in the counties of Lancaster, York, Franklin, and Bedford,\nand in the central and western parts of the State. They originated in\n1728 from the teaching of Conrad Beissel, a native of Germany. They\npractice trine immersion, and the washing of feet, and observe open\ncommunion. They encourage celibacy, but make it obligatory upon none.\nEven those who have chosen this manner of life are at liberty to marry\nif at any time they choose so to do. They established and successfully\nmaintained a Sabbath-school at Ephrata, their head-quarters, forty years\nbefore Robert Raikes had introduced the system of Sunday-schools. This\npeople have suffered much persecution because of their observance of\nthe seventh day, the laws of Pennsylvania being particularly oppressive\ntoward Sabbatarians.[1101] The German S. D. Baptists do not belong to the\nS. D. Baptist General Conference.\n\nWe have already noticed the fact that Sabbath-keepers are numerous\nin Russia, in Poland, and in Turkey. We find the following statement\nrespecting Sabbath-keepers in Hungary:\u2014\n\n \u201cA congregation of seventh-day Christians in Hungary, being\n refused tolerance by the laws, has embraced Judaism, in order\n to be allowed to exist in connection with one of the \u2018received\n religions.\u2019\u201d[1102]\n\nThe probability is that as the laws of the Austrian Empire bear very\nheavily upon all religious bodies not belonging to some one of the\ntolerated sects or orders, these \u201cSeventh-day Christians\u201d on \u201cbeing\nrefused tolerance\u201d in their own name, secured the privilege of observing\nthe seventh day by allowing their doctrine to be classed by the civil\nauthorities under the head of Judaism, and so bringing themselves under\nthe tolerance accorded to the \u201creceived religions.\u201d We do not say that\nthis was right, even as a technicality, but it is evidently the extent of\nwhat they did. There is no reason to believe that they abjured Christ. We\nalso learn that there are Sabbath-keepers in the north of Asia:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere is a sect of Greek Christians in Siberia who keep the\n Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Such sects already exist in the\n United States, in Germany, and we believe in England.\u201d[1103]\n\nThe Sabbath was first introduced to the attention of the Advent people\nat Washington, N. H. A faithful Seventh-day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel\nD. Preston, from the State of New York, having removed to this place,\nbrought with her the Sabbath of the Lord. Here she became interested\nin the doctrine of the glorious advent of the Saviour at hand. Being\ninstructed in this subject by the Advent people, she in turn instructed\nthem in the commandments of God, and as early as 1844, nearly the entire\nchurch in that place, consisting of about forty persons, became observers\nof the Sabbath of the Lord.[1104] The oldest body of Sabbath-keepers\namong the Seventh-day Adventists is therefore at Washington, N. H. Its\npresent number is small, for it has been thinned by emigration and by the\nravages of death; but there still remains a small company to bear witness\nto this ancient truth of the Bible.\n\nFrom this place, several Advent ministers received the Sabbath truth\nduring the year 1844. One of these was Eld. T. M. Preble, who has the\nhonor of first bringing this great truth before the Adventists through\nthe medium of the press. His essay was dated Feb. 13, 1845. He presented\nbriefly the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and showed that it was not\nchanged by the Saviour, but was changed by the great apostasy. He then\nsaid:\u2014\n\n \u201cThus we see Dan. 7:25, fulfilled, the little horn changing\n \u2018times and laws.\u2019 Therefore it appears to me that all who keep\n the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope\u2019s Sunday-keepers, and\n God\u2019s Sabbath breakers.\u201d[1105]\n\nWithin a few months many persons began to observe the Sabbath as the\nresult of the light thus shed on their pathway. Eld. J. B. Cook, a man\nof decided talent as a preacher and a writer, was one of these early\nconverts to the Sabbath. Elders Preble and Cook were at this time in\nthe full vigor of their mental powers, and were possessed of talent\nand a reputation for piety, which gave them great influence among the\nAdventists in behalf of the Sabbath. These men were called in the\nprovidence of God to fill an important place in the work of Sabbath\nreform.\n\nBut both of them, while preaching and writing in its behalf, committed\nthe fatal error of making it of no practical importance. They had\napparently the same fellowship for those who rejected the Sabbath that\nthey had for those who observed it. Such a course of action produced\nits natural result. After two or three years of this kind of Sabbath\nobservance, each of these men apostatized from it, and thenceforward used\nwhat influence they possessed in warring against the fourth commandment.\nThe larger part of those who embraced the Sabbath from their labors were\nnot sufficiently impressed with its importance to become settled and\ngrounded in its weighty evidences, and, after a brief period, they turned\nback from its observance. But enough had been done to excite bitter\nopposition toward the Sabbath on the part of many Adventists, and to\nbring out the ingenious and plausible arguments by which men attempt to\nprove that God has abolished his own sacred law.\n\nSuch was the fruit of their course, and such the condition of things\nat the time of their defection. But the result of their plan of action\ntaught the Advent Sabbath-keepers a lesson of value, which they have\nnever forgotten. They learned that the fourth commandment must be treated\nas a part of the moral law, if men are ever to be led to its sacred\nobservance.\n\nEld. Preble\u2019s first article in behalf of the Sabbath was the means of\ncalling the attention of our venerable brother, Joseph Bates, to this\ndivine institution. He soon became convinced of its obligation, and at\nonce began to observe it. He had acted quite a prominent part in the\nAdvent movement of 1843-4, and now, with self-sacrificing zeal, he took\nhold of the despised Sabbath truth to set it before his fellow-men. He\ndid not do it in the half-way manner of Elders Preble and Cook, but as\na man thoroughly in earnest and fully alive to the importance of his\nsubject.\n\nThe subject of the heavenly Sanctuary began about this time to interest\nmany Adventists, and especially Eld. Bates. He was one of the first to\nsee that the central object of that Sanctuary is the ark of God. He also\ncalled attention to the proclamation of the third angel relative to God\u2019s\ncommandments. He girded on the armor to lay it down only when his work\nshould be accomplished. He has been instrumental in leading many to the\nobservance of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and few\nwho have received the Sabbath from his teaching have apostatized from\nit.[1106]\n\nIt was but a few months after Eld. Bates, that our esteemed and efficient\nbrother, Eld. James White, also embraced the Sabbath. He had labored\nwith much success in the great Advent movement, and he now entered\nheartily into the work of Sabbath reform. Uniting with Eld. Bates in the\nproclamation of the doctrine of the advent and the Sabbath as connected\ntogether in the Sanctuary and the message of the third angel, he has,\nwith the blessing of God, accomplished great results in behalf of the\nSabbath.\n\nThe publishing interests of the Seventh-day Adventists originated through\nhis instrumentality. He began the work of publishing in 1849, without\nresources, and with very few friends, but with much toil, self-sacrifice,\nand anxious care; and with the blessing of God upon his efforts, he has\nbeen the means of establishing an efficient office of publication, and\nof disseminating many important works throughout our country, and, to\nsome extent, to other nations also. The publication of the _Advent Review\nand Herald of the Sabbath_, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, was\ncommenced by him in 1850. For most of the years of its existence, he has\nserved as one of its editors; and for all its earlier years, he was both\npublisher and sole editor. During this time, he has also labored with\nenergy as a minister of the gospel of Christ.\n\nThe wants of the cause demanding an enlargement of capital and more\nextensive operations, to this end an Association was incorporated in\nthe city of Battle Creek, Michigan, May 3, 1861, under the name of the\nSeventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. This Association owns three\ncommodious publishing houses, with engine, power presses, and all the\nfixtures necessary for doing an extensive business. There are about fifty\npersons constantly employed in this work of publication. The Association\nhas a capital of about $82,000. Under God, it owes its prosperity to the\nprudent management and untiring energy of Eld. James White.\n\nThe _Advent Review_ has at the present time (Nov., 1873) a circulation of\nabout 5000 copies. The _Youth\u2019s Instructor_, a monthly paper designed for\nthe children of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, began to be issued in 1852,\nand has now attained a circulation of nearly 5000 copies.\n\nThe _Advent Tidende_, a Danish monthly with a circulation of 800, is\npublished for the benefit of those who speak the Danish and Norwegian\ntongues, of whom a considerable number have embraced the Sabbath.\n\nThe S. D. Adventists have taken a strong interest in the subject of\nhygiene and the laws of health, and have established a Health Institute\nat Battle Creek, Mich., which publishes the _Health Reformer_, a monthly\njournal, magazine form, having a circulation of nearly 5000 copies.\n\nNumerous publications on Prophecy, the Signs of the Times, the Coming\nof Christ, the Sabbath, the Law of God, the Sanctuary, &c., &c., have\nbeen issued within the past twenty years, and have had an extensive\ncirculation, amounting, in the aggregate, to many millions of pages.\n\nThe ordinary financial wants of the cause are sustained by a method\nof collecting means known as Systematic Benevolence. By this system,\nit is designed that each friend of the cause shall pay a certain sum\nweekly proportioned to the property which he possesses. But there is no\ncompulsion in this matter. In this manner the burden is borne by all,\nso that it rests heavily upon none; and the means needed for the work\nflows with a steady stream into the treasury of the several churches, and\nfinally into that of the State Conferences. A settlement is instituted\neach year at the State Conferences, in which the labors, receipts, and\nexpenditures, of each minister are carefully considered. Thus none are\nallowed to waste means, and none who are recognized as called of God to\nthe ministry are allowed to suffer.\n\nThe churches sustain their meetings for the most part without the aid of\npreaching. They raise means to sustain the servants of Christ, but bid\nthem mainly devote their time and strength to save those who have not the\nlight of these important truths shining upon their pathway. So they go\nout everywhere preaching the word of God, as his providence guides their\nfeet. During the summer months, the work in new fields is carried forward\nprincipally by means of large tents, which enable the preacher to provide\na suitable place of worship, wherever he may think it desirable to labor.\n\nThe Seventh-day Adventists have thirteen State Conferences, which\nassemble annually in their respective States. These bear the names of\nMaine, Vermont, New England, New York and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,\nIndiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas, and\nCalifornia. These Conferences are designed to meet the local wants of\nthe cause. There is also a General Conference, which assembles yearly,\ncomposed of delegates from the State Conferences. This Conference takes\nthe general oversight of the work in all the State Conferences, supplying\nthe more destitute with laborers as far as possible, and uniting the\nwhole strength of the body for the accomplishment of the work. It also\ntakes the charge of missionary labor in those States which have no\norganized Conferences.\n\nThere are about fifty ministers who devote their whole time to the\nwork of the gospel. There is also a considerable number who preach a\nportion of the time and devote the remainder to secular labor. There are\nabout 6000 members in the several Conference organizations. But such\nis the scattered condition of this people (for they are found in all\nthe northern States and in several of the southern), that a very large\nportion have no connection with its organization. They are to be found\nin single families scattered all the way from Maine to California and\nOregon. The _Review_ and _Instructor_ constitute, in a great number of\ncases, the only preachers of their faith.\n\nThose subjects which more especially interest this people, are the\nfulfillment of prophecy, the second personal advent of the Saviour as an\nevent now near at hand, immortality through Christ alone, a change of\nheart through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the observance of the\nSabbath of the fourth commandment, the divinity and mediatorial work\nof Christ, and the development of a holy character by obedience to the\nperfect and holy law of God.[1107]\n\nThey are very strict with regard to the ordinance of baptism, believing\nnot only that it requires men to be buried in the watery grave, but that\neven such baptism is faulty if administered to those who are breaking one\nof the ten commandments. They also believe that our Lord\u2019s direction in\nJohn 13 should be observed in connection with the supper.\n\nThey teach that the gifts of the Spirit set forth in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph.\n4, were designed to remain in the church till the end of time. They\nbelieve that these were lost in consequence of the same apostasy that\nchanged the Sabbath. They also believe that in the final restoration of\nthe commandments by the work of the third angel, the gifts of the Spirit\nof God are restored with them. So the remnant of the church, or last\ngeneration of its members, is said to \u201ckeep the commandments of God, and\nhave the testimony of Jesus Christ.\u201d[1108] And the angel of God explains\nthis by saying, \u201cThe testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.\u201d[1109]\nThe spirit of prophecy therefore has a distinct place assigned to it in\nthe final work of Sabbath reform. Such are their views of this portion of\nScripture; and their history from the beginning has been marked by the\ninfluence of this sacred gift.\n\nIn the face of strong opposition, the people known as Seventh-day\nAdventists have arisen to bear their testimony for the Sabbath of the\nLord. They have had perils from open foes, and from false brethren; but\nthey have thus far overcome the difficulties of the way, and from each\nhave gathered strength for the conflict before them. They have a definite\nwork which they hope to accomplish. It is to make ready a people\nprepared for the advent of the Lord.\n\nHonorable mention should be made of the Seventh-day Adventists of\nSwitzerland. They first learned these precious truths from Elder M. B.\nCzechowski, who a few years since instructed them in the commandments of\nGod and the faith of Jesus. Since his labors with them ceased, God has\ngiven them strength to stand with firmness for his truth, and has added\nto their numbers. They have a heart to obey the truth and to sacrifice\nfor its advancement. They number about sixty persons. There are a few\nindividuals of this faith also in Italy, Germany, and Denmark.\n\nThe observance of the Sabbath is sometimes advocated on the ground\nthat man needs a day of rest and will grow prematurely old if he labor\nseven days in each week, which is doubtless true; and it has also been\nadvocated on the ground that God will bless in basket and in store those\nwho hallow his Sabbath, which may be true in many cases; but the Bible\ndoes not urge motives of this kind in respect to this sacred institution.\nWithout doubt there are great incidental advantages in the observance of\nthe Sabbath. But these are not what God sets before us as the reasons\nfor its observance. The true reason is infinitely higher than all\nconsiderations of this kind, and should constrain men to obey, even were\nit certain that it would cost them all that is dear in the present life.\n\nThe Sabbath has been advocated on the ground that it secures to men a day\nfor divine worship in which by common consent they may appear before God.\nThis is a very important consideration, and yet the Bible says little\nconcerning it. It is one of the incidental blessings of the Sabbath,\nand not the chief reason for its observance. The Sabbath was ordained to\ncommemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth.\n\nThe importance of the Sabbath as the memorial of creation is that it\nkeeps ever present the true reason why worship is due to God. For the\nworship of God is based upon the fact that he is the Creator and that\nall other beings were created by him. The Sabbath therefore lies at the\nvery foundation of divine worship, for it teaches this great truth in\nthe most impressive manner, and no other institution does this. The true\nground of divine worship, not of that on the seventh day merely, but of\nall worship, is found in the distinction between the Creator and his\ncreatures. This great fact can never become obsolete, and must never be\nforgotten. To keep it in man\u2019s mind, God gave to him the Sabbath. He\nreceived it in his innocency, and notwithstanding the perversity of his\nprofessed people, God has preserved this sacred institution through the\nentire period of man\u2019s fallen state.\n\nThe four and twenty elders in the very act of worshiping Him who sits\nupon the throne, state the reason why worship is due to God:\u2014\n\n \u201cThou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power;\n for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are\n and were created.\u201d[1110]\n\nThis great truth is therefore worthy to be remembered even in the\nglorified state. And we shall presently learn that what God gave to man\nin Paradise, to keep this great truth before his mind, shall be honored\nby him in Paradise restored.\n\nThe future is given to us in the prophetic Scriptures. From them we learn\nthat our earth is reserved unto fire, and that from its ashes shall\nspring new heavens and earth, and ages of endless date.[1111] Over this\nglorified inheritance, the second Adam, the Lord of the Sabbath, shall\nbear rule, and under his gracious protection the nations of them which\nare saved shall inherit the land forever.[1112] When the glory of the\nLord shall thus fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, the Sabbath\nof the Most High is again and for the last time brought to view:\u2014\n\n \u201cFor as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make\n shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and\n your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new\n moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all\n flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.\u201d[1113]\n\nDoes not Paul refer to these very facts set forth by Isaiah when he says,\n\u201cThere remaineth therefore a rest [Greek, _Sabbatismos_, literally \u201cA\nKEEPING OF THE SABBATH\u201d] to the people of God\u201d?[1114] The reason for this\nmonthly gathering to the New Jerusalem of all the host of the redeemed\nfrom every part of the new earth may be found in the language of the\nApocalypse:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as\n crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.\n In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the\n river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of\n fruits and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the\n tree were for the healing [literally, the service][1115] of the\n nations.\u201d[1116]\n\nThe gathering of the nations that are saved to the presence of the\nCreator, from the whole face of the new earth on each successive Sabbath,\nattests the sacredness of the Sabbath even in that holy state, and sets\nthe seal of the Most High to the perpetuity of this ancient institution.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] For the scriptural and traditional evidence on this point, see\nShimeall\u2019s Bible Chronology, part i. chap. vi; Taylor\u2019s Voice of the\nChurch, pp. 25-30; and Bliss\u2019 Sacred Chronology, pp. 199-203.\n\n[2] Isa. 57:15; 1 Sam. 15:29, margin; Jer. 10:10, margin; Micah 5:2,\nmargin; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1:17; Ps. 90:2.\n\n[3] Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Gen. 1:1, uses the following\nlanguage: \u201cCreated] Caused that to exist which previously to this moment,\nhad no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal\ncriticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the\nword _bara_, expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing:\nor its egression from nonentity to entity.... These words should be\ntranslated: \u2018God in the beginning created the _substance_ of the heavens\nand the _substance_ of the earth; _i. e._, the _prima materia_, or first\nelements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively\nformed.\u2019\u201d\n\nPurchase\u2019s Pilgrimage, b. i. chap, ii., speaks thus of the creation:\n\u201cNothing but nothing had the Lord Almighty, whereof, wherewith, whereby,\nto build this city\u201d [that is the world].\n\nDr. Gill says: \u201cThese are said to be _created_, that is, to be made out\nof nothing; for what pre-existent matter to this chaos [of verse 2] could\nthere be out of which they could be formed?\u201d\n\n\u201cCreation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could\nproduce something out of nothing.\u201d Commentary on Gen. 1:1.\n\nJohn Calvin, in his Commentary on this chapter, thus expounds the\ncreative act: \u201cHis meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing.\nHence the folly or those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter\nexisted from eternity.\u201d\n\nThe work of creation is thus defined in 2 Maccabees 7:28: \u201cLook upon the\nheaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made\nthem of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.\u201d\n\nThat this creative act marked the commencement of the first day instead\nof preceding it by almost infinite ages is thus stated in 2 Esdras 6:38:\n\u201cAnd I said, O Lord, thou spakest from the beginning of the creation,\neven the first day, and saidst thus: Let heaven and earth be made; and\nthy word was a perfect work.\u201d\n\nWycliffe\u2019s translation, the earliest of the English versions, renders\nGen. 1:1, thus: \u201cIn the first, made God of naught heaven and earth.\u201d]\n\n[4] Heb. 11:3; Gen. 1.\n\n[5] Gen. 1:1-5; Heb. 1.\n\n[6] Gen. 1:6-8; Job 37:18.\n\n[7] Gen. 1:9-13; Ps. 136:6; 2 Pet. 3:5.\n\n[8] Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 119:91; Jer. 33:25.\n\n[9] Gen 1:20-23.\n\n[10] Gen. 1:24-31; 2:7-9, 18-22; 3:20; Job 38:7.\n\n[11] \u201cOn the sixth day God ended his work which he had made; and he\nrested on the seventh day,\u201d &c., is the reading of the Septuagint, the\nSyriac, and the Samaritan; \u201cand this should be considered the genuine\nreading,\u201d says Dr. A. Clarke. See his Commentary on Gen. 2.\n\n[12] Gen. 2:2; Ex. 31:17.\n\n[13] Isa. 40:28.\n\n[14] Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11. In an anonymous work entitled \u201cMorality of the\nFourth Commandment,\u201d London, 1652, but not the same with that of Dr.\nTwisse, of the same title, is the following striking passage:\n\n\u201cThe Hebrew root for seven signifies _fullness_, _perfection_, and the\nJews held many mysteries to be in the number seven: so John in his\nApocalypse useth much that number. As, seven churches, seven stars, seven\nspirits, seven candlesticks, seven angels, seven seals, seven trumpets;\nand we no sooner meet with a seventh day, but it is blessed; no sooner\nwith a seventh man [Gen. 5:24; Jude 14], but he is translated.\u201d Page 7.\n\n[15] Webster\u2019s Unabridged Dictionary on the words _sanctify_ and\n_hallow_. Ed. 1859.\n\nThe revised edition of 1864 gives this definition: \u201cTo make sacred\nor holy; to set apart to a holy or religious use; _to consecrate\nby appropriate rites_; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day, and\n_sanctified_ it. Gen. 2:3. Moses ... sanctified Aaron and his garments.\nLev. 8:30.\u201d\n\nWorcester defines it thus: \u201c_To ordain or set apart to sacred ends_; to\nconsecrate; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day and _sanctified_ it.\nGen. 2:3.\u201d\n\n[16] Gen. 2:15; 1:28.\n\n[17] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 56, 57, London, 1641.\n\n[18] Hebrew Lexicon, p. 914, ed. 1854.\n\n[19] Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1 7, margin.\n\n[20] Ex. 10:12, 23.\n\n[21] Dr. Lange\u2019s Commentary speaks on this point thus, in vol. i, p. 197:\n\u201cIf we had no other passage than this of Gen. 2:3, there would be no\ndifficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of\na Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God, as holy time, by all of\nthat race for whom the earth and its nature were specially prepared. The\nfirst men must have known it. The words, \u2018He hallowed it,\u2019 can have no\nmeaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who\nwere required to keep it holy.\u201d\n\nDr. Nicholas Bound, in his \u201cTrue Doctrine of the Sabbath,\u201d London, 1606,\npage 7, thus states the antiquity of the Sabbath precept:\n\n\u201cThis first commandment of the Sabbath was no more then first given when\nit was pronounced from Heaven by the Lord, than any other one of the\nmoral precepts, nay, that it hath so much antiquity as the seventh day\nhath being; for, so soon as the day was, so soon was it sanctified, that\nwe might know that, as it came in with the first man, so it must not go\nout but with the last man; and as it was in the beginning of the world,\nso it must continue to the end of the same; and, as the first seventh day\nwas sanctified, so must the last be. And this is that which one saith,\nthat the Sabbath was commanded by God, and the seventh day was sanctified\nof him even from the beginning of the world; where (the latter words\nexpounding the former) he showeth that, when God did sanctify it, then\nalso he commanded it to be kept holy; and therefore look how ancient the\nsanctification of the day is, the same antiquity also as the commandment\nof keeping it holy; for they two are all one.\u201d\n\n[22] Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[23] Buck\u2019s Theological Dictionary, article, Sabbath; Calmet\u2019s\nDictionary, article, Sabbath.\n\n[24] Ex. 16:22, 23.\n\n[25] John 1: 1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; Col. 1:13-16.\n\n[26] Mark 2:27.\n\n[27] Barrett\u2019s Principles of English Grammar, p. 29.\n\n[28] Job 14:12; 1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 9:27.\n\n[29] Dr. Twisse illustrates the absurdity of that view which makes the\nfirst observance of the Sabbath in memory of creation to have begun some\n2500 years after that event: \u201cWe read that when the Ilienses, inhabitants\nof Ilium, called anciently by the name of Troy, sent an embassage to\nTiberius, to condole the death of his father Augustus, he, considering\nthe unseasonableness thereof, it being a long time after his death,\nrequited them accordingly, saying that he was sorry for their heaviness\nalso, having lost so renowned a knight as Hector was, to wit, above a\nthousand years before, in the wars of Troy.\u201d\u2014_Morality of the Fourth\nCommandment_, p. 198.\n\n[30] Ex. 16:23.\n\n[31] Ex. 16.\n\n[32] Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[33] Compare Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[34] Heb. 3:4; Jer. 10:10-12; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 33:9; Heb. 11:3.\n\n[35] Antiquities of the Jews, b. i. chap. i. sect. 1.\n\n[36] Works, vol. i. The Creation of the World, sect. 30.\n\n[37] Isa. 58:13, 14; Heb. 9:10.\n\n[38] Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12.\n\n[39] Gen. 9:5, 7.\n\n[40] Gen. 5:24; 6:9; 26:5.\n\n[41] See the beginning of chap. viii. of this work.\n\n[42] Ezra 3:1-6; Neh. 8:2, 9-12, 14-18; 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron. 5:3;\n7:8, 9; John 7:2-14, 37.\n\n[43] \u201cThe week, another primeval measure, is not a natural measure of\ntime, as some astronomers and chronologers have supposed, indicated\nby the phases or quarters of the moon. It was originated by divine\nappointment at the creation\u2014six days of labor and one of rest being\nwisely appointed for man\u2019s physical and spiritual well-being.\u201d\u2014_Bliss\u2019\nSacred Chronology_, p. 6; _Hale\u2019s Chronology_, vol. i. p. 19.\n\n\u201cSeven has been the ancient and honored number among the nations of the\nearth. They have measured their time by weeks from the beginning. The\noriginal of this was the Sabbath of God, as Moses has given the reasons\nof it in his writings.\u201d\u2014_Brief Dissertation on the first three Chapters\nof Genesis, by Dr. Coleman_, p. 26.\n\n[44] Gen. 29:27, 28; 8:10, 12; 7:4, 10; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13.\n\n[45] Ex. 16:22, 23.\n\n[46] The interest to see the first man is thus stated: \u201cSem and Seth were\nin great honor among men, and so was Adam above every living thing in the\ncreation.\u201d Ecclesiasticus 49:16.\n\n[47] Gen. 26:5; 18:19.\n\n[48] Gen. 2-6; Heb. 11:4-7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5.\n\n[49] Gen. 7; Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; 2 Pet. 3:5, 6.\n\n[50] Deut. 32:7, 8; Acts 17:26.\n\n[51] Gen. 11:1-9; Josephus\u2019 Ant., b. i. chap. iv. This took place in the\ndays of Peleg, who was born about one hundred years after the flood. Gen.\n10:25, compared with 11:10-16; Ant., b. i. chap. vi. sect. 4.\n\n[52] Rom. 1:18-32; Acts 14:16, 17; 17:29, 30.\n\n[53] Gen. 12:1-3; Josh. 24:2, 3, 14; Neh. 9:7, 8; Rom. 4:13-17; 2 Chron.\n20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23.\n\n[54] Gen. 18:19.\n\n[55] Gen. 17:9-14; 34:14; Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3; Eph. 2:12-19; Num. 23:9;\nDeut. 33:27, 28.\n\n[56] Gen. 15; Ex. 1-5; Deut. 4:20.\n\n[57] Ex. 12:29-42; Gal. 3:17.\n\n[58] Ps. 105:43-45; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41.\n\n[59] Gen. 2:2, 3; 26:5; Ex. 16:4, 27, 28; 18:16.\n\n[60] Ps. 90:2.\n\n[61] Ex. 19:3-8, 24:3-8; Jer. 3:14, compared with last clause of Jer.\n31:32.\n\n[62] Ex. 20:2; 24:10.\n\n[63] Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Neh. 9:14.\n\n[64] On this verse Dr. A. Clarke thus comments:\u2014\u201c_On the sixth day they\ngathered twice as much_\u2014This they did that they might have a provision\nfor the Sabbath.\u201d\n\n[65] The Douay Bible reads: \u201cTo-morrow is the rest of the Sabbath\nsanctified unto the Lord.\u201d Dr. Clarke comments as follows upon this text:\n\u201c_To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath._ There is nothing either\nin the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now\n_first_ given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary,\nit is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been\ngenerally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as\nbeing now _renewed_; because they might have supposed, that in their\nunsettled state in the wilderness, they might have been exempted from the\nobservance of it. Thus we find, 1. That when God finished his creation he\ninstituted the Sabbath; 2. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he\ninsisted on the strict observance of it; 3. When he gave the LAW, he made\nit a tenth part of the whole: such importance has this institution in the\neyes of the Supreme Being!\u201d\n\nRichard Baxter, a famous divine of the seventeenth century, and a decided\nadvocate of the abrogation of the fourth commandment, in his \u201cDivine\nAppointment of the Lord\u2019s Day,\u201d thus clearly states the origin of the\nSabbath: \u201cWhy should God begin two thousand years after [the creation of\nthe world] to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of his rest from the\ncreation of it, if he had never called man to that commemoration before?\nAnd it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the\nmanna before the giving of the law; and let any considering Christian\njudge..... 1. Whether the not falling of the manna, or the rest of God\nafter the creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath.\n2. And whether if it had been the first, it would not have been said,\nRemember to keep holy the Sabbath-day; for on six days the manna fell,\nand not on the seventh; rather than \u2018for in six days God created heaven\nand earth, &c., and rested the seventh day.\u2019 And it is casually added,\n\u2018Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.\u2019 Nay,\nconsider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this\nground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down\nthe manna on that day, and that he prohibited the people from seeking\nit.\u201d\u2014_Practical Works_, Vol. iii. p. 784. ed. 1707.\n\n[66] The Douay Bible reads: \u201cBecause it is the Sabbath of the Lord.\u201d\n\n[67] Ex. 16.\n\n[68] It has indeed been asserted that God by a miracle equalized the\nportion of every one on five days, and doubled the portion of each on the\nsixth, so that no act of the people had any bearing on the Sabbath. But\nthe equal portion of each on the five days was not thus understood by\nPaul. He says: \u201cBut by an equality, that now at this time your abundance\nmay be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply\nfor your want; that there may be equality; as it is written, He that had\ngathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no\nlack.\u201d 2 Cor. 8:14, 15. And that the double portion on the sixth day was\nthe act of the people, is affirmed by Moses. He says that \u201con the sixth\nday they gathered twice as much bread.\u201d Verse 22.\n\n[69] Gen. 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12; 29:27, 28; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13.\n\n[70] By this three-fold miracle, occurring every week for forty years,\nthe great Law-giver distinguished his hallowed day. The people were\ntherefore admirably prepared to listen to the fourth commandment\nenjoining the observance of the very day on which he had rested. Ex.\n16:35; Josh. 5:12; Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[71] The twelfth chapter of Exodus relates the origin of the passover. It\nis in striking contrast with Ex. 16, which is supposed to give the origin\nof the Sabbath. If the reader will compare the two chapters he will see\nthe difference between the origin of an institution as given in Ex. 12,\nand a familiar reference to an existing institution as in Ex. 16. If he\nwill also compare Gen. 2 with Ex. 12, he will see that the one gives the\norigin of the Sabbath in the same manner that the other gives the origin\nof the passover.\n\n[72] This implies, first, the fall of a larger quantity on that day, and\nsecond, its preservation for the wants of the Sabbath.\n\n[73] This must refer to going out for manna, as the connection implies;\nfor religious assemblies on the Sabbath were commanded and observed. Lev.\n23:3; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:16; Acts 1:12; 15:21.\n\n[74] John 7:22.\n\n[75] Gen. 17:34; Ex. 4. Moses is said to have given circumcision to\nthe Hebrews; yet it is a singular fact that his first mention of that\nordinance is purely incidental, and plainly implies an existing knowledge\nof it on their part. Thus it is written: \u201cThis is the ordinance of the\npassover: There shall no stranger eat thereof; but every man\u2019s servant\nthat is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he\neat thereof.\u201d Ex. 12:43, 44. And in like manner when the Sabbath was\ngiven to Israel, that people were not ignorant of the sacred institution.\n\n[76] Eze. 20:12; Ex. 31:17.\n\n[77] Jer. 10:10-12.\n\n[78] That the Lord was there in person with his angels, see besides the\nnarrative in Ex. 19; 20; 32-34, the following testimonies: Deut. 33:2;\nJudges 5:5; Nehemiah 9:6-13; Ps. 68:17.\n\n[79] Ex. 24:10; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41; Isa. 41:17.\n\n[80] Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5. The following from the pen of\nMr. Wm. Miller presents the subject in a clear light: \u201cI say, and believe\nI am supported by the Bible, that the moral law was never given to the\nJews as a people exclusively; but they were for a season the keepers of\nit in charge. And through them the law, oracles, and testimony, have been\nhanded down to us. See Paul\u2019s clear reasoning in Rom. chapters 2, 3, and\n4, on that point.\u201d\u2014_Miller\u2019s Life and Views_, p. 161.\n\n[81] Ex. 19; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Kings 8:53; Amos 3:1, 2.\n\n[82] Ex. 20:1-17; 34:28, margin; Deut. 5:4-22; 10:4, margin.\n\n[83] Deut. 5:22.\n\n[84] He who created the world on the first day of the week, and completed\nits organization in six days, rested on the seventh day, and was\nrefreshed. Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 31:17.\n\n[85] To this, however, it is objected that in consequence of the\nrevolution of the earth on its axis, the day begins earlier in the East\nthan with us; and hence that there is no definite seventh day to the\nworld of mankind. To suit such objectors, the earth ought not to revolve.\nBut in that case, so far from removing the difficulty, there would be no\nseventh day at all; for one side of the globe would have perpetual day\nand the other side perpetual night. The truth is, everything depends upon\nthe revolution of the earth. God made the Sabbath for man [Mark 2:27]; he\nmade man to dwell on all the face of the earth [Acts 17:26]; he caused\nthe earth to revolve on its axis that it might measure off the days of\nthe week; causing that the sun should shine on the earth, as it revolves\nfrom west to east, thus causing the day to go round the world from east\nto west. Seven of these revolutions constitute a week; the seventh one\nbrings the Sabbath to all the world.\n\n[86] Luke 23:54-56; 24:1.\n\n[87] See also Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2.\n\n[88] Neh. 9:13, 14.\n\n[89] This expression is strikingly illustrated in the statement of Eze.\n20:5, where God is said to have made himself known unto Israel in Egypt.\nThis language cannot mean that the people were ignorant of the true God,\nhowever wicked some of them might be, for they had been God\u2019s peculiar\npeople from the days of Abraham. Ex. 2:23-25; 3:6, 7; 4:31. The language\nimplies the prior existence both of the Law-giver and of his Sabbath,\nwhen it is said that they were \u201cmade known\u201d to his people.\n\n[90] It should never be forgotten that the term Sabbath day signifies\nrest-day; that the Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord; and\nhence that the expression, \u201cThy holy Sabbath,\u201d refers the mind to the\nCreator\u2019s rest-day, and to his act of blessing and hallowing it.\n\n[91] Ex. 20-24.\n\n[92] Ex. 23:12.\n\n[93] See also Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Isa. 56.\n\n[94] Ex. 12:43-48.\n\n[95] Ex. 24:3-8; Heb. 9:18-20.\n\n[96] Dr. Clarke has the following note on this verse: \u201cIt is very likely\nthat Moses went up into the mount on the first day of the week; and\nhaving with Joshua remained in the region of the cloud during six days,\non the seventh, which was the Sabbath, God spake to him.\u201d\u2014_Commentary\non Ex._ 24:16. The marking off of a week from the forty days in this\nremarkable manner goes far toward establishing the view of Dr. C. And if\nthis be correct, it would strongly indicate that the ten commandments\nwere given upon the Sabbath; for there seems to be good evidence that\nthey were given the day before Moses went up to receive the tables of\nstone. For the interview in which chapters 21-23 were given would require\nbut a brief space, and certainly followed immediately upon the giving of\nthe ten commandments. Ex. 20:18-21. When the interview closed, Moses came\ndown to the people and wrote all the words of the Lord. In the morning he\nrose up early, and, having ratified the covenant, went up to receive the\nlaw which God had written. Ex. 24:3-13.\n\n[97] Ex. 24:12-18.\n\n[98] Ex. 25-31.\n\n[99] Ex. 31:12-18.\n\n[100] Eze. 20:11, 12, 19, 20.\n\n[101] See third chapter of this work.\n\n[102] \u201cTo sanctify, _kadash_, signifies to consecrate, separate, and set\napart a thing or person from all secular purposes to some religious use.\u201d\n_Clarke\u2019s Commentary on Ex._ 13:2. The same writer says, on Ex. 19:23,\n\u201cHere the word _kadash_ is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying\nthe separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane or common\nuses, and devoting it to sacred purposes.\u201d\n\n[103] Gen. 17:7, 8; 26:24; 28:13; Ex. 3:6, 13-16, 18; 5:3; Isa. 45:3.\n\n[104] Lev. 11:45.\n\n[105] See chapter third.\n\n[106] As a sign it did not thereby become a shadow and a ceremony, for\nthe Lord of the Sabbath was himself a sign. \u201cBehold, I and the children\nwhom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the\nLord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.\u201d Isa. 8:18. In Heb. 2:13,\nthis language is referred to Christ. \u201cAnd Simeon blessed them, and said\nunto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising\nagain of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.\u201d\nLuke 2:34. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel throughout\ntheir generations, that is, for the time that they were his peculiar\npeople, no more proves that it is now abolished than the fact that Jesus\nis now a sign that is spoken against proves that he will cease to exist\nwhen he shall no longer be such a sign. Nor does this language argue that\nthe Sabbath was made for them, or that its obligation ceased when they\nceased to be the people of God. For the prohibition against eating blood\nwas a perpetual statute for their generations; yet it was given to Noah\nwhen God first permitted the use of animal food, and was still obligatory\nupon the Gentiles when the apostles turned to them. Lev. 3:17; Gen.\n9:1-4; Acts 15.\n\nThe penalty of death at the hand of the civil magistrate is affixed to\nthe violation of the Sabbath. The same penalty is affixed to most of\nthe precepts of the moral law. Lev. 20:9, 10; 24:15-17; Deut. 13:6-18;\n17:2-7. It should be remembered that the moral law embracing the Sabbath\nformed a part of the civil code of the Hebrew nation. As such, the great\nLaw-giver annexed penalties to be inflicted by the magistrate, thus\ndoubtless shadowing forth the final retribution of the ungodly. Such\npenalties were suspended by that remarkable decision of the Saviour that\nthose who were without sin should cast the first stone. But such a Being\nwill arise to punish men, when the hailstones of his wrath shall desolate\nthe earth. Our Lord did not, however, set aside the real penalty of the\nlaw, the wages of sin, nor did he weaken that precept which had been\nviolated. John 8:1-9; Job 38:22, 23; Isa. 28:17; Rev. 16:17-21; Rom. 6:23.\n\n[107] This fact will shed light upon those texts which introduce the\nagency of angels in the giving of the law. Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb.\n2:2.\n\n[108] Ex. 32; 33.\n\n[109] Ex. 34; Deut. 9.\n\n[110] Ex. 34:21.\n\n[111] The idea has been suggested by some from this verse that it was\nMoses and not God who wrote the second tables. This view is thought to\nbe strengthened by the previous verse: \u201cWrite thou these words: for\nafter the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and\nwith Israel.\u201d But it is to be observed that the words upon the tables\nof stone were the ten commandments; while the words here referred to\nwere those which God spoke to Moses during this interview of forty days,\nbeginning with verse 10 and extending to verse 27. That the pronoun\n_he_ in verse 28 might properly enough refer to Moses, if positive\ntestimony did not forbid such reference, is readily admitted. That it\nis necessary to attend to the connection in deciding the antecedents of\npronouns, is strikingly illustrated in 2 Sam. 24:1, where the pronoun\n_he_ would naturally refer to the Lord, thus making God the one who\nmoved David to number Israel. Yet the connection shows that this was\nnot the case; for the anger of the Lord was kindled by the act; and 1\nChron. 21:1, positively declares that _he_ who thus moved David was\nSatan. For positive testimony that it was God and not Moses who wrote\nupon the second tables, see Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:1-5. These texts carefully\ndiscriminate between the work of Moses and the work of God, assigning the\npreparation of the tables, the carrying of them up to the mount and the\nbringing of them down from the mount, to Moses, but expressly assigning\nthe writing on the tables to God himself.\n\n[112] Ex. 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:12, 13; 5:22.\n\n[113] Ex. 24:12.\n\n[114] Deut. 33:2. That angels are sometimes called saints or holy ones,\nsee Dan. 8:13-16. That angels were present with God at Sinai, see Ps.\n68:17.\n\n[115] Deut. 10:4, 5; Ex. 25:10-22.\n\n[116] 1 John 3:4, 5.\n\n[117] Ex. 32; Josh. 24:2, 14, 23; Eze. 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24.\n\n[118] Amos 5:25-27; Acts 7:41-43; Josh. 5:2-8.\n\n[119] Num. 14; Ps. 95; Eze. 20:13.\n\n[120] Eze. 20:13-24.\n\n[121] Ex. 32.\n\n[122] Num. 14.\n\n[123] Deut. 9:24.\n\n[124] Num. 14; Heb. 3:16.\n\n[125] Ex. 16; Josh. 5:12.\n\n[126] Num. 11; 21.\n\n[127] A comparison of Ex. 19; 20:18-21; 24:3-8, with chapter 32, will\nshow the astonishing transitions of the Hebrews from faith and obedience\nto rebellion and idolatry. See a general history of these acts in Ps. 78;\n106.\n\n[128] For a notice of this penalty see chapter 5.\n\n[129] Ex. 35:1-3.\n\n[130] Lev. 24:5-9; Num. 28:9, 10.\n\n[131] The Bible abounds with facts which establish this proposition. Thus\nthe psalmist, in an address to Jerusalem, uses the following language:\n\u201cHe giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar-frost like ashes. He\ncasteth forth his ice like morsels; who can stand before his cold? He\nsendeth out his word, and melteth them; he causeth his wind to blow,\nand the waters flow. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and\nhis judgments unto Israel.\u201d Ps. 147:16-19. Dr. Clarke has the following\nnote on this text: \u201cAt particular times the cold in the East is so very\nintense as to kill man and beast. _Jacobus de Vitriaco_, one of the\nwriters in the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, says that in an expedition in\nwhich he was engaged against Mount Tabor, on the 24th of December, the\ncold was so intense that many of the poor people, and the beasts of\nburthen died by it. And _Albertus Aquensis_, another of these writers,\nspeaking of the cold in Judea, says that _thirty_ of the people who\nattended Baldwin I., in the mountainous districts near the Dead Sea,\nwere killed by it; and that in that expedition they had to contend with\nhorrible hail and ice; with unheard of snow and rain. From this we find\nthat the winters are often very severe in Judea; and that in such cases\nas the above we may well call out, Who can stand against his cold!\u201d\nSee his commentary on Ps. 147. See also Jer. 36:22; John 18:18; Matt.\n24:20; Mark 13:18. 1 Maccabees 13:22, mentions a very great snow storm in\nPalestine, so that horsemen could not march.\n\n[132] The testimony of the Bible on this point is very explicit. Thus we\nread: \u201cSix days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt\nrest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid,\nand the stranger, may be refreshed.\u201d Ex. 23:12. To be without fire in\nthe severity of winter would cause the Sabbath to be a curse and not a\nrefreshment. It would ruin the health of those who should thus expose\nthemselves, and render the Sabbath anything but a source of refreshment.\nThe prophet uses the following language: \u201cIf thou turn away thy foot from\nthe Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day: and call the Sabbath\na delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,\u201d etc. The Sabbath then was\ndesigned by God to be a source of delight to his people, and not a cause\nof suffering. The merciful and beneficent character of the Sabbath is\nseen in the following texts: Matt. 12:10-13; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 14:3-6.\nFrom them we learn that God regards the sufferings of the brute creation,\nand would have them alleviated upon the Sabbath; how much more the\ndistress and the needs of his people, for whose refreshment and delight\nthe Sabbath was made.\n\n[133] Ex. 29:9; 31:16; Lev. 3:17; 24:9; Num. 19:21; Deut. 5:31; 6:1; 7.\nThe number and variety of these allusions will surprise the inquirer.\n\n[134] Ex. 16:23.\n\n[135] Ex. 12; Deut. 16.\n\n[136] The law of the passover certainly contemplated the arrival of the\nHebrews in the promised land before its regular observance. Ex. 12:25.\nIndeed, it was only once observed in the wilderness; namely, in the year\nfollowing their departure from Egypt; and after that, was omitted until\nthey entered the land of Canaan. Num. 9; Josh. 5. This is proved, not\nmerely from the fact that no other instances are recorded, but because\nthat circumcision was omitted during the whole period of their sojourn in\nthe wilderness; and without this ordinance the children would have been\nexcluded from the passover. Ex. 12; Josh. 5.\n\n[137] Dr. Gill, who considered the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish\ninstitution, beginning with Moses, and ending with Christ, and one with\nwhich Gentiles have no concern, has given his judgment concerning this\nquestion of fire on the Sabbath. He certainly had no motive in this case\nto answer this popular objection only that of stating the truth. He says:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be continued, nor is it\nsaid to be throughout their generations, as elsewhere, where the law of\nthe Sabbath is given or repeated; it is to be restrained to the building\nof the tabernacle, and while that was about to which it is prefaced; and\nit is designed to prevent all public or private working on the Sabbath\nday in any thing belonging to that;\u201d etc.\u2014_Commentary on Ex._ 35:3.\n\nDr. Bound gives us St. Augustine\u2019s idea of this precept: \u201cHe doth not\nadmonish them of it without cause; for that he speaketh in making\nthe tabernacle, and all things belonging to it, and showeth that,\nnotwithstanding that, they must rest upon the Sabbath day, and not\nunder the color of that (as it is said in the text) so much as kindle a\nfire.\u201d\u2014_True Doctrine of the Sabbath_, p. 140.\n\n[138] Lev. 19:1-3, 30.\n\n[139] Lev. 23:3. It has been asserted from verse 2, that the Sabbath was\none of the feasts of the Lord. But a comparison of verses 2, 4, shows\nthat there is a break in the narrative, for the purpose of introducing\nthe Sabbath as a holy convocation; and that verse 4 begins the theme\nanew in the very language of verse 2; and it is to be observed that the\nremainder of the chapter sets forth the actual Jewish feasts; viz.,\nthat of unleavened bread, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles.\nWhat further clears this point of all obscurity is the fact that\nverses 37, 38, carefully discriminate between the feasts of the Lord\nand the Sabbaths of the Lord. But Ex. 23:14, settles the point beyond\ncontroversy: \u201cThree times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.\u201d\nAnd then verses 15-17 enumerate these feasts as in Lev. 23:4-44. See also\n2 Chron. 8:13.\n\n[140] Lev. 26:1, 2.\n\n[141] Eze. 20:15, 16.\n\n[142] Num. 13:14.\n\n[143] Num. 15:32-36.\n\n[144] Eze. 20:15, 16 comp. with Num. 14:35.\n\n[145] Num. 15:30.\n\n[146] Eze. 20.\n\n[147] Hengstenberg, a distinguished German Anti-Sabbatarian, thus\ncandidly treats this text: \u201cA man who had gathered wood on the Sabbath\nis brought forth at the command of the Lord, and stoned by the whole\ncongregation before the camp. Calvin says rightly, \u2018The guilty man did\nnot fall through error, but through gross contempt of the law, so that he\ntreated it as a light matter to overthrow and destroy all that is holy.\u2019\nIt is evident from the manner of its introduction that the account is\nnot given with any reference to its chronological position; it reads,\n\u2018And while the children of Israel were _in the wilderness_, they found a\nman that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.\u2019 It stands simply as an\nexample of the presumptuous breach of the law, of which the preceding\nverses speak. He was one who despised the word of the Lord and broke his\ncommandments [verse 31]; one who with a high hand sinned and reproached\nthe Lord. Verse 30.\u201d\u2014_The Lord\u2019s Day_, pp. 31, 32.\n\n[148] Deut. 5:1-3.\n\n[149] See the pledges of this people in Ex. 19; 24.\n\n[150] See the second chapter of this work.\n\n[151] See chapter third.\n\n[152] Deut. 5:12-15.\n\n[153] Compare Ex. 19; 20; Deut. 1.\n\n[154] Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[155] Ex. 12; 13.\n\n[156] Deut. 24:17, 18.\n\n[157] Deut. 4:12, 13.\n\n[158] Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:2.\n\n[159] Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4.\n\n[160] Deut. 9:10.\n\n[161] Deut. 5:22.\n\n[162] Deut. 5:12-15, compared with Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[163] Deut. 5, compared with Ex. 20.\n\n[164] Ex. 12; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8.\n\n[165] Lev. 23:10-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12; Acts 2:1-18.\n\n[166] Lev. 23:34-43; Deut. 16:13-15; Neh. 8; Rev. 7:9-14.\n\n[167] Num. 10:10; 28:11-15; 1 Sam. 20:5, 24, 27; Ps. 81:3.\n\n[168] Ex. 12:15, 16; Lev. 23:7, 8; Num. 28:17, 18, 25.\n\n[169] Lev. 23:21; Num. 28:26.\n\n[170] Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1-6.\n\n[171] Lev. 23:27-32; 16:29-31; Num. 29:7.\n\n[172] Lev. 23:39.\n\n[173] Ex. 23:10, 11; Lev. 25:2-7.\n\n[174] Lev. 25:8-54.\n\n[175] Lev. 26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21.\n\n[176] Ex. 12:25.\n\n[177] On this point Mr. Miller uses the following language: \u201cOnly one\nkind of Sabbath was given to Adam, and one only remains for us. See Hosea\n2:11. \u2018I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her\nnew moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.\u2019 All the Jewish\nsabbaths did cease when Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. 2:14-17.\nThese were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, \u2018her sabbaths.\u2019\nBut the Sabbath of which we are speaking, God calls \u2018my Sabbath.\u2019 Here\nis a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial.\nThe one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good things to\ncome.\u201d\u2014_Life and Views_, pp. 161, 162.\n\n[178] Ex. 12:16.\n\n[179] Ex. 20:10; 31:13; Isa. 58:13; compared with Lev. 23:24, 32, 39;\nLam. 1:7; Hosea 2:11.\n\n[180] Lev. 23:37, 38.\n\n[181] Isa. 1:13, 14.\n\n[182] Isa. 56:1-7; 58:13, 14.\n\n[183] Hosea 2:11.\n\n[184] Lam. 1:7; 2:5-7.\n\n[185] Deut. 16:16; 2 Chron. 7:12; Ps. 122.\n\n[186] Jer. 17:19-27; Neh. 13:15-18.\n\n[187] Isa. 56. See the eighth chapter of this work.\n\n[188] See chapter x.\n\n[189] 2 Kings 4:23.\n\n[190] 1 Chron. 9:32. It is true that this text relates to the order of\nthings after the return from Babylon; yet we learn from verse 22, that\nthis order was originally ordained by David and Samuel. See verses 1-32.\n\n[191] Compare these two cases: Ex. 16:23; 1 Chron. 9:32.\n\n[192] See chapters ii. and iii.\n\n[193] Josh. 6.\n\n[194] See Dr. A. Clarke\u2019s commentary on Josh. 6:15.\n\n[195] Josh. 10:12-14.\n\n[196] 1 Sam. 21:1-6; Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4.\n\n[197] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.\n\n[198] 1 Sam. 21:5, 6; Matt. 12:4.\n\n[199] See the tenth chapter of this work.\n\n[200] 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31, 33; Eze.\n45:17.\n\n[201] See chapter vii. of this work.\n\n[202] 1 Chron. 9:32.\n\n[203] Cotton Mather says: \u201cThere is a psalm in the Bible whereof the\ntitle is, \u2018A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath day.\u2019 Now \u2019tis a clause\nin that psalm, \u2018O Lord, how great are thy works! thy thoughts are\nvery deep.\u2019 Ps. 92:5. That clause intimates what we should make the\nsubject of our meditations on the Sabbath day. Our thoughts are to be\non God\u2019s works.\u201d\u2014_Discourse on the Lord\u2019s Day_, p. 30, A. D. 1703. And\nHengstenberg says: \u201cThis psalm is according to the heading, \u2018A Song for\nthe Sabbath day.\u2019 The proper positive employment of the Sabbath appears\nhere to be a thankful contemplation of the works of God, a devotional\nabsorption in them which could only exist when ordinary occupations are\nlaid aside.\u201d\u2014_The Lord\u2019s Day_, pp. 36, 37.\n\n[204] 2 Kings 4:23.\n\n[205] Isa. 66:23; Eze. 46:1; Amos 8:5.\n\n[206] Ex. 16:29.\n\n[207] 2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4-8.\n\n[208] Amos 8:4-6.\n\n[209] 2 Kings 16:18.\n\n[210] Isa. 56:1-8.\n\n[211] For the coming of this salvation see Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:9.\n\n[212] Ex. 12:48, 49; Isa. 14:1; Eph. 2:12.\n\n[213] See chapter vii.\n\n[214] Deut. 28:64; Luke 21:24.\n\n[215] Isa. 58:13, 14.\n\n[216] Matt. 8:11; Heb. 11:8-16; Rev. 21.\n\n[217] On this text Dr. A. Clarke comments thus: \u201cFrom this and the\nfollowing verses we find the ruin of the Jews attributed to the breach\nof the Sabbath: as this led to a neglect of sacrifice, the ordinances of\nreligion, and all public worship; so it necessarily brought with it all\nimmorality. The breach of the Sabbath was that which let in upon them all\nthe waters of God\u2019s wrath.\u201d\n\n[218] For an inspired commentary on this language, see Neh. 13:15-18.\n\n[219] This language strongly implies that the violation of the Sabbath\nhad ever been general with the Hebrews. See Jer. 7:23-28.\n\n[220] Jer. 17:20-27.\n\n[221] Eze. 22:7, 8, 26; 23:38, 39.\n\n[222] Eze. 20:23, 24; Deut. 32:16-35.\n\n[223] Eze. 23:38, 39.\n\n[224] 2 Chron. 36:16-20.\n\n[225] Eze., chapters 40-48.\n\n[226] Eze. 43:7-11.\n\n[227] Eze. 44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 4, 12.\n\n[228] Eze. 46:1.\n\n[229] Neh. 9:13, 14.\n\n[230] Neh. 9:38; 10:1-31.\n\n[231] Neh. 10:31.\n\n[232] A few words relative to the time of beginning the Sabbath are\nhere demanded. 1. The reckoning of the first week of time necessarily\ndetermines that of all succeeding weeks. The first division of the\nfirst day was night; and each day of the first week began with evening;\nthe evening and the morning, an expression equivalent to the night and\nthe day, constituted the day of twenty-four hours. Gen. 1. Hence, the\nfirst Sabbath began and ended with evening. 2. That the night is in the\nScriptures reckoned a part of the day of twenty-four hours, is proved\nby many texts. Ex. 12:41, 42; 1 Sam. 26:7, 8; Luke 2:8-11; Mark 14:30;\nLuke 22:34, and many other testimonies. 3. The 2300 days, symbolizing\n2300 years, are each constituted like the days of the first week of time.\nDan. 8:14. The margin, which gives the literal Hebrew, calls each of\nthese days an \u201cevening morning.\u201d 4. The statute defining the great day of\natonement is absolutely decisive that the day begins with evening, and\nthat the night is a part of the day. Lev. 23:32. \u201cIt shall be unto you\na Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of\nthe month at even, from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.\u201d\n5. That evening is at sunset is abundantly proved by the following\nscriptures: Deut. 16:6; Lev. 22:6, 7; Deut. 23:2; 24:13, 15; Josh. 8:29;\n10:26, 27; Judges 14:18; 2 Sam. 3:35; 2 Chron. 18:34; Matt. 8:16; Mark\n1:32; Luke 4:40. But does not Neh. 13:19, conflict with this testimony,\nand indicate that the Sabbath did not begin until after dark? I think\nnot. The text does not say, \u201cWhen it began to be dark at Jerusalem before\nthe Sabbath,\u201d but it says, \u201cWhen the _gates_ of Jerusalem began to be\ndark.\u201d If it be remembered that the gates of Jerusalem were placed under\nwide and high walls, it will not be found difficult to harmonize this\ntext with the many here adduced, which prove that the day begins with\nsunset.\n\nCalmet, in his Bible Dictionary, article, Sabbath, thus states the\nancient Jewish method of beginning the Sabbath: \u201cAbout half an hour\nbefore the sunset all work is quitted and the Sabbath is supposed to be\nbegun.\u201d He speaks thus of the close of the Sabbath: \u201cWhen night comes,\nand they can discern in the heaven three stars of moderate magnitude,\nthen the Sabbath is ended, and they may return to their ordinary\nemployments.\u201d\n\n[233] Neh. 13:15-22.\n\n[234] Speaking of the Babylonish captivity, in his note on Eze. 23:48,\nDr. Clarke says: \u201cFrom that time to the present day the Jews never\nrelapsed into idolatry.\u201d\n\n[235] 1 Mac. 1:41-43.\n\n[236] 1 Mac. 2:29-38; Josephus\u2019 Antiquities, b. xii. chap. vi.\n\n[237] 2 Mac. 5:25,26.\n\n[238] 1 Mac. 2:41.\n\n[239] 2 Mac. 6:11.\n\n[240] 2 Mac. 8:23-28.\n\n[241] 1 Mac. 9:43-49; Josephus\u2019 Antiquities, b. xiii. chap. i.; 2 Mac. 15.\n\n[242] Antiquities of the Jews, b. xiv. chap. iv. Here we call attention\nto one of those historical frauds by which Sunday is shown to be the\nSabbath. Dr. Justin Edwards states this case thus: \u201cPompey, the Roman\ngeneral, knowing this, when besieging Jerusalem, would not attack them on\nthe Sabbath; but spent the day in constructing his works, and preparing\nto attack them on Monday, and in a manner that they could not withstand,\nand so he took the city.\u201d\u2014_Sabbath Manual_, p. 216. That is to say, the\nnext day after the Sabbath was Monday, and of course Sunday was the\nSabbath! Yet Dr. E. well knew that in Pompey\u2019s time, 63 years before\nChrist, Saturday was the only weekly Sabbath, and that Sunday and not\nMonday was the day of attack.\n\n[243] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, pp. 214, 215.\n\n[244] Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:1-10; 17:5, 24; Heb. 1.\n\n[245] Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15.\n\n[246] Luke 4:14-16.\n\n[247] Luke 4:30-39; Mark 1:21-31; Matt. 8:5-15.\n\n[248] See, on this point, the conclusion of chapter viii.\n\n[249] Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40.\n\n[250] Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5.\n\n[251] Mark 2:27, 28.\n\n[252] Comp. John 1:1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; 2:1-3.\n\n[253] See chap. viii.\n\n[254] Num. 28:9, 10.\n\n[255] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.\n\n[256] Hosea 6:6.\n\n[257] Thus the Greek Testament: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 T\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cc \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[258] 1 Cor. 11:9.\n\n[259] Gen. 2:1-3, 7, 21-23.\n\n[260] Matt. 19:3-9.\n\n[261] Ex. 16:23; 23:12; Isa. 58:13, 14.\n\n[262] See conclusion of chap. ix.\n\n[263] Matt. 5:17-19; Isa. 42:21.\n\n[264] Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11.\n\n[265] Mark 6:1-6.\n\n[266] John 5:1-18.\n\n[267] Dr. Bloomfield\u2019s Greek Testament on this text; family Testament of\nthe American Tract Society on the same; Nevins\u2019 Biblical Antiquities, pp.\n62, 63.\n\n[268] Compare Jer. 17:21-27 with Nehemiah 13:15-20.\n\n[269] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 56; 58:13, 14; Eze. 20.\n\n[270] Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 19:17; Luke 16:17.\n\n[271] John 5:19.\n\n[272] John 7:21-23.\n\n[273] Grotius well says: \u201cIf he healed any on the Sabbath he made it\nappear, not only from the law, but also from their received opinions,\nthat such works were not forbidden on the Sabbath.\u201d\u2014_The Truth of the\nChristian Religion_, b. v. sect. 7.\n\n[274] John 9:1-16.\n\n[275] Luke 13:10-17.\n\n[276] 1 Pet. 3:6.\n\n[277] Luke 14:1-6.\n\n[278] Matt. 23:23.\n\n[279] Matt. 24:15-21.\n\n[280] Dan. 9:26, 27.\n\n[281] Luke 21:20.\n\n[282] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.\n\n[283] Id. b. ii. chap. xx.\n\n[284] Eccl. Hist. b. iii. chap. v.\n\n[285] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.\n\n[286] Deut. 16:16.\n\n[287] Thus remarks Mr. Crozier in the _Advent Harbinger_ for Dec. 6,\n1851: \u201cThe reference to the Sabbath in Matt. 24:20, only shows that the\nJews who rejected Christ would be keeping the Sabbath at the destruction\nof Jerusalem, and would, in consequence, add to the dangers of the\ndisciples\u2019 flight by punishing them perhaps with death for fleeing on\nthat day.\u201d\n\nAnd Mr. Marsh, forgetting that Christ forbade his disciples to take\nanything with them in their flight, uses the following language: \u201cIf\nthe disciples should attempt to flee from Jerusalem on that day and\ncarry their things, the Jews would embarrass their flight and perhaps\nput them to death. The Jews would be keeping the Sabbath, because they\nrejected Christ and his gospel.\u201d\u2014_Advent Harbinger_, Jan. 24, 1852.\nThese quotations betray the bitterness of their authors. In honorable\ndistinction from these anti-Sabbatarians, the following is quoted from\nMr. William Miller, himself an observer of the first day of the week:\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2018Neither on the Sabbath day.\u2019 Because it was to be kept as a day of\nrest, and no servile work was to be done on that day, nor would it be\nright for them to travel on that day. Christ has in this place sanctioned\nthe Sabbath, and clearly shows us our duty to let no trivial circumstance\ncause us to break the law of the Sabbath. Yet how many who profess to\nbelieve in Christ, at this present day, make it a point to visit, travel,\nand feast, on this day? What a false-hearted profession must that person\nmake who can thus treat with contempt the moral law of God, and despise\nthe precepts of the Lord Jesus! We may here learn our obligation to\nremember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\u201d\u2014_Exposition of Matt._ 24, p.\n18.\n\n[288] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.\n\n[289] Id. b. ii. chap. xix.\n\n[290] See chap. xvi.\n\n[291] President Edwards says: \u201cA further argument for the perpetuity of\nthe Sabbath we have in Matt. 24:20: \u2018Pray ye that your flight be not in\nthe winter, _neither on the Sabbath day_.\u2019 Christ is here speaking of the\nflight of the apostles and other Christians out of Jerusalem and Judea,\njust before their final destruction, as is manifest by the whole context,\nand especially by the 16th verse: \u2018Then let them which be in Judea flee\ninto the mountains.\u2019 But this final destruction of Jerusalem was after\nthe dissolution of the Jewish constitution, and after the Christian\ndispensation was fully set up. Yet it is plainly implied in these words\nof our Lord, that even then Christians were bound to a strict observation\nof the Sabbath.\u201d\u2014_Works of President Edwards_, vol. iv. pp. 621, 622, New\nYork, 1849.\n\n[292] Matt. 27; Isa. 53.\n\n[293] Dan. 9:24-27.\n\n[294] Col. 2:14-17.\n\n[295] For an extended view of these Jewish festivals see chapter vii.\n\n[296] Deut. 10:4, 5, compared with 31:24-26. Thus Morer contrasts the\nphrase \u201cin the ark,\u201d which is used with reference to the two tables, with\nthe expression \u201cin the side of the ark,\u201d as used respecting the book\nof the law, and says of the latter: \u201cIn the side of the ark, or more\ncritically, in the outside of the ark; or in a chest by itself on the\nright side of the ark, saith the Targum of Jonathan.\u201d\u2014_Morer\u2019s Dialogues\non the Lord\u2019s Day_, p. 211, London, 1701.\n\n[297] See chap. vii.\n\n[298] See chap. ii.\n\n[299] Mark 2:27.\n\n[300] Lev. 23:37, 38.\n\n[301] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20; Matt. 5:17, 19.\n\n[302] Isa. 66:22, 23. See also the close of chap. xxvii of this work.\n\n[303] Luke 23:54-56.\n\n[304] James 2:8-12; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:19, 31.\n\n[305] Heb. 9; 10; Luke 23:46-53; John 19:38-42.\n\n[306] Luke 23:54-56.\n\n[307] Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 20:1, 19.\n\n[308] Eze. 46:1.\n\n[309] See the origin of the ancient Sabbath in Gen. 2:1-3.\n\n[310] Mark 16:14. That this interview was certainly the same with that in\nJohn 20:19, will be seen from a careful examination of Luke 24.\n\n[311] Matt. 19:26; Titus 1:2.\n\n[312] Isa. 65:16; Ps. 119:142, 151.\n\n[313] Rom. 1:25.\n\n[314] It is just as easy to change the crucifixion-day from that day of\nthe week on which Christ was crucified, to one of the six days on which\nhe was not, as to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day of the\nweek on which he rested, to one of the six days on which he wrought in\nthe work of creation.\n\n[315] John 20:26.\n\n[316] John 21.\n\n[317] Acts 1:3. Forty days from the day of the resurrection would expire\non Thursday.\n\n[318] When the resurrection day was \u201cfar spent,\u201d the Saviour and two\nof the disciples drew near to Emmaus, a village seven and a half miles\nfrom Jerusalem. They constrained him to go in with them to tarry for\nthe night. While they were eating supper they discovered that it was\nJesus, when he vanished from their sight. Then they arose and returned\nto Jerusalem; and after their arrival, the first meeting of Jesus with\nthe eleven took place. It could not therefore have lacked but little of\nsunset, which closed the day, if not actually upon the second day, when\nJesus came into their midst. Luke 24. In the latter case, the expression,\n\u201cthe same day at evening being the first day of the week,\u201d would find an\nexact parallel in meaning, in the expression, \u201cin the ninth day of the\nmonth at even,\u201d which actually signifies the evening with which the tenth\nday of the seventh month commences. Lev. 23:32.\n\n[319] Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath to\nminister in his temple, were said to come \u201cafter seven days.\u201d 1 Chron.\n9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.\n\n[320] \u201cAfter six days,\u201d instead of being the sixth day, was about eight\ndays after. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28.\n\n[321] That sunset marks the close of the day, see the close of chapter\nviii.\n\n[322] Acts 2:1, 2.\n\n[323] Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1.\n\n[324] Horatio B. Hacket, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, in\nNewton Theological Institution, thus remarks: \u201cIt is generally supposed\nthat this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on\nthe Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.\u201d\u2014_Commentary on the Original Text of\nthe Acts_, pp. 50, 51.\n\n[325] In 1633, William Prynne, a prisoner in the tower of London,\ncomposed a work in defense of first-day observance, entitled,\n\u201cDissertation on the Lord\u2019s Day Sabbath.\u201d He thus acknowledges the\nfutility of the argument under consideration: \u201cNo scripture ... prefers\nor advanceth the work of redemption ... before the work of creation;\nboth these works being very great and glorious in themselves; wherefore\nI cannot believe the work of redemption, or Christ\u2019s resurrection alone,\nto be more excellent and glorious than the work of creation, without\nsufficient texts and Scripture grounds to prove it; but may deny it as\na presumptuous fancy or unsound assertion, till satisfactorily proved,\nas well as peremptorily averred without proof.\u201d\u2014Page 59. This is the\njudgment of a candid advocate of the first day as a Christian festival.\nOn Acts 20:7, he will be allowed to testify again.\n\n[326] Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30.\n\n[327] Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 5:9.\n\n[328] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.\n\n[329] Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12.\n\n[330] Ps. 118:22-24.\n\n[331] Eph. 1:20-23; 2:20, 21; 1 Pet. 2:4-7.\n\n[332] 1 Thess. 5:16.\n\n[333] John 8:56.\n\n[334] See chap. iii.\n\n[335] Matt. 5:17-19.\n\n[336] Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 2:14-17.\n\n[337] Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15.\n\n[338] Dan. 9:24-27; Acts 9; 10; 11; 26:12-17; Rom. 11:13.\n\n[339] 1 Cor. 11:25; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:11-22.\n\n[340] Matt. 5:17-19; 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 4:15.\n\n[341] Heb. 9:1-7; Ex. 25:1-21; Deut. 10:4, 5; 1 Kings 8:9.\n\n[342] Heb., chaps. 7-10; Lev. 16.\n\n[343] Heb. 8:1-5; 9:23, 24.\n\n[344] Rev. 11:19.\n\n[345] Ex. 25:21, 22.\n\n[346] Rom. 3:19-31; 5:8-21; 8:3, 4; 13:8-10; Gal. 3:13, 14; Eph. 6:2, 3;\nJames 2:8-12; 1 John 3:4, 5.\n\n[347] Ex. 19; 20; 24:12; 31:18; Deut. 10.\n\n[348] Lev. 16.\n\n[349] Rom. 3:19-31; 1 John 3:4, 5.\n\n[350] Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10.\n\n[351] Heb. 9; 10.\n\n[352] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 8:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:3.\n\n[353] Ps. 19:7; James 1:25; Ps. 40.\n\n[354] Rom. 5.\n\n[355] Rom. 3:19.\n\n[356] Rom. 3:31.\n\n[357] Rom. 3:20; 1 John 3:4, 5; 2:1, 2.\n\n[358] Jer. 11:16; Rom. 11:17-24.\n\n[359] Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:7-9.\n\n[360] Ex. 19:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:9, 10.\n\n[361] Gen. 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-11.\n\n[362] Rom. 7:12, 13.\n\n[363] James 2:8-12.\n\n[364] See chapter x.\n\n[365] Acts 13:14.\n\n[366] Verse 27.\n\n[367] Dr. Bloomfield has the following note on this text: \u201cThe words,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2., are by many commentators supposed to mean \u2018on some\nintermediate week-day.\u2019 But that is refuted by verse 44, and the sense\nexpressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted\nby the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions.\u201d\n_Greek Testament with English notes_, vol. i. p. 521. And Prof. Hacket\nhas a similar note.\u2014_Commentary on Acts_, p. 233.\n\n[368] Verses 42-44.\n\n[369] Acts 15.\n\n[370] Acts 15:10, 28, 29; James 2:8-12.\n\n[371] Verses 1, 5.\n\n[372] Verse 29; 21:25.\n\n[373] Ex. 34:15, 16; Num. 25:2; Lev. 17:13, 14; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Gen.\n34; Lev. 19:29.\n\n[374] Acts 15:19-21.\n\n[375] Acts 16:12-14.\n\n[376] Paul\u2019s manner is exemplified by the following texts, in all of\nwhich it would appear that the meetings in question were upon the\nSabbath. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:19; 19:8.\n\n[377] Acts 17:1-4.\n\n[378] 1 Thess. 2:14.\n\n[379] 1 Thess. 1:7, 8.\n\n[380] Acts 18:3, 4.\n\n[381] Acts 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35; 13:43; 14:1; 16:13-15; 17:4, 10-12.\n\n[382] 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.\n\n[383] Vindication of the True Sabbath, Battle Creek ed., pp. 51, 52.\n\n[384] Greek Testament with English Notes, vol. ii. p. 173.\n\n[385] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, p. 116.\n\n[386] Family Testament of the American Tract Society, p. 286.\n\n[387] Eze. 46:1.\n\n[388] Prof. Hacket remarks on the length of this voyage: \u201cThe passage on\nthe apostle\u2019s first journey to Europe occupied two days only; see chapter\n16:11. Adverse winds or calms would be liable, at any season of the year,\nto occasion this variation.\u201d\u2014_Commentary on Acts_, p. 329. This shows\nhow little ground there is to claim that Paul broke the Sabbath on this\nvoyage. There was ample time to reach Troas before the Sabbath when he\nstarted from Philippi, had not providential causes hindered.\n\n[389] Acts 20:6-13.\n\n[390] Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: \u201cThe disciples being\nassembled.\u201d And Sawyer has it: \u201cWe being assembled.\u201d\n\n[391] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.\n\n[392] Matt. 26.\n\n[393] Acts 2:42-46.\n\n[394] This fact has been acknowledged by many first-day commentators.\nThus Prof. Hacket comments upon this text: \u201cThe Jews reckoned the day\nfrom evening to morning, and on that principle the evening of the first\nday of the week would be our Saturday evening. If Luke reckoned so here,\nas many commentators suppose, the apostle then waited for the expiration\nof the Jewish Sabbath, and held his last religious service with the\nbrethren at Troas, at the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._,\non Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday\nmorning.\u201d\u2014_Commentary on Acts_, pp. 329, 330. But he endeavors to shield\nthe first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke\nprobably reckoned time according to the pagan method, rather than by that\nwhich is ordained in the Scriptures!\n\nKitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus:\n\u201cIt has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly\ncommenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day\nof the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [Jahn\u2019s\nBibl. Antiq., sect. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a\ncommemoration of the resurrection.\u201d\u2014_Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature_,\narticle, Lord\u2019s day.\n\nAnd Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an argument for the\nchange of the Sabbath has been already quoted, thus states this point:\n\u201cBecause the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where\nthey were gathered together, and that Paul preached from the time of\ntheir coming together till midnight, ... this meeting of the disciples\nat Troas, and Paul\u2019s preaching to them, began at evening. The sole doubt\nwill be what evening this was.... For my own part I conceive clearly that\nit was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming\nSunday night.... Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day\nof the week when this meeting was ... therefore it must needs be on the\nSaturday, not on our Sunday evening, since the Sunday evening in St.\nLuke\u2019s and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the\nsecond day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening.\u201d\n\nPrynne notices the objection drawn from the phrase, \u201cready to depart\non the morrow,\u201d as indicating that this departure was not on the same\nday of the week with his night meeting. The substance of his answer is\nthis: If the fact be kept in mind that the days of the week are reckoned\nfrom evening to evening, the following texts, in which in the night, the\nmorning is spoken of as the morrow, will show at once that another day of\nthe week is not necessarily intended by the phrase in question. 1 Sam.\n19:11; Esth. 2:14; Zeph. 3:3; Acts 23:31, 32.\u2014_Diss. on Lord\u2019s Day Sab._,\npp. 36-41, 1633.\n\n[395] See the conclusion of chap. viii.\n\n[396] Luke 23:56; 24:1.\n\n[397] Rom. 14:1-6.\n\n[398] James 2:8-12.\n\n[399] Rom. 7:12, 13; 1 John 3:4, 5.\n\n[400] Rom. 3.\n\n[401] Ex. 20.\n\n[402] Lev. 23. These are particularly enumerated in Col. 2, as we have\nalready noticed in chapter vii, and in the concluding part of chapter x.\n\n[403] Acts 2:1-11; Rom 2:17; 4:1; 7:1.\n\n[404] Ex. 16:4, 21, 27, 28.\n\n[405] Cor. 15:27; Ps. 8.\n\n[406] Rev. 1:10.\n\n[407] To show that Paul regarded Sabbatic observance as _dangerous_,\nGal. 4:10, is often quoted; notwithstanding the same individuals claim\nthat Rom. 14 proves that it is a matter of _perfect indifference_; they\nnot seeing that this is to make Paul contradict himself. But if the\nconnection be read from verse 8 to verse 11, it will be seen that the\nGalatians before their conversion were not Jews, but heathen: and that\nthese days, months, times, and years, were not those of the Levitical\nlaw, but those which they had regarded with superstitious reverence while\nheathen. Observe the stress which Paul lays upon the word \u201cagain,\u201d in\nverse 9. And how many that profess the religion of Christ at the present\nday superstitiously regard certain days as \u201clucky\u201d or \u201cunlucky days;\u201d\nthough such notions are derived only from heathen distinctions.\n\n[408] See chapter x.\n\n[409] Rev. 1:9-11.\n\n[410] Dr. Bloomfield, though himself of a different opinion, speaks thus\nof the views of others concerning the date of John\u2019s gospel: \u201cIt has been\nthe general sentiment, both of ancient and modern inquirers, that it was\npublished about _the close of the first century_.\u201d\u2014_Greek Testament with\nEnglish Notes_, vol. i. p. 328.\n\nMorer says that John \u201cpenned his gospel two years later than the\nApocalypse, and after his return from Patmos, as St. Augustine, St.\nJerome, and Eusebius, affirm.\u201d\u2014_Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day_, pp. 53, 54.\n\nThe Paragraph Bible of the London Religious Tract Society, in its preface\nto the book of John, speaks thus: \u201cAccording to the general testimony of\nancient writers, John wrote his gospel at Ephesus, about the year 97.\u201d\n\nIn support of the same view, see also Religious Encyclopedia, Barnes\u2019\nNotes (gospels), Bible Dictionary, Cottage Bible, Domestic Bible, Mine\nExplored, Union Bible Dictionary, Comprehensive Bible, Dr. Hales, Horne,\nNevins, Olshausen, &c.\n\n[411] The Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article concerning the Sabbath,\nundertakes to prove that the \u201creligious observation of the first day of\nthe week is of apostolical appointment.\u201d After citing and commenting upon\nall the passages that could be urged in proof of the point, it makes the\nfollowing candid acknowledgment: \u201cStill, however, it must be owned that\nthese passages are not sufficient to prove the apostolical institution of\nthe Lord\u2019s day, or even the actual observation of it.\u201d\n\nThe absence of all scriptural testimony relative to the change of the\nSabbath, is accounted for by certain advocates of that theory, not by the\nfrank admission that it never was changed by the Lord, but by quoting\nJohn 21:25, assuming the change of the Sabbath as an undoubted truth,\nbut that it was left out of the Bible lest it should make that book\ntoo large! They think, therefore, that we should go to Ecclesiastical\nhistory to learn this part of our duty; not seeing that, as the fourth\ncommandment still stands in the Bible unrepealed and unchanged, to\nacknowledge that that change must be sustained wholly outside of the\nBible, is to acknowledge that first-day observance is a tradition which\nmakes void the commandment of God. The following chapters will, however,\npatiently examine the argument for first-day observance drawn from\necclesiastical history.\n\n[412] Gen. 2:3.\n\n[413] Ex. 16:23.\n\n[414] Ex. 20:8-11.\n\n[415] Isa. 58:13, 14.\n\n[416] Mark 2:27, 28.\n\n[417] An able opponent of Sabbatic observance thus speaks relative to\nthe term Lord\u2019s day of Rev. 1:10: \u201cIf a current day was intended, the\nonly day bearing this definition, in either the Old or New Testament, is\nSaturday, the seventh day of the week.\u201d\u2014_W. B. Taylor, in the Obligation\nof the Sabbath_, p. 296.\n\n[418] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv.\n\n[419] Acts 20:29, 30.\n\n[420] 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8.\n\n[421] 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:18.\n\n[422] Book ii. chap. i. sect. 1.\n\n[423] Eccl. Researches, chap. vi. p. 51, ed. 1792.\n\n[424] The Modern Sabbath Examined, pp. 123, 124.\n\n[425] Rose\u2019s Neander, p. 184.\n\n[426] Hist. of the Popes, vol. i. p. 1, Phila. ed., 1817.\n\n[427] History of Romanism, book ii. chap. i. sects. 3, 4.\n\n[428] Lectures on Romanism, p. 203.\n\n[429] Commentary on Prov. 8.\n\n[430] Autobiography of Adam Clarke, LL. D., p. 134.\n\n[431] Christianography, part ii. p. 59, London, 1636.\n\n[432] Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and\nothers, vol. ii. p. 375.\n\n[433] John 21:20-23.\n\n[434] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.\n\n[435] Note of the Douay Bible on 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.\n\n[436] Obligation of the Sabbath, pp. 254, 255.\n\n[437] Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10.\n\n[438] A Treatise of Thirty Controversies.\n\n[439] The writer has prepared a small work entitled, \u201cThe Complete\nTestimony of the Fathers of the first Three Centuries concerning the\nSabbath and First Day,\u201d in which, with the single exception of Origen,\nsome of whose works were not at that time accessible, every passage in\nthe fathers which gives their views of the Sabbath and first-day is\npresented. This pamphlet can be had of the publishers of the present work\nfor fifteen cents. To save space in this History, a general statement of\nthe doctrine of the fathers is here made with brief quotations of their\nwords. But in \u201cThe Complete Testimony of the Fathers\u201d every passage is\ngiven in their own words, and to this little work the reader is referred.\n\n[440] Those who dispute these statements are invited to present the words\nof the fathers which modify or disprove them. The reader who may not have\naccess to the writings of the fathers is referred to the pamphlet already\nmentioned in which their complete testimony is given.\n\n[441] See the testimony on page 189 of this work.\n\n[442] Justin Martyr\u2019s First Apology, chap. lxvii.\n\n[443] Eusebius\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book iv. chap. xxiii.\n\n[444] See chap. xviii. of this History.\n\n[445] See his Ecclesiastical History, book iv. chap. xxvi.\n\n[446] Sabbath Manual, p. 114.\n\n[447] See chap. xvi. of this work; and also Testimony of the Fathers, pp.\n44-52.\n\n[448] The Miscellanies of Clement, book v. chap. xiv.\n\n[449] The Miscellanies of Clement, book vii. chap. xii.; Testimony of the\nFathers, p. 61.\n\n[450] The Miscellanies, book vii. chap. vii.; Testimony of the Fathers,\np. 62.\n\n[451] Kitto\u2019s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, original edition,\narticle Lord\u2019s Day.\n\n[452] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 67.\n\n[453] On Idolatry, chap. xiv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 66.\n\n[454] _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70.\n\n[455] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 68, 69.\n\n[456] An Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 73.\n\n[457] Against Celsus, book 8. chap. xxii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p.\n87.\n\n[458] Eusebius\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxiv.\n\n[459] Socrates\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.\n\n[460] Anatolius, Tenth Fragment.\n\n[461] Socrates\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.\n\n[462] Sozomen\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book vii. chap. xviii.; see also Mosheim,\nbook i. cent. 2, part ii. chap iv. sect. 9.\n\n[463] Socrates\u2019s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.; McClintock and\nStrong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. iii. p. 13; Bingham\u2019s Antiquities, p. 1149.\n\n[464] Maclaine\u2019s Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sec. 4. I have\ngiven Maclaine\u2019s translation, not because it is an accurate version of\nMosheim, but because it is so much used in support of the first-day\nSabbath. Maclaine in his preface to Mosheim says: \u201cI have sometimes\ntaken considerable liberties with my author.\u201d And he tells us what these\nliberties were by saying that he had \u201coften added a few sentences, to\nrender an observation more striking, a fact more clear, a portrait more\nfinished.\u201d The present quotation is an instance of these liberties. Dr.\nMurdock of New Haven who has given \u201ca close, literal version\u201d of Mosheim,\ngives the passage thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe Christians of this century, assembled for the worship of God, and\nfor their advancement in piety, on the first day of the week, the day\non which Christ reassumed his life: for that this day was set apart\nfor religious worship, by the apostles themselves, and that, after the\nexample of the church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have\nunexceptionable testimony.\u201d\u2014_Murdock\u2019s Mosheim_, cent. 1, part ii. chap.\niv. sec. 4.\n\n[465] Neander\u2019s Church History, translated by H. J. Rose, p. 186. To\nbreak the force of this strong statement of Neander that \u201cthe festival\nof Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance,\nand it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine\ncommand in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic\nchurch, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday,\u201d two things have\nbeen said:\u2014\n\n1. That Neander, in a later edition of his work, retracted this\ndeclaration. It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this\nsentence. But he inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the\ngeneral tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same\nas in that from which this out-spoken statement is taken.\n\nIn proof of this, we cite from the later edition of Neander his statement\nin this very place of what constituted Sunday observance in the early\nchurch. He says:\u2014\n\n\u201cSunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts,\nand by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a\nstanding and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his resurrection,\nhad raised up fallen man again to Heaven.\u201d\u2014_Torrey\u2019s Neander_, vol. i. p.\n295, ed. 1852.\n\nThis is an accurate account of early Sunday observance, as we shall\nhereafter show; and that such observance was only a human ordinance,\nof which no feature was ever commanded by the apostles, will be very\nmanifest to every person who attempts to find any precept for any\nparticular of it in the New Testament.\n\n2. But the other method of setting aside this testimony of Neander is\nto assert that he did not mean to deny that the apostles established\na divine command for Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, but meant to\nassert that they did not establish a divine command for Sunday as a\nCatholic festival! Those who make this assertion must know that it is\nfalse. Neander expressly denies that the apostles either constituted\nor recognized Sunday as a Sabbath, and he represents Sunday as a mere\nfestival from the very first of its observance, and established only by\nhuman authority.\n\n[466] See chapters x. and xi., in which the New Testament has been\ncarefully examined on this point.\n\n[467] Epistle of Barnabas 13:9, 10; or, as others divide the epistle,\nchapter 15.\n\n[468] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. ii. sect. 21.\n\n[469] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 53.\n\n[470] Rose\u2019s Neander, p. 407.\n\n[471] Note appended to Gurney\u2019s History, Authority, and Use of the\nSabbath, p. 86.\n\n[472] Ancient Church, pp. 367, 368.\n\n[473] Commentary on Acts, p. 251.\n\n[474] History of the Church, cent. 1, chap. xv.\n\n[475] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord\u2019s day, tenth ed. 1858.\n\n[476] Encyc. of Rel. Knowl., art. Barnabas\u2019 Epistle.\n\n[477] Eccl. Hist., book iii. chap. xxv.\n\n[478] The Sabbath, or an Examination of the Six Texts commonly adduced\nfrom the New Testament in proof of a Christian Sabbath, p. 233.\n\n[479] Ancient Christianity, chap. i. sect. 2.\n\n[480] Epistle of Barnabas, 9:8. In some editions it is chap. 10.\n\n[481] Coleman\u2019s Ancient Christianity, pp. 35, 36.\n\n[482] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sect. 2.\n\n[483] Buck\u2019s Theological Dictionary, art. Christians.\n\n[484] Tertullian\u2019s Apology, sect. 2.\n\n[485] Obligation of the Sabbath, p. 300.\n\n[486] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 47.\n\n[487] 1 Pet. 1:1. See Clarke\u2019s Commentary, preface to the epistles of\nPeter.\n\n[488] Ignatius to the Magnesians, 3:3-5; or, as others divide the\nepistle, chap. 9.\n\n[489] Ancient Church, pp. 413, 414.\n\n[490] Id. p. 427.\n\n[491] Future Life, p. 290.\n\n[492] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 237.\n\n[493] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi. pp. 50, 51, ed. 1792.\n\n[494] Ignatius ad Magnesios, sect. 9.\n\n[495] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord\u2019s day.\n\n[496] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, pp. 206, 207.\n\n[497] A first-day writer, author of the \u201cHistory, Authority, and Use, of\nthe Sabbath.\u201d\n\n[498] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251.\n\n[499] For a more full statement of the case of Ignatius, see the\n\u201cTestimony of the Fathers,\u201d pp. 26-30. The quotation from Ignatius\nexamined in this chapter is there shown, according to the connection, to\nrelate, not to New-Testament Christians, but to the ancient prophets.\n\n[500] Sabbath Manual, p. 120.\n\n[501] See his \u201cHistory, Authority, and Use, of the Sabbath,\u201d chap. iv.\npp. 87, 88.\n\n[502] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 258-261.\n\n[503] The date in Baronius is A. D. 303.\n\n[504] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 263-265.\n\n[505] Note by Domville. \u201c_Dominicum_ is not, as may at first be supposed,\nan adjective, of which _diem_ [day] is the understood substantive. It\nis itself a substantive, neuter as appears from the passage, \u2018_Quia non\npotest intermitti Dominicum_,\u2019 in the narrative respecting Saturninus.\nThe Latin adjective _Dominicus_, when intended to refer to the Lord\u2019s\nday, is never, I believe, used without its substantive _dies_ [day] being\nexpressed. In all the narratives contained in Ruinart\u2019s _Acta Martyrum_,\nI find but two instances of mention being made of the Lord\u2019s day, and in\nboth these instances the substantive _dies_ [day] is expressed.\u201d\n\n[506] This testimony is certainly decisive. It is the interpretation of\nthe compiler of the _Acta Martyrum_, himself, and is given with direct\nreference to the particular instance under discussion. An independent\nconfirmation of Domville\u2019s authorities, may be found in Lucius\u2019s Eccl.\nHist., cent. 4, chap, vi.: \u201cFit mentio aliquoties locorum istorum in\nquibus convenerint Christiani, in historia persecutionis sub Diocletiano\n& Maximino. Et apparet, ante Constantinum etiam, locos eos fuisse\nmediocriter exstructos atque exornatos: quos seu Templa appellarunt seu\nDominica; ut apud Eusebium (li. 9, c. 10) & Ruffinum (li. 1, c. 3).\u201d\n\nIt is certain that _Dominicum_ is here used as designating a place of\ndivine worship. Dr. Twisse in his \u201cMorality of the Fourth Commandment,\u201d\np. 122, says: \u201cThe ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, called temples\nby the name of dominica and \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1.\u201d\n\n[507] Domville cites St. Augustine\u2019s Works, vol. v. pp. 116, 117, Antwerp\ned. A. D. 1700.\n\n[508] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 267, 268.\n\n[509] Id. pp. 270, 271.\n\n[510] Id. pp. 272, 273.\n\n[511] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. xxxii.\n\n[512] The Sabbath, by James Gilfillan, p. vii.\n\n[513] To break the force of Domville\u2019s statement in which he exposes\nthe story originally told by Bishop Andrews as coming from the _Acta\nMartyrum_, it is said that Domville used Ruinart\u2019s _Acta Martyrum_, and\nthat Ruinart was not born till thirty-one years after Bishop Andrews\u2019\ndeath, so that Domville did not go to the same book that was used by\nthe bishop, and therefore failed to find what he found. Those who raise\nthis point betray their ignorance or expose their dishonesty. The _Acta\nMartyrum_ is a collection of the memoirs of the martyrs, written by\ntheir friends from age to age. Ruinart did not write a new work, but\nsimply edited \u201cthe most valued collection\u201d of these memoirs that has\never appeared. See McClintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. i. pp.\n56, 57. Domville used Ruinart\u2019s edition, because, as he expresses it,\nit is \u201cthe most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still\nextant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs.\u201d\nDomville\u2019s use of Ruinart was, therefore, in the highest degree just and\nright.\n\n[514] Ibique celebrantes ex more Dominica Sacramenta.\u2014_Baronius_, _Tome\n3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxvi. Luc\u00e6, A. D. 1738.\n\n[515] Qui contra edictum Imperatorum, & C\u00e6sarum Collectam Dominicam\ncelebrassent.\u2014_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxix.\n\n[516] Utrum Collectam fecisset. Qui cum se Christianum, & in Collecta\nfuisse profiteretur.\u2014_Id. Ib._\n\n[517] Nam & in Collecta fui, & Dominicum cum fratribus celebravi, quia\nChristiana sum.\u2014_Id._ No. xliii. p. 344. This was spoken by a female\nmartyr.\n\n[518] Dominicum celebravimus. Proconsul ait: Quare? respondit: Quia non\npotest intermitti Dominicum.\u2014_Id._ No. xlvi. p. 350.\n\n[519] In cujus dome Collecta facta fuit.\u2014_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350.\n\n[520] Intermitti Dominicum non potest, ait. Lex sic jubet.\u2014_Id._ No.\nxlvii. p. 350.\n\n[521] In tua, inquit proconsul, domo Collect\u00e6 fact\u00e6 sunt, contra\npraecepta Imperatorum? Cui Emeritus sancto Spiritu inundatus: In domo\nmea, inquit, egimus Dominicum.... Quoniam sine Dominico esse non\npossumus.\u2014_Id._ No. xlix. pp. 350, 351.\n\n[522] Non quaero an Christianus sis sed an Collectam feceris.... Quasi\nChristianus sine Dominico esse possit.\u2014_Id._ No. li. p. 351.\n\n[523] Collectam, inquit, religiosissime celebravimus; ad scripturas\nDominicas legendas in Dominicum convenimus semper.\u2014_Id. Ib._ p. 351.\n\n[524] Cum fratribus feci Collectam, Dominicum celebravi.\u2014_Id._ No. lii.\np. 351.\n\n[525] Post quem junior Felix, spem salutemque Christianorum Dominicum\nesse proclamans.... Ego, inquit, devota menta celebravi Dominicum;\ncollectam cum fratribus feci, quia Christianus sum.\u2014_Id._ liii.\n\n[526] Utrum egeris Dominicum. Cui respondit Saturninus: Egi Dominicum,\nquia Salvator est Christus.\u2014_Id. Ib._ p. 352.\n\n[527] Per Collectam namque, & Collectionem, & Dominicum, intellegit\nsemper auctor sacrificium Miss\u00e6.\u2014_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, A. D. 303, No.\nxxxix. p. 348.\n\n[528] Scilicet lex Christiana de Dominico, nempe sacrificio\ncelebrando.\u2014_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350.\n\n[529] De celebratione Dominici; Quod autem superius in recitatis actis\nsit demonstratum, flagrantis persecutionis etiam tempore solicitos fuisse\nChristianos celebrare Dominicum, nempe (ut alias pluribus declararimus)\nipsam sacrosanctum sacrificium incruentum.\u2014_Id._ No. lxxxiii. p. 358.\n\n[530] Quod etsi sciamus eamdem vocem pro Dei templo interdum accipi\nsolitam; tamen quod ecclesi\u00e6 omnes solo \u00e6quat\u00e6 fuissent; ex aliis\nsuperius recitatis de celebratione Dominici, nonisi sacrificium miss\u00e6\nposse intelligo, satis est declaratum.\u2014_Id._ lxxxiv. p. 359.\n\n[531] Collecta, Dominicum, Missa, idem, 303, xxxix. p. 677.\n\n[532] Missa idem quod Collecta, sive Dominicum, 303, xxxix. p. 702.\n\n[533] Dominicum celebrare idem quod Missas agere, 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.\np. 684.\n\n[534] Vol. xviii. p. 409.\n\n[535] Verstegan\u2019s Antiquities, p. 10, London, 1628.\n\n[536] Antiquities, p. 68.\n\n[537] Jewish Antiquities, book iii. chap. i. See also McClintock and\nStrong\u2019s Cyclopedia, 4, 472, article Idolatry; Dr. A. Clarke on Job\n31:26; and Dr. Gill on the same; Webster under the word Sabianism, and\nWorcester, under Sabian.\n\n[538] Id. book iii. chap. iii.\n\n[539] Vol. xviii. p. 409.\n\n[540] Pp. 61, 62.\n\n[541] 2 Kings 23:5; Jer. 43:13, margin.\n\n[542] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s day, pp. 22, 23.\n\n[543] Apology, chap. lxvii.; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 34, 35.\n\n[544] Apology, sect. 16; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 64, 65.\n\n[545] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70.\n\n[546] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. note \u2021 to sect. 4.\n\n[547] Eccl. Hist. cent. 2, part. ii. chap. i. sect. 12.\n\n[548] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 12.\n\n[549] Id. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 4.\n\n[550] Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 10.\n\n[551] Examination of the Six Texts, Supplement, pp. 6, 7.\n\n[552] Du Pin\u2019s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 50.\n\n[553] Hist. Church, cent. 2, chap. iii.\n\n[554] Justin Martyr\u2019s First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127,\nsects. 87, 88, 89.\n\n[555] The Spirit of Popery, pp. 44, 45.\n\n[556] Ductor Dubitantium, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 45.\n\n[557] Brown\u2019s Translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64.\n\n[558] Sabbath Manual, p. 121.\n\n[559] Dialogue with Trypho, p. 65.\n\n[560] Sabbath Manual, p. 114.\n\n[561] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 131, 132.\n\n[562] Id. p. 128.\n\n[563] Id. p. 130.\n\n[564] See his full testimony in the Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 44-52.\n\n[565] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2; Id. book v.\nchap. xxviii. sect. 3.\n\n[566] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2.\n\n[567] Id. book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.\n\n[568] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1; chap. xiii. sect. 4.\n\n[569] Bower\u2019s History of the Popes, vol. i. pp. 18, 19; Rose\u2019s Neander,\npp. 188-190; Dowling\u2019s History of Romanism, book i. chap. ii. sect. 9.\n\n[570] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18.\n\n[571] History of Romanism, heading of page 32.\n\n[572] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18.\n\n[573] Id. pp. 18, 19; Giesler\u2019s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 57.\n\n[574] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. ii. sects. 4, 5.\n\n[575] Boyle\u2019s Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 52, ed. 1842.\n\n[576] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 5.\n\n[577] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xxvii.\n\n[578] Id. chap. xxxviii.\n\n[579] Tertullian\u2019s Apology, sect. 16.\n\n[580] Tertullian _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii.\n\n[581] History of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. ii. sect. 3.\n\n[582] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, p. 166.\n\n[583] Neander, p. 186.\n\n[584] Ancient Church History, part i. div. 2, A. D. 100-312, sect. 69.\n\n[585] Enquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, part ii.\nchap. vii. sect. 11. See also Schaff\u2019s \u201cHistory of the Christian Church,\u201d\nvol. i. p. 373.\n\n[586] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.\n\n[587] Justin Martyr\u2019s First Apology, chap. lxvii.\n\n[588] Lost Writings of Iren\u00e6us, Fragments 7 and 50.\n\n[589] Book of the Laws of Countries.\n\n[590] Tertullian\u2019s Apology, sect. 16.\n\n[591] On Idolatry, chap. xiv.\n\n[592] Hist. Sab. part 2, chap. viii. sect. 13.\n\n[593] On Prayer, chap. xxiii.\n\n[594] De Corona, sect. 3.\n\n[595] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii.\n\n[596] Canon 15.\n\n[597] Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiv. p. 322.\n\n[598] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 7, par. 59.\n\n[599] Id. book v. sect. ii. par. 10.\n\n[600] Id. book v. sect. iii. par. 20.\n\n[601] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form), chap. ix.\n\n[602] Syriac Documents, p. 38.\n\n[603] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.\n\n[604] Justin\u2019s First Apology, chap. lxvii.\n\n[605] Id. Ib.\n\n[606] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiv.\n\n[607] Id. chap. xli.\n\n[608] Clement\u2019s Miscellanies, book v. chap. xiv.\n\n[609] _De Corona_, sect. 4.\n\n[610] _Origen\u2019s Opera_, Tome ii. p. 158, Paris, A. D. 1733, \u201cQuod si ex\nDivinis Scripturis hoc constat, quod die Dominica Deus pluit manna de\nc\u00e6lo et in Sabbato non pluit, intelligant Jud\u00e6i jam tunc pr\u00e6latam esse\nDominicam nostram Judaico Sabbato.\u201d\n\n[611] Cyprian\u2019s Epistle, No. lviii. sect. 4.\n\n[612] Peter\u2019s Canons, No. xv.\n\n[613] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. ii. par. 23.\n\n[614] Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. ix.\n\n[615] Syriac Documents, p. 38.\n\n[616] Id. Ib.\n\n[617] Id. Ib.\n\n[618] Id. Ib.\n\n[619] Fragment 7.\n\n[620] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.\n\n[621] _De Corona_, sect. 3.\n\n[622] Origen against Celsus, book viii. chap. xxii.\n\n[623] Instructions of Commodianus, sect. 75.\n\n[624] Apostolical Constitutions, book v. sect. 3, par. 20.\n\n[625] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4.\n\n[626] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. x.\n\n[627] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xi.\n\n[628] Id. chap. xii.\n\n[629] Tertullian on Idolatry, chap. xiv.\n\n[630] Id. Ib.\n\n[631] Tertullian Against the Jews, chap. iv.\n\n[632] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.\n\n[633] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xii.\n\n[634] Id. chap. xviii.\n\n[635] See the third chapter of this History.\n\n[636] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiii.\n\n[637] Id. chap. xxix.\n\n[638] Id. chap. xi.\n\n[639] Lost Writings of Iren\u00e6us, Fragment 7.\n\n[640] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. viii. sect. 2.\n\n[641] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 1.\n\n[642] Iren\u00e6us against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.\n\n[643] Id. book. v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3.\n\n[644] Ex. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20.\n\n[645] Isa. 66:22, 23; Dan. 7:18, 27.\n\n[646] Answer to the Jews, chap. ii.\n\n[647] Tertullian against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[648] Compare his works as follows: Answer to the Jews, chaps. ii. iii.\niv. vi.; Against Marcion, book i. chap. xx.; book v. chaps. iv. xix. with\nDe Anima, chap. xxxvii.; and, On Modesty, chap. v.\n\n[649] Isa. 1:13, 14.\n\n[650] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[651] Isa. 56:2; 58:13.\n\n[652] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[653] Against Marcion, book ii. chap. xxi.\n\n[654] Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[655] De Principiis, book iv. chap. i. sect. 17.\n\n[656] Ex. 16:29; Lev. 23:3.\n\n[657] Creation of the World, sect. 4.\n\n[658] Id. sect. 5.\n\n[659] Id. Ib.\n\n[660] Creation of the World, sect. 5.\n\n[661] Iren\u00e6us Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1.\n\n[662] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 7:21-25; 8:1-7.\n\n[663] Iren\u00e6us Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 4.\n\n[664] Matt. chapters 5, 6, 7.\n\n[665] Theophilus to Autolycus, book ii. chap. xxvii.\n\n[666] Id. book iii. chap. ix.\n\n[667] Id. Ib.\n\n[668] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii.\n\n[669] On Modesty, chap. v.\n\n[670] Recognitions of Clement, book iii. chap. lv.\n\n[671] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii.\n\n[672] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36.\n\n[673] Id. book vi. sect. 4, par. 19.\n\n[674] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.\n\n[675] Iren\u00e6us Against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.\n\n[676] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii.\n\n[677] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[678] Origen Against Celsus, book vi. chap. lxi.\n\n[679] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii.\n\n[680] Divine Institutes of Lactantius, book vii. chap. xiv.\n\n[681] Poem on Genesis, Lines 51-53.\n\n[682] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.\n\n[683] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.\n\n[684] Id. Ib.\n\n[685] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv, chap. xii.\n\n[686] Disputation with Manes, sect. 42.\n\n[687] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xlvii.\n\n[688] Id. Ib.\n\n[689] Clement\u2019s Miscellanies, book vi. chap. xvi.\n\n[690] Id. Ib.\n\n[691] Compare Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 386-890, Ante-Nicene\nlibrary edition, or the Miscellanies of Clement, book vi. chap. xvi. with\nBohn\u2019s edition of Philo, vol. i. pp. 3, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32, 54, 55; vol.\niii. p. 159; vol. iv. p. 452.\n\n[692] Bohn\u2019s edition of Philo Jud\u00e6us, vol. i. p. 4.\n\n[693] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.\n\n[694] _Origen\u2019s Opera_, Tome 2, p. 358, Paris, 1733, \u201cQu\u00e6 est autem\nfestivitas Sabbati nisi illa dequa Apostolus dicit, \u2018relinqueretur ergo\nSabbatismus,\u2019 hoc est, Sabbati observatio, \u2018populo Dei\u2019? Relinquentes\nergo Judaicas Sabbati observationes, qualis debeat esse Christiano\nSabbati observatio, videamus. Die Sabbati nihil ex omnibus mundi actibus\noportet operari. Si ergo desinas ab omnibus s\u00e6cularibus operibus, et\nnihil mundanum geras, sed spiritalibus operibus vaces, ad ecclesiam\nconvenias, lectionibus divinis et tractatibus aurem pr\u00e6beas, et de\nc\u0153lestibus cogites, de futura spe sollicitudinem geras, venturum judicium\npr\u00e6 oculis habeas, non respicias ad pr\u00e6 sentia et visibilia, sed ad\ninvisibilia et futura, h\u00e6c est observatio Sabbati Christiani.\u201d\u2014_Origenis\nin Numeras Homilia_ 23.\n\n[695] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form) chap. ix.\n\n[696] Ancient Church, p. 212.\n\n[697] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1. sect. 51.\n\n[698] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36.\n\n[699] Id. Ib.\n\n[700] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 23.\n\n[701] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.\n\n[702] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii, sec. 4, par. 36.\n\n[703] Id. book viii. sect. 4, par. 33.\n\n[704] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.\n\n[705] Victorinus says, \u201cLet the sixth day become a rigorous fast, lest we\nshould appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews.\u201d\u2014_On the Creation of\nthe World_, sect. 4. And Constantine says, \u201cIt becomes us to have nothing\nin common with the perfidious Jews.\u201d\u2014 _Socrates\u2019 Eccl. Hist._ book v.\nchap. xxii.\n\n[706] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 189.\n\n[707] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, p. 9, London, 1641.\n\n[708] 1 Cor. 5:6-8.\n\n[709] Eccl. Hist. vol. i. chap. ii. sect. 30.\n\n[710] Eccl. Hist. book i. cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sect. 4. Dr.\nMurdock\u2019s translation is more accurate than that above by Maclaine.\nHe gives it thus: \u201cMoreover, those congregations, which either lived\nintermingled with Jews, or were composed in great measure of Jews, were\naccustomed also to observe the _seventh day_ of the week, as a SACRED\nday: for doing which, the other Christians taxed them with no wrong.\u201d\n\n[711] Id. margin.\n\n[712] See chap. xiv. of this History.\n\n[713] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2.\n\n[714] Anc. Christ. Exem. chap. xxvi. sect. 2.\n\n[715] Id. Ib.\n\n[716] Id. Ib.\n\n[717] _Ductor Dubitantium_, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 51.\n\n[718] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 66.\n\n[719] A Treatise of the Sabbath Day, containing a \u201cDefense of the\nOrthodoxal Doctrine of the Church of England against Sabbatarian\nNovelty,\u201d p. 8. It was written in 1635 at the command of the king in\nreply to Brabourne, a minister of the established church, whose work,\nentitled \u201cA Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God\u2019s,\nthe Sabbath Day,\u201d was dedicated to the king with a request that he would\nrestore the Bible Sabbath! See the preface to Dr. White\u2019s Treatise.\n\n[720] Dec. and Fall, chap. xv.\n\n[721] See chap. x.\n\n[722] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 67.\n\n[723] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8.\n\n[724] Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xvi. chap. vi. sect. 2.\n\n[725] Page 280. Cox here quotes the work, entitled \u201cThe Modern Sabbath\nExamined.\u201d\n\n[726] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, Oxford, 1631.\n\n[727] This edict is the original fountain of first-day authority, and\nin many respects answers to the festival of Sunday, what the fourth\ncommandment is to the Sabbath of the Lord. The original of this edict may\nbe seen in the library of Harvard College, and is as follows:\u2014\n\n IMP. CONSTANT. A. ELPIDIO.\n\n Omnes Judices, urban\u00e6que plebes, et cunctarum artium officia\n venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum\n cultur\u00e6 libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter\n evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vine\u00e6\n scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas\n coelesti provisione concessa. Dat. Nonis Mart. Crispo. 2 &\n Constantino 2. Coss. 321. Corpus Juris Civilis Codicis lib. iii\n tit. 12. 3.\n\n[728] Encyc. Brit. art. Sunday, seventh edition, 1842.\n\n[729] Encyc. Am. art. Sabbath.\n\n[730] Eccl. Hist. cent. iv. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 5.\n\n[731] Chap. xiv.\n\n[732] Duct. Dubitant. part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 59.\n\n[733] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 233.\n\n[734] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291.\n\n[735] Cox\u2019s Sabbath Laws, &c. pp. 280, 281. He quotes The Modern Sabbath\nExamined.\n\n[736] Hessey\u2019s Bampton Lectures, p. 60.\n\n[737] History of Christianity, book iii. chap. i.\n\n[738] Id. book iii. chap. iv.\n\n[739] These dates are worthy of marked attention. See Blair\u2019s\nChronological Tables, p. 193, ed. 1856; Rosse\u2019s Index of Dates, p. 830.\n\n[740] _Imp. Constantinus A. Ad Maximum._ Si quid de Palatio Nostro, aut\nceteris operibus publicis, degustatum fulgore esse constiterit, retento\nmore veteris observantiae. Quid portendat, ob Haruspicibus requiratur,\net diligentissime scriptura collecta ad Nostram Scientiam referatur.\nCeteris etiam usurpandae huius consuetudinis licentia tribuenda: dummodo\nsacrificiis domesticis abstineant, quae specialiter prohibita sunt. Eam\nautem denunciationem adque interpretationem, quae de tactu Amphitheatri\nscriba est, de qua ad Heraclianum Tribunum, et Magistrum Officiorum\nscripseras, ad nos scias esse perlatum. Dat. xvi. Kal. Jan. Serdicae\nAcc. viii. Id. Mart. Crispo ii. & Constantino ii. C. C. Coss. 821. Cod.\nTheodos. xvi. 10, 1.\u2014_Library of Harvard College._\n\n[741] See Jortin\u2019s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 31; Milman\u2019s Hist.\nChristianity, book iii. chap. i.\n\n[742] See Webster; for an ancient record of the act, see Eze. xxi. 19-22.\n\n[743] Historical Commentaries, cent. iv. sect. 7.\n\n[744] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xx.\n\n[745] Marsh\u2019s Eccl. Hist. period iii. chap. v.\n\n[746] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xviii.\n\n[747] Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, p. 4, published by R. Groombridge &\nSons, London.\n\n[748] See chap. xviii.\n\n[749] Omnium vero dierum per septimanam appellationes (ut Solis, Lunae,\nMartis, etc.), mutasse in ferias: ut Polydorus (li. 6, c. 5) indicat.\nMataphrastes vero, nomina dierum Hebraeis usitata retinuisse eum,\ntradit; SOLIUS PRIMI DIEI APPELLATIONE MUTATA, QUEM DOMINICUM DIXIT.\nHistoria Ecclesiastica per M. Ludovicum Lucium, cent. iv. cap. x. pp.\n739, 740, Ed. Basilea, 1624. _Library of Andover Theological Seminary._\nThe Ecclesiastical History of Lucius is simply the second edition of the\nfamous \u201cMagdeburg Centuries,\u201d which was published under his supervision.\n\n[750] Quoted in Elliott\u2019s Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6, fifth edition, vol. iv. p.\n603.\n\n[751] McClintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 506.\n\n[752] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 12.\n\n[753] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 1.\n\n[754] Id. Ib.\n\n[755] Dec. and Fall, chap. xxviii.\n\n[756] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii sect. 5.\n\n[757] Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. iv.\n\n[758] Eusebius\u2019 Commentary on the Psalms, quoted in Cox\u2019s Sabbath\nLiterature, vol. i. p. 361; also in Justin Edward\u2019s Sabbath Manual, pp.\n125-127.\n\n[759] Id. Ib.\n\n[760] Id. Ib.\n\n[761] Eusebius\u2019 Life of Constantine, 3, 33, quoted in Elliott\u2019s Hor\u00e6\nApocalyptic\u00e6, vol. i. p. 256.\n\n[762] Cox\u2019s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. p. 361.\n\n[763] Appendix to Gurney\u2019s History, &c., of the Sabbath, pp. 115, 116.\n\n[764] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, pp. 122, 123.\n\n[765] Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizere et otiare in Sabbato, sed\noperari in eodem die. Preferentes autem in veneratione Dominicum diem\nsi vacare voluerint, ut Christiani hoc faciat; quod si reperti fuerint\nJudaizare Anathema sint a Christo.\n\n[766] Dissertation on the Lord\u2019s-day Sabbath, pp. 33, 34, 44. 1633.\n\n[767] Sunday a Sabbath, p. 163. 1640.\n\n[768] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 188; Hessey\u2019s Bampton Lectures, pp.\n72, 304, 305.\n\n[769] Tertullian\u2019s De Corona, sections 3 and 4.\n\n[770] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138.\n\n[771] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138.\n\n[772] Cyc. Bib. Lit. art. Lord\u2019s Day; Heylyn\u2019s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap.\nii. sect. 7.\n\n[773] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 9.\n\n[774] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 234; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii.\nsect. 7.\n\n[775] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, pp. 236, 237.\n\n[776] Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 219.\n\n[777] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 284.\n\n[778] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 8.\n\n[779] Sabbath Manual, p. 123.\n\n[780] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 259.\n\n[781] Id. p. 260.\n\n[782] Socrates, book v. chap. xxii.\n\n[783] Sozomen, book vii. chap. 19; Lardner, vol. iv. chap. lxxxv. p. 217.\n\n[784] 2 Thess. 2.\n\n[785] Dan. 7.\n\n[786] Shimeall\u2019s Bible Chronology, part ii. chap. ix. sect. 5, pp. 175,\n176; Croly on the Apocalypse, pp. 167-173.\n\n[787] Dan. 7:8, 24, 25; Rev. 13:1-5.\n\n[788] Rev. 12.\n\n[789] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 1.\n\n[790] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 73, ed. 1631.\n\n[791] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 12.\n\n[792] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 202.\n\n[793] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13.\n\n[794] Id. part ii. chap. v. sect. 6.\n\n[795] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, pp. 217, 218.\n\n[796] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, pp. 263, 264.\n\n[797] The Lord\u2019s Day, p. 58.\n\n[798] Dictionary of Chronology, p. 813, art. Sunday.\n\n[799] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 265.\n\n[800] Id. pp. 265, 266; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 7.\n\n[801] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 68.\n\n[802] Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 174.\n\n[803] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 282.\n\n[804] Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Tome viii. Livre xxxvi. sect. 22; Heylyn\u2019s\nHist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 1. Dr. Twisse, however, asserts that\nthe pope speaks of two classes. He gives Gregory\u2019s words as follows:\n\u201cRelation is made unto me that certain men of a perverse spirit, have\nsowed among you some corrupt doctrines contrary to our holy faith; so\nas to forbid any work to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may\nwell call the preachers of Antichrist.... Another report was brought\nunto me; and what was that? That some perverse persons preach among you,\nthat on the Lord\u2019s day none should be washed. This is clearly another\npoint maintained by other persons, different from the former.\u201d\u2014_Morality\nof the Fourth Commandment_, pp. 19, 20. If Dr. Twisse is right, the\nSabbath-keepers in Rome about the year 600 were not chargeable with the\nSunday observance above mentioned.\n\n[805] The idea is suggested by the language of an anonymous first-day\nwriter of the seventeenth century, Iren\u00e6us Philalethes, in a work\nentitled \u201c_Sabbato-Dominica_,\u201d pref. p. 11, London, 1643.\n\n[806] Dialogues on the Lord\u2019s Day, p. 267.\n\n[807] Id. p. 283.\n\n[808] Dialogues, &c. p. 268.\n\n[809] Id. pp. 283, 284.\n\n[810] Id. p. 268.\n\n[811] Id. p. 284.\n\n[812] Dialogues, &c. p. 269.\n\n[813] Id. p. 270.\n\n[814] Id. p. 271.\n\n[815] Dialogues, &c. p. 271; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7.\n\n[816] Dialogues, &c. p. 272.\n\n[817] Dialogue, &c. p. 261.\n\n[818] Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 33:2.\n\n[819] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.\n\n[820] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.\n\n[821] Dialogues, &c. pp. 261, 262.\n\n[822] Id. pp. 284, 285.\n\n[823] Dialogues, &c. p. 274.\n\n[824] Id. p. 285.\n\n[825] Id. p. 286.\n\n[826] Id. Ib.\n\n[827] Id. pp. 286, 287.\n\n[828] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2.\n\n[829] Dialogues, &c. p. 274.\n\n[830] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2.\n\n[831] Dialogues, &c. p. 68.\n\n[832] Binius, vol. iii. p. 1285, ed. 1606.\n\n[833] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13.\n\n[834] Morer, p. 288; Heylyn, part 2. chap. vii. sect. 6.\n\n[835] Roger de Hoveden\u2019s Annals, Bohn\u2019s ed. vol. ii. p. 487.\n\n[836] Id. Ib.\n\n[837] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 526-528.\n\n[838] See Matthew Paris\u2019s Historia Major, pp. 200, 201, ed. 1640; Binius\u2019\nCouncils, ad ann. 1201, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Wilkins\u2019 Concilia\nMagn\u00e6 Britani\u00e6 et Hibern\u00e6, vol. i. pp. 510, 511, London, 1737; Sir David\nDalrymple\u2019s Historical Memorials, pp. 7, 8, ed. 1769; Heylyn\u2019s History\nof the Sabbath, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 5; Morer\u2019s Lord\u2019s Day, pp.\n288-290; Hessey\u2019s Sunday pp. 90, 321; Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, p. 399.\n\n[839] Maclaine\u2019s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5.\n\n[840] Murdock\u2019s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5, note 19.\n\n[841] Matthew Paris\u2019s Historia Major, p. 201. His words are: \u201cCum autem\nPatriarcha et clerus omnis Terr\u00e6 sanct\u00e6, hunc epistol\u00e6 tenorem diligenter\nexaminassent; communi omnium deliberatione decretum est, ut epistola\nad judicium Romani Pontificis transmitteretur; quatenus, quicquid ipse\nagendum decrevit, plac\u00e6t universis. Cumque tandem epistola ad domini\nPap\u00e6 notitiam pervenisset, continuo pr\u00e6dicatores ordinavit; qui per\ndiversas mundi partes profecti, pr\u00e6dicaverunt ubique epistol\u00e6 tenerem;\nDomino cooperante et sermonem eorum confirmante, sequentibus signis.\nInter quos Abbos de Flai nomine Eustachius, vir religiosus et literali\nscientia eruditis, regnum Angli\u00e6 aggressus: multis ibidem miraculis\ncorruscavit.\u201d\u2014_Library of Harvard College._\n\n[842] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 535.\n\n[843] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 590.\n\n[844] Id. vol. iv. p. 592.\n\n[845] See page 274 of this work.\n\n[846] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528.\n\n[847] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528.\n\n[848] Id. p. 529.\n\n[849] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 529, 530.\n\n[850] Id. Ib.\n\n[851] Dialogues, &c. p. 290.\n\n[852] Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, p. 399.\n\n[853] Binius\u2019s Councils, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Heylyn, part ii. chap.\nvii. sect. 7.\n\n[854] Heylyn, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 7.\n\n[855] Dialogues, &c. pp. 290, 291.\n\n[856] Id. p. 291.\n\n[857] Id. p. 275.\n\n[858] Id. Ib.\n\n[859] Id. pp. 293, 294.\n\n[860] Id. p. 279.\n\n[861] Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9.\n\n[862] Morer, p. 280.\n\n[863] Id. pp. 281, 282.\n\n[864] Mr. Croly says: \u201cWith the title of \u2018Universal Bishop,\u2019 the power of\nthe papacy, and the Dark Ages, alike began.\u201d\u2014_Croly on the Apocalypse_,\np. 173.\n\n[865] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 591.\n\n[866] History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 50, ed. 1849.\n\n[867] Dan. 8:12.\n\n[868] Ps. 119:142, 151.\n\n[869] See chap. xx. of this work.\n\n[870] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. pp. 600, 601;\nD\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s History of the Reformation, book xvii.\n\n[871] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 601.\n\n[872] Id. Ib.\n\n[873] Id. Ib.\n\n[874] Butler\u2019s Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and principal Saints,\narticle, St. Columba, A. D. 597.\n\n[875] The Monks of the West, vol. ii. p. 104.\n\n[876] Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, p. 389.\n\n[877] Id. pp. 32, 33.\n\n[878] Waddington\u2019s History of the Church, part iv. chap. xviii.\n\n[879] Jones\u2019s History of the Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1.\n\n[880] Jortin\u2019s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. sect. 38.\n\n[881] Edward\u2019s Hist. of Redemption, period iii. part iv. sect. 2.\n\n[882] Hist. Bapt. Denom. p. 33.\n\n[883] Id. p. 31.\n\n[884] Variations of Popery, p. 52.\n\n[885] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 167.\n\n[886] History of the English Baptists, vol. i. pref. p. 35.\n\n[887] Mr. Jones, in his \u201cChurch History,\u201d vol. i. chap. iii., note at the\nend of the chapter, explains this charge as follows: \u201cBut this calumny\nis easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to support their\nusurpations and innovations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven to the\nOld Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for their\nexample. And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that\nthe parallel did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not\nof this world, is a very different state of things from the kingdom of\nDavid, their opponents accused them of giving up the divine authority of\nthe Old Testament.\u201d\n\n[888] Eccl. Hist. Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 231, 236, 237.\n\n[889] Id. pp. 175-177.\n\n[890] Id. p. 209.\n\n[891] Hist. Church, chap. v. sect. 1.\n\n[892] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 413, ed. 1813.\n\n[893] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. x. pp. 303, 304.\n\n[894] Jones\u2019s Hist. Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1.\n\n[895] General Hist. Baptist Denom. vol. ii. p. 413.\n\n[896] Circumcisi forsan illi fuerint, qui aliis Insabbatati, non quod\ncircumciderentur, inquit Calvinista [Goldastus] sed quod in Sabbato\njudaizarent.\u2014_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 303.\n\n[897] Thomas\u2019 Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, article Goldast.\n\n[898] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 456.\n\n[899] Nec quod in Sabbato colendo Judaizarent, ut MULTI PUTABANT, sed a\nzapata.\u2014_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 304; _Usher\u2019s De Christianar.\nEccl. success. et stat._ cap. 7.\n\n[900] Jones\u2019s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 2.\n\n[901] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 249.\n\n[902] Id. pp. 250, 251.\n\n[903] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. i. p. 349; D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 cites\nas his authority, \u201c_Histoire des Protestants de Picardie_\u201d by L. Rossier,\np. 2.\n\n[904] Jones\u2019s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 4.\n\n[905] History of the Vaudois by Bresse, p. 126.\n\n[906] Benedict\u2019s Hist. Bapt. p. 41.\n\n[907] Hist. Church, chap. iv. sect. 3.\n\n[908] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168,\n169, Boston, Pub. Lib. The author, Rev. Peter Allix, D. D., was a\nFrench Protestant, born in 1641, and was distinguished for piety and\nerudition.\u2014_Lempriere\u2019s Universal Biography._\n\n[909] Id. p. 170.\n\n[910] Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6, vol. ii. p. 291.\n\n[911] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. pp. 305, 306.\n\n[912] Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6, vol. ii. p. 342.\n\n[913] Eccl. Hist. cent. xii. part ii. chap. v. sect. 14.\n\n[914] General Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813.\n\n[915] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, p. 158, London 1694.\n\n[916] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 224.\n\n[917] Id. p. 225.\n\n[918] Hist. of the Church, chap. iv. sect. 3.\n\n[919] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 8.\n\n[920] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 162.\n\n[921] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. v. sect. 1.\n\n[922] Bower says of Gregory: \u201cHe was a man of most extraordinary\nparts, of an unbounded ambition, of a haughty and imperious temper,\nof resolution and courage incapable of yielding to the greatest\ndifficulties, _perfectly acquainted with the state of the western\nchurches_, as well as with the different interests of the Christian\nprinces.\u201d\u2014_History of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 378.\n\n[923] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 358.\n\n[924] Theological Dict. art. Anabaptists.\n\n[925] Hist. Church, vol. i. pp. 183, 184.\n\n[926] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 132. He cites Hist. Anabapt. lib.\n6, p. 153.\n\n[927] The Rise, Spring, and Foundation of the Anabaptists or Rebaptized\nof our Times. By Guy de Brez, A. D. 1565.\n\n[928] Acts 8:26-40.\n\n[929] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclop\u00e6dia, vol. i. p. 40.\n\n[930] Dec. and Fall, chap. xlvii.\n\n[931] Maxson\u2019s Hist. Sab. p. 33, ed. 1844.\n\n[932] Church Hist. of Ethiopia, p. 31.\n\n[933] Id. p. 96; Gibbon, chap. xv. note 25; chap. xlvii. note 160.\nM\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 40.\n\n[934] Church Hist. Ethiopia, pp. 34, 35; Purchas\u2019s Pilgrimage, book ii.\nchap. v.\n\n[935] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 87, 88.\n\n[936] Id. Ib.\n\n[937] Gibbon, chap. xlvii.\n\n[938] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 311, 312; Gobat\u2019s Abyssinia, pp. 83, 93.\n\n[939] Gibbon, chap. xlvii.\n\n[940] Continental India, vol. ii. p. 120.\n\n[941] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, preface.\n\n[942] Continental India, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117.\n\n[943] East Indian Church History, pp. 133, 134.\n\n[944] Id. pp. 139, 140.\n\n[945] Buchanan\u2019s Christian Researches in Asia, pp. 159, 160.\n\n[946] Purchas His Pilgrimes, part ii. book viii. chap. vi. sect. 5, p.\n1269, London, 1625. The \u201cEncyclopedia Britannica,\u201d vol. viii. p. 695,\neighth ed., speaks of Purchas as \u201can Englishman admirably skilled in\nlanguage and human and divine arts, a very great philosopher, historian,\nand theologian.\u201d\n\n[947] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. vi. sects. 3, 5.\n\n[948] Cox\u2019s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287.\n\n[949] Id. Ib.\n\n[950] Cox\u2019s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287.\n\n[951] Id. p. 286.\n\n[952] Id. Ib.\n\n[953] Id. p. 289.\n\n[954] Tyndale\u2019s Answer to More, book i. chap. xxv.\n\n[955] Hessey, p. 352.\n\n[956] Calvin\u2019s Institutes of the Christian Religion, book ii. chap. viii.\nsect. 34, translated by John Allen.\n\n[957] Quanquam non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in\nlocum Sabbathi subrogarunt.\n\n[958] Calvin\u2019s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34.\n\n[959] Calvin\u2019s Harmony of the Evangelists on Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24.\n\n[960] Calvin\u2019s Commentary on John 20.\n\n[961] Calvin\u2019s Commentary on Acts 2:1.\n\n[962] Calvin\u2019s Commentary on Acts 20:7.\n\n[963] Id. Ib.\n\n[964] Calvin\u2019s Commentary on Acts 20:7.\n\n[965] Calvin\u2019s Commentary on 1 Cor. 16:2.\n\n[966] Id. Ib.\n\n[967] Calvin\u2019s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34.\n\n[968] Hessey\u2019s Bampton Lectures on Sunday, p. 201, ed. 1866. In the notes\nappended, p. 366, he says: \u201cAt Geneva a tradition exists, that when John\nKnox visited Calvin on a Sunday, he found his austere coadjutor bowling\non a green.\u201d Dr. Hessey evidently credited this tradition.\n\n[969] Beza\u2019s Life of Calvin, Sibson\u2019s Translation, p. 55, ed. 1836.\n\n[970] Id. p. 115.\n\n[971] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. p. 338.\n\n[972] Id. p. 339.\n\n[973] Beza\u2019s Life of Calvin, p. 168.\n\n[974] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 663.\n\n[975] Hessey, p. 341, gives a clue to the title of Barclay\u2019s work. It was\nPar\u00e6nesis ad Sectarios hujus temporis, lib. 1, cap. 13, p. 160, Rome,\n1617.\n\n[976] See Heylyn\u2019s Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chapter vi. sect.\n8; Morer\u2019s Lord\u2019s Day, pp. 216, 217, 228; An Inquiry into the Origin\nof Septenary Institutions, p. 55; The Modern Sabbath Examined, p. 26,\nWhitaker, Treacher, and Arnot, London, 1832; Cox\u2019s Sabbath Literature,\nvol. i. pp. 165, 166; Hessey, pp. 141, 142, 198, 341, and the authors\nthere cited.\n\n[977] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 32, 36, 39, 40.\n\n[978] In fact, the story told by Twisse that Barclay is not to be\nbelieved in what he says of Calvin because he was treacherous toward\nKing James I., who for that reason would not promote him at his court,\nappears to be wholly unfounded. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. iv., p.\n439, eighth edition, assigns a very different reason. It says: \u201cIn those\ndays a pension bestowed upon a Scottish papist would have been numbered\namong the national grievances.\u201d That is to say, public opinion would\nnot then tolerate the promotion of a Romanist. But this writer believes\nthat the king secretly favored Barclay. Thus on page 440 he adds:\n\u201cAlthough it does not appear that he obtained any regular provision from\nthe king, we may perhaps suppose that he at least received occasional\ngratuities.\u201d This writer knew nothing of Barclay as a detected spy at\nthe king\u2019s court. Of his standing as a man, he says on p. 441: \u201cIf there\nhad been any remarkable blemish in the morals of Barclay, some of his\nnumerous adversaries would have pointed it out.\u201d M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s\nCyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 663, says that he \u201cwould doubtless have succeeded\nat court had he not been a Romanist.\u201d See also Knight\u2019s Cyclopedia of\nBiography, article Barclay.\n\n[979] Cox\u2019s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 123; M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia,\nvol. v. pp. 137-140.\n\n[980] Quoted in Hessey\u2019s Bampton Lectures, p. 200.\n\n[981] Id. p. 201.\n\n[982] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.\n\n[983] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.\n\n[984] Hessey, p. 203.\n\n[985] Dr. Priestly, as quoted in Cox\u2019s \u201cSabbath Laws,\u201d p. 260.\n\n[986] Life of Luther by Barnas Sears, D. D., larger ed. pp. 400, 401.\n\n[987] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123.\n\n[988] Id. Ib.\n\n[989] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. of the Ref. book ix.\n\n[990] Mosheim\u2019s Church Hist. book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part ii.\nparagraph 22, note.\n\n[991] Life of Luther, p. 401.\n\n[992] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. Ref. book ix. p. 282. I use the excellent\none-volume edition of Porter and Coates.\n\n[993] Life of Luther, pp. 402, 403.\n\n[994] Id. pp. 401, 402.\n\n[995] Mosheim\u2019s Hist. of the Church, book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part\nii. paragraph 22, note.\n\n[996] Life of Luther, p. 402.\n\n[997] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. of Ref. book x. p. 312.\n\n[998] Life of Luther, p. 403.\n\n[999] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. Ref. book x. pp. 314, 315.\n\n[1000] Id. Ib.\n\n[1001] M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123.\n\n[1002] Id. Ib.\n\n[1003] Life of Luther, p. 400.\n\n[1004] D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. Ref. book x. p. 312.\n\n[1005] Id. book x. p. 315.\n\n[1006] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315.\n\n[1007] Life of Luther, p. 403.\n\n[1008] Mosheim\u2019s Church Hist. book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii.\nparagraph 22, note.\n\n[1009] Id. Ib. Very nearly the same statement is made by Du Pin, tome 13,\nchap. ii. section 20, p. 103, A. D. 1703.\n\n[1010] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315.\n\n[1011] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8.\n\n[1012] Life of Luther, p. 402.\n\n[1013] Quoted in the Life of Martin Luther in Pictures, p. 147,\nPhiladelphia, J. W. Moore, 195 Chestnut street.\n\n[1014] M\u2019Clintock and Strong, vol. ii. p. 123; Dr. A. Clarke\u2019s\nCommentary, preface to James.\n\n[1015] M\u2019Clintock and Strong, vol. iii. p. 679; D\u2019Aubign\u00e9\u2019s Hist. Ref.\nbook xviii. pp. 672, 689, 706, 707; book xx. pp. 765, 766; Fox\u2019s Acts and\nMonuments, book viii. pp. 524-527.\n\n[1016] Frith\u2019s works, p. 69, quoted in Hessey, p. 198.\n\n[1017] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 630.\n\n[1018] Id. Ib.\n\n[1019] Id. p. 631.\n\n[1020] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 636.\n\n[1021] Id. pp. 636, 637.\n\n[1022] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 640.\n\n[1023] Mosheim\u2019s Hist. Church, book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii. chap.\niv. par. 23.\n\n[1024] Lamy\u2019s History of Socinianism, p. 60.\n\n[1025] \u201cNunc audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Jud\u00e6orum genus,\nSabbatarios appellant, qui tanta superstitione servant Sabbatum, ut si\nquid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere; quasi non sufficiat\neis pro Sabbato Dies Dominicus, qui Apostolis etiam erat sacer, aut\nquasi Christus non satis expresserit quantum tribuen dum sit Sabbato.\u201d\nDe Amabili Ecclesi\u00e6 Concordia; Opera, tome 5, p. 506, Lugd. Bat. 1704;\nquoted in Cox\u2019s Sabbath Literature, vol. ii. pp. 201, 202; Hessey, p. 374.\n\n[1026] Cox, vol. ii. p. 202.\n\n[1027] Such statements respecting the observers of the seventh day\nare very common. Even those who first commenced to keep the Sabbath\nin Newport were said to \u201chave left Christ and gone to Moses in the\nobservation of days, and times, and seasons, and such like.\u201d\u2014_Seventh-day\nBaptist Memorial_, vol. i. p. 32. The pastor of the first-day Baptist\nchurch of Newport said to them: \u201cI do judge you have and still do deny\nChrist.\u201d\u2014_Id._ p. 37.\n\n[1028] The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, Appendix. p. 273,\nNew York, 1815.\n\n[1029] Murdock\u2019s Mosheim, book iv. cent. xvii. sect. 2, part i. chap. ii.\nnote 12.\n\n[1030] See the twenty-first chapter of this work.\n\n[1031] Id. Ib.\n\n[1032] Maxson\u2019s Hist. Sab. p. 41.\n\n[1033] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, p. 16.\n\n[1034] Martyrology of the Churches of Christ, commonly called Baptists,\nduring the era of the Reformation. From the Dutch of T. J. Van Braght,\nLondon, 1850, vol. i. pp. 113, 114.\n\n[1035] Id. p. 113.\n\n[1036] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 16.\n\n[1037] Wall\u2019s History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. p. 379, Oxford, 1835.\n\n[1038] I know of no exception to this statement. If there be any it must\nbe found in the cases of those observing both seventh and first days.\nEven here, there is certainly no such thing as sprinkling for baptism,\nbut possibly there may be the baptism of young children.\n\n[1039] Hist. English Baptists, vol. ii. pref. pp. 43, 44.\n\n[1040] Maxson\u2019s Hist. Sab. p. 42.\n\n[1041] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813.\n\n[1042] Hengstenberg\u2019s Lord\u2019s Day, p. 66.\n\n[1043] Coleman\u2019s Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2;\nHeylyn\u2019s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 7; Neal\u2019s Hist. Puritans,\npart i. chap. viii.\n\n[1044] Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti; or, the True Doctrine of the\nSabbath, by Nicholas Bound, D. D., sec. ed. London, 1606, p. 51.\n\n[1045] Id. p. 66.\n\n[1046] True Doc. of the Sab. p. 71.\n\n[1047] Id. p. 72.\n\n[1048] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 8.\n\n[1049] Pr\u00e6lectiones Theologic\u00e6, vol. i. part ii. sect. 2, cap. i. p.\n194. \u201cPropositio. Pr\u00e6ter sacram Scripturam admitti necessario debent\nTraditiones divin\u00e6 dogmatic\u00e6 ab illa prorsus distinct\u00e6.\u201d\n\n\u201cNon posse praeterea, rejectis ejusmodi traditionibus, plura dogmata, qu\u00e6\nnobiscum retinuerunt protestantes cum ab Ecclesia catholica recesserunt,\nullo modo adstruis, res est citra omnis dubitationis aleam posita. Etenim\nipsi nobiscum retinuerunt valorem baptismi ab haereticis aut infidelibus\nadministrati, valorem item paedobaptismi, germanam baptismi formam,\ncessationem legis de abstinentia a sanguine et suffocato, de die dominico\nSabbatis suffecto, praeter ea qu\u00e6 superius commemoravimus aliaque haud\npauca.\u201d\n\n[1050] Backus\u2019 Hist. of the Baptists in New England, p. 63, ed. 1777.\n\n[1051] Chambers\u2019 Cyclopedia, article, Sabbath, vol. viii. p. 402, London,\n1867.\n\n[1052] Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, p. 60.\n\n[1053] Observation of the Christian Sabbath, p. 2.\n\n[1054] See the fifteenth chapter of this work.\n\n[1055] Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, p. 88.\n\n[1056] Id. Ib.\n\n[1057] Pagitt\u2019s Heresiography, p. 209, London, 1661.\n\n[1058] Pagitt\u2019s Heresiography, p. 209.\n\n[1059] Id. p. 210.\n\n[1060] Id. p. 164.\n\n[1061] Pagitt\u2019s Heresiography, pp. 196, 197.\n\n[1062] Id. p. 161.\n\n[1063] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, pp. 17, 18; Heylyn\u2019s Hist. of\nthe Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 10; Gilfillan\u2019s Sabbath, pp. 88, 89;\nCox\u2019s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. pp. 152, 153.\n\n[1064] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 18.\n\n[1065] Dr. Francis White\u2019s Treatise of the Sabbath Day, quoted in Cox\u2019s\nSab. Lit. vol. i. p. 167.\n\n[1066] Heylyn\u2019s Cyprianus Anglicus, quoted in Cox, vol. i. p. 173.\n\n[1067] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 110.\n\n[1068] Hessey\u2019s Bampton Lectures, pp. 373, 374; Cox\u2019s Sab. Lit. vol. ii.\np. 6; A. H. Lewis\u2019s Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 178-184. This work contains\nmuch valuable information respecting English and American Sabbatarians.\n\n[1069] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 73.\n\n[1070] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 19, 20.\n\n[1071] Cox, vol. i. p. 268; vol. ii. p. 10.\n\n[1072] Id. vol. ii. p. 35.\n\n[1073] Hist. English Baptists, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.\n\n[1074] Hist. Puritans, part 2. chap. x.\n\n[1075] Crosby\u2019s Hist. Eng. Baptists, vol. i. pp. 366, 367.\n\n[1076] Hist. Puritans, part 2, chap. x.\n\n[1077] Calamy\u2019s Ejected Ministers, vol. ii. pp. 258, 259; Lewis\u2019 Sabbath\nand Sunday, pp. 188-193.\n\n[1078] Wood\u2019s Athen\u00e6 Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 123.\n\n[1079] Crosby, vol. i. p. 367.\n\n[1080] Ex. 16:23; Gen. 2:3.\n\n[1081] Judgment for the Observation of the Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath,\npp. 6-8, 1672.\n\n[1082] Calamy, vol. 2, p. 260.\n\n[1083] Crosby, vol. 2, pp. 165-171.\n\n[1084] When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be\npronounced, he said he would leave with them these scriptures: Jer.\n26:14, 15; Ps. 116:15.\n\n[1085] Manual, &c. pp. 21-23.\n\n[1086] Crosby\u2019s Hist. Eng. Bapt. vol. iii. pp. 138, 139.\n\n[1087] \u201cWhen the London Seventh-day Baptists, in 1664, sent Stephen\nMumford to America, and in 1675 sent Eld. William Gibson, they did as\nmuch, in proportion to their ability, as had been done by any society for\npropagating the gospel in foreign parts.\u201d\u2014_Seventh-day Baptist Memorial_,\nvol. i. p. 43.\n\n[1088] Ch. Hist. of N. England from 1783 to 1796, chap. xi. sect. 10.\n\n[1089] Hist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf. by Jas. Bailey, pp. 237, 238.\n\n[1090] Seventh-day Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 27, 28, 29.\n\n[1091] Records of the First Baptist Church in Newport, quoted in the S.\nD. Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 28-39.\n\n[1092] Bailey\u2019s Hist. pp. 9, 10.\n\n[1093] Id. p. 237.\n\n[1094] Id. p. 238.\n\n[1095] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 39, 40; Backus, chap. xi. sect.\n10.\n\n[1096] Hist. S. D. Baptist Gen. Conf. pp. 15, 238.\n\n[1097] Id. pp. 46-55.\n\n[1098] Id. pp. 57, 58, 62, 74, 82.\n\n[1099] Sabbath and Sunday, p. 232.\n\n[1100] Much interesting matter pertaining to the Seventh-day Baptists of\nAmerica may be found in Utter\u2019s Manual of the S. D. Baptists; Bailey\u2019s\nHist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf.; Lewis\u2019s Sabbath and Sunday, and in\nthe S. D. B. Memorial.\n\n[1101] Rupp\u2019s History of all Religious Denominations in the United\nStates, pp. 109-123, second edition; Bailey\u2019s Hist. Gen. Conf. pp.\n255-258.\n\n[1102] New York _Independent_, March 18, 1869.\n\n[1103] _Semi-Weekly Tribune_, May 4, 1869.\n\n[1104] This sister was born at Vernon, Vt. Her maiden name was Rachel D.\nHarris. At the age of seventeen, she was converted and soon after joined\nthe Methodist church. After her marriage, she removed with her husband\nto central New York. There, at the age of twenty-eight, she became an\nobserver of the Bible Sabbath. The Methodist minister, her pastor, did\nwhat he could to turn her from the Sabbath, but finally told her she\nmight keep it if she would not leave them. But she was faithful to her\nconvictions of duty and united with the first Seventh-day Baptist church\nof Verona, Oneida Co., N. Y. Her first husband bore the name of Oaks; her\nsecond, that of Preston. She and her daughter, Delight Oaks, were members\nof the first Verona church at the time of their removal to Washington, N.\nH. The mother died Feb. 1, 1868; the daughter, several years earlier.\n\n[1105] Eld. Preble\u2019s article appeared in the _Hope of Israel_ of Feb.\n28, 1845, published at Portland, Maine. This article was reprinted in\nthe _Advent Review_ of Aug. 23, 1870. The article, as rewritten by Eld.\nPreble and published in tract form, was also printed in the _Review_ of\nDec. 21, 1869.\n\n[1106] He fell asleep March 19, 1872, in the eightieth year of his age.\n\n[1107] For a further knowledge of their views, see their weekly paper,\nthe _Advent Review and Herald of the Sabbath_, published at Battle Creek,\nMichigan, at $2.00 per year, and the list of publications advertised in\nits columns.\n\n[1108] Rev. 12:17; 14:12.\n\n[1109] Rev. 19:10.\n\n[1110] Rev. 4:10, 11.\n\n[1111] 2 Pet. 3; Isa. 65; Rev. 21, 22. Milton thus states this doctrine:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe world shall burn, and from her ashes spring\n New heaven and earth, wherein the just shall dwell,\n And after all their tribulation long,\n See golden days, fruitful of golden deeds,\n With joy and love triumphing, and fair truth.\u201d\n\n \u2014_Paradise Lost_, book iii, lines 334-338.\n\n \u201cSo shall the world go on,\n To good malignant, to bad men benign;\n Under her own weight, groaning; till the day\n Appear of respiration to the just,\n And vengeance to the wicked, at return\n Of Him so lately promised to thy aid,\n The woman\u2019s seed; obscurely then foretold,\n Now ampler known thy Saviour and thy Lord:\n Last, in the clouds, from heaven to be revealed\n In glory of the Father, to dissolve\n Satan with his perverted world; then raise\n From the conflagrant mass, purged and refined,\n New heaven, new earth, ages of endless date,\n Founded in righteousness, and peace, and love;\n To bring forth fruits, joy, and eternal bliss.\u201d\n\n \u2014_Id._ book xii, lines 537-551.\n\n[1112] Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 17-27; Ps. 2:7-9; 37:9-11, 18-22, 34; Mal.\n4:1-3.\n\n[1113] Isa. 66:22, 23.\n\n[1114] Heb. 4:9. The margin renders it \u201ca keeping of a Sabbath.\u201d Liddell\nand Scott define _Sabbatismos_ \u201ca keeping of the Sabbath.\u201d They give no\nother definition, but derive it from the verb _Sabbatizo_, which they\ndefine by these words only, \u201cto keep the Sabbath.\u201d Schrevelius defines\n_Sabbatismos_ by this one phrase: \u201cObservance of the Sabbath.\u201d He also\nderives it from _Sabbatizo_. _Sabbatismos_ is therefore the noun in Greek\nwhich signifies the _act of Sabbath-keeping_, while _Sabbatizo_, from\nwhich it is derived, is the verb which expresses that act.\n\n[1115] See the Lexicons of Liddell and Scott, Schrevelius, and Greenfield.\n\n[1116] Rev. 22:1, 2.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED.\n\n\n Abyssinian Ambassador, 425.\n\n Acta Martyrum, 244, 253.\n\n _Advent Review_, 502, 507.\n\n Allix, Dr., 406, 407, 415, 416, 418, 420.\n\n Anatolius, 227.\n\n Andrews, Dr., 244, 246, 248.\n\n Aquensis, 69.\n\n Archelaus, 316.\n\n Augsburg Confession, 434.\n\n Augustine, 71, 247, 365.\n\n\n Bardesanes, 219, 284.\n\n Barnabas, 218, 231, 232, 235, 242, 284, 289, 299, 300, 301, 312, 313.\n\n Backus, 478, 494, 496.\n\n Bailey, James, 494, 496, 497, 499.\n\n Bampfield, Francis, 489.\n\n Barclay, 441, 442, 443.\n\n Baronius, 250, 253-257.\n\n Barrett, 29.\n\n Baxter, 38, 362, 363.\n\n Benedict, 399, 405, 408, 409, 410, 415, 418, 469, 470.\n\n Beza, 435, 441.\n\n Beza\u2019s Translation, 177.\n\n Bible Dictionary of Am. Tract Society, 211, 212.\n\n Bingham, 228, 340.\n\n Binius, 384, 388, 394.\n\n Bliss, Sylvester, 9, 31.\n\n Bloomfield, 126, 168, 176, 189.\n\n Boehmer, 237.\n\n Bound, Nicholas, 19, 71, 472-475.\n\n Bower, 198, 274, 275, 390, 420, 421.\n\n Boyle, 275.\n\n Brabourne, 339, 484.\n\n Brerewood, 341, 370.\n\n Bresse, 414.\n\n Brez, Guy de, 423.\n\n Bucer, 435.\n\n Buchanan, 430, 431.\n\n Buck, 20, 236, 423.\n\n Butler, Alvan, 402.\n\n\n Calmet, 20, 108.\n\n Calvin, 10, 74, 239, 436-443.\n\n Carlstadt, 447-459.\n\n Chafie, 261, 262.\n\n Chambers, 479, 480.\n\n Chrysostom, 363.\n\n Clarke, Adam, 10, 14, 38, 52, 55, 68, 69, 96, 103, 109, 200, 237,\n 260, 458.\n\n Clement of Alexandria, 219, 220, 221, 222, 290, 299, 318-322.\n\n Clement of Rome, 311.\n\n Coleman, Dr., 31.\n\n Coleman, Lyman, 235, 236, 335-337, 472-474.\n\n Columba, St., 402.\n\n Commodianus, 296.\n\n Constantine, 264, 275, 329, 342, 346, 347.\n\n Constitutions, Apostolical, 287, 288, 292, 296, 312, 315, 326-329.\n\n Cox, 340, 344, 357, 359, 362, 363, 365, 368, 434, 435, 442, 444,\n 445, 446, 464, 483, 484, 485, 487.\n\n Cranmer, 435.\n\n Crozier, 135.\n\n Croly, 369, 398.\n\n Crosby, 406, 469, 487-489, 492.\n\n Cumming, Dr., 199, 200.\n\n Cyprian, 248, 291.\n\n\n D\u2019Aubign\u00e9, 401, 410, 412, 413, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460.\n\n Davidis, 461.\n\n Dictionary of Chronology, 373.\n\n Dionysius, 214.\n\n Domville, Sir Wm., 234, 239, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 266,\n 271, 272, 344.\n\n Douay Translation, 38, 39, 176, 177, 202.\n\n Dowling, 196, 199, 274.\n\n Du Pin, 266, 456.\n\n\n Edgar, Dr., 405.\n\n Edwards, Justin, 112, 113, 114, 126, 177, 212, 216, 244, 271, 357,\n 366.\n\n Edwards, President, 138, 404, 405.\n\n Elliot, 351, 357, 416, 417.\n\n Encyclopedia Americana, 342.\n\n Encyclopedia Britannica, 190, 342, 432, 442, 443.\n\n Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 234.\n\n Eusebius, 133, 214, 216, 227, 234, 355, 357, 359.\n\n Erasmus, 463, 464.\n\n\n Family Testament, 126.\n\n Fleury, 374.\n\n Fox, 460.\n\n Frith, 459, 460.\n\n\n Geddes, 418, 424, 425, 426, 428.\n\n Gerendi, John, 463.\n\n Gesenius, 17.\n\n Gesner, 248.\n\n Gibbon, 194, 276, 339, 348, 354, 424, 425, 426.\n\n Giesler, 275, 334.\n\n Gilfillan, 250, 388, 394, 402, 403, 480, 481, 483.\n\n Gill, 10, 70, 71, 260.\n\n Gobat, 426.\n\n Goldastus, 410.\n\n Greenfield, 512.\n\n Gregory of Nyssa, 361.\n\n Gregory of Tours, 374.\n\n Gregory the Great, 374.\n\n Gregory VII., 420.\n\n Gretser, 410.\n\n Grotius, 128, 129.\n\n Guericke, 326.\n\n Gurney, 242, 244, 248, 360.\n\n\n Hacket, 150, 168, 178, 181, 233.\n\n Hales, Dr., 31.\n\n Hase, Dr., 281.\n\n Hengstenberg, 74, 100, 372, 471, 472.\n\n Hessey, 345, 362, 388, 435, 436, 440, 442, 444, 445, 460, 464, 485.\n\n Heylyn, 265, 266, 275, 276, 280, 285, 352, 353, 354, 363, 364, 366,\n 370, 371, 374, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 385, 388, 394, 420,\n 433, 434, 442, 474, 476, 483, 485.\n\n Hope of Israel, 502.\n\n Hoveden, Roger de, 385-388, 391-393.\n\n Hudson, 239.\n\n\n Ignatius, 211, 231, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 288, 292, 293, 324-326.\n\n Iren\u00e6us, 216, 218, 271, 273, 274, 284, 295, 304, 305, 309, 310, 313.\n\n\n James, William, 280, 360.\n\n Jennings, 260.\n\n Jerome, 364.\n\n Jones, 404, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 415, 418, 419.\n\n Jortin, 347, 362, 404.\n\n Josephus, 27, 34, 110, 112, 133, 136.\n\n Justin Martyr, 212, 218, 263, 267, 270, 271, 284, 289, 296, 297, 301,\n 302, 303, 304, 316, 317, 318.\n\n\n Killen, Dr., 233, 238, 239.\n\n King, Lord, 281.\n\n Kitto, 181, 222, 233, 234, 240, 241, 363.\n\n Knox, 440, 443, 444.\n\n\n Lactantius, 314.\n\n Lange, 19.\n\n Lamy, 463.\n\n Lardner, 367.\n\n Lempriere, 416.\n\n Leo, Pope, 366.\n\n Lewis, A. H., 485, 488, 497, 499.\n\n Ley, John, 361.\n\n Liddell and Scott, 512.\n\n Life of Luther in Pictures, 457.\n\n Lucius, 247, 350.\n\n Luther, 17, 434, 447-459.\n\n\n Maclaine, 449, 451, 452, 455, 456.\n\n Magdeburg Centuriators, 350.\n\n Marsh, 348.\n\n Marsh, Joseph, 135.\n\n Mather, Cotton, 100, 478.\n\n Massie, 427, 428.\n\n Maxson, W. B., 424, 467, 469.\n\n M\u2019Clintock and Strong, 228, 251, 260, 351, 391, 399, 400, 401, 424,\n 425, 441, 443, 444, 448, 454, 458, 460.\n\n Melancthon, 434.\n\n Melito, 215, 216.\n\n Memorial, S. D. B., 465, 493-496, 499.\n\n Metaphrastes, 350.\n\n Miller, Wm., 45, 87, 135.\n\n Milman, 346, 347.\n\n Milner, 233, 266.\n\n Milton, 511.\n\n Modern Sabbath Examined, Anonymous, 197, 340, 344, 345, 442.\n\n Monks of the West, 402.\n\n Morality of the Fourth Commandment, Anon., 14, 15.\n\n Morer, 139, 189, 241, 262, 263, 333, 338, 339, 344, 362, 364, 365,\n 366, 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383,\n 384, 385, 388, 393-397, 442.\n\n Mosheim, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 242, 249, 264, 265, 326,\n 334, 335, 343, 347, 388, 389, 417, 418, 449, 451, 452, 455,\n 456, 463, 466.\n\n Morton, J. W., 176.\n\n Murdock, 465, 466.\n\n\n Neale, 474, 487, 488.\n\n Neander, 198, 230, 231, 233, 242, 243, 274, 280.\n\n New York _Independent_, 500.\n\n New York _Tribune_, 500.\n\n Nicephorus, 351.\n\n Nicetas, 421.\n\n _North British Review_, 259, 260, 261.\n\n Novatian, 311, 312, 314.\n\n\n Origen, 225, 291, 295, 307, 313, 314, 323, 324, 325.\n\n Origin of Septenary Institutions, Anonymous, 442.\n\n\n Pagitt, 200, 201, 480-483.\n\n Paragraph Bible, 189.\n\n Paris, Matthew, 388, 389.\n\n Perrone, 477, 478.\n\n Peter of Alexandria, 287, 292.\n\n Philalethes, Iren\u00e6us, 375.\n\n Philo, 27, 320, 321, 322.\n\n Pinkerton, 465.\n\n Plato, 219, 290.\n\n Pliny, 211, 231, 235, 236, 237, 242, 243.\n\n Poem on Genesis, 315.\n\n Preble, T. M., 501, 502.\n\n Priestly, 446.\n\n Prynne, William, 151, 181, 360, 361.\n\n Purchas, 10, 425, 431, 432.\n\n\n Records of First Baptist church in Newport, 496.\n\n Reeves, Wm., 201, 267.\n\n Robinson, Robert, 197, 239, 240, 408, 409, 410, 411, 417, 441, 460,\n 461-463.\n\n Ruinart, 247-251, 257.\n\n Rupp, 499.\n\n\n Saccho, Rainer, 403, 404.\n\n Samaritan Pentateuch, 14.\n\n Sawyer\u2019s Translation, 177, 180.\n\n Schaff, 281.\n\n Schrevelius, 512.\n\n Sears, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 457.\n\n Septuagint, 14.\n\n Shimeall, 9, 369.\n\n Socrates, 227, 228, 330, 367.\n\n Sozomen, 227, 367.\n\n Spirit of Popery, 269.\n\n Sprint, 480.\n\n Stebbing, 423.\n\n Stennet, 495.\n\n Stockwood, 480.\n\n Stuart, Prof., 233, 360.\n\n Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, 349.\n\n Swiss Confession, 434.\n\n Syriac Documents, 288, 289, 293.\n\n Syriac Bible, 14.\n\n Syriac Testament, 177.\n\n\n Taylor, D. T., 9.\n\n Taylor, Jer., 269, 270, 337, 343.\n\n Taylor, W. B., 192, 203, 236, 237.\n\n Tertullian, 222, 223, 224, 236, 263, 264, 276, 277, 278, 279, 285,\n 286, 287, 290, 295, 296, 298, 299, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311,\n 313, 315, 316, 322, 362.\n\n Theophilus, 212, 310.\n\n Thomas, 410.\n\n Treatise of Thirty Controversies, Anonymous, 203.\n\n Twisse, 17, 24, 247, 333, 334, 374, 400, 442.\n\n Tyndale, 435.\n\n\n Usher, 410, 411.\n\n Utter, G. B., 467, 468, 483, 484, 486, 490, 491, 496, 499.\n\n\n Van Braght, 468.\n\n Verstegan, 259, 260.\n\n Victorinus, 307, 308, 329.\n\n\n Waddington, 403, 404.\n\n Wall, 468.\n\n Webster, 15, 259, 260, 347.\n\n West, Francis, 374.\n\n _Westminster Review_, 444, 445.\n\n White, Dr. Francis, 339, 340, 365, 371, 372, 419, 423, 456, 457,\n 484-486.\n\n Whiting\u2019s Translation, 180.\n\n Wilkins, 388.\n\n Wood, 488.\n\n Worcester, 15, 259, 260.\n\n Wycliffe\u2019s Translation, 10.\n\n\n Xavier, 429.\n\n\n Yeates, 429.\n\n\n Zonaras, 287.\n\n Zwingle, 431, 435, 436.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SCRIPTURES.\n\n\n Pages\n\n GENESIS.\n\n 1:, 11, 47, 107\n\n 1:1, 10\n\n 1:1-13, 11\n\n 1:14-23, 12\n\n 1:1, 26, 22, 119\n\n 1:24-31, 13\n\n 1:28, 17\n\n 2:, 47, 34\n\n 2:1-3, 7, 21-23, 122\n\n 2:1-3, 14, 15, 19, 25, 36, 41, 119, 126, 140, 144, 191, 299, 489\n\n 2:7-9, 13\n\n 2:15, 17\n\n 2:18-22, 13\n\n 3:, 28, 34\n\n 3:19, 324\n\n 3:20, 13\n\n 4:, 34\n\n 5:, 34\n\n 5:24, 15, 29\n\n 6:, 34\n\n 6:9, 29\n\n 7:, 34\n\n 7:4, 10, 31, 40\n\n 8:10, 12, 31, 40\n\n 9:1-4, 58, 170\n\n 9:5, 7, 29\n\n 10:25, 34\n\n 11:1-9, 36, 166\n\n 11:10-16, 34\n\n 12:1-3, 35\n\n 15:, 36\n\n 17:, 42\n\n 17:7, 8, 56\n\n 17:9-14, 35\n\n 18:19, 32, 35\n\n 26:5, 29, 32, 36\n\n 26:24, 56\n\n 28:13, 56\n\n 29:27, 28, 31, 40\n\n 34: 42, 170\n\n 34:14, 35\n\n 50:10, 31, 40\n\n\n EXODUS.\n\n 1:, 36\n\n 2:, 36\n\n 2:23-25, 49\n\n 3:, 36\n\n 3:6, 7, 49\n\n 3:6, 13-16, 18, 56\n\n 4:, 36, 42\n\n 4:31, 49\n\n 5:, 36\n\n 5:3, 56\n\n 7:25, 31, 40\n\n 12:, 41, 70, 78, 83\n\n 12:15, 16, 84, 88\n\n 12:25, 70, 86\n\n 12:29-42, 36\n\n 12:41, 42, 107\n\n 12:43, 44, 42\n\n 12:43-48, 52\n\n 12:48, 49, 102\n\n 13:, 78\n\n 13:2, 55\n\n 16:, 24, 41, 67\n\n 16:4-30, 36-39, 185\n\n 16:22, 23, 21, 24, 31, 70, 94, 123, 189, 191\n\n 16:22, 35, 40\n\n 16:29, 100, 307\n\n 18:16, 36\n\n 19:, 44, 45, 67, 75, 76, 162\n\n 19:3-8, 37\n\n 19:5, 6, 166\n\n 19:12, 23, 18, 55\n\n 20:, 44, 51, 76, 81, 140, 162, 184\n\n 20:1-17, 45\n\n 20:2, 37\n\n 20:8-11, 14, 20, 24, 25, 37, 40, 52, 77, 81, 88, 126, 191, 380\n\n 20:18-21, 53, 67\n\n 20-24:, 51\n\n 23:10, 11, 85\n\n 23:12, 51, 69, 123\n\n 23:14-17, 72\n\n 24:, 75\n\n 24:3-8, 37, 52, 67\n\n 24:3-13, 53\n\n 24:10, 37, 45\n\n 24:12, 62, 162\n\n 24:16, 52\n\n 24:12-18, 53\n\n 24:21-23, 53\n\n 25-31:, 53\n\n 25:1-21, 62, 160\n\n 25:21, 22, 161\n\n 29:9, 70\n\n 31:12-18, 54\n\n 31:13, 88\n\n 31:16, 70\n\n 31:17, 14, 43, 47, 305\n\n 31:18, 162\n\n 32:, 64, 65, 67\n\n 32-34:, 44, 59\n\n 34:1, 60, 79\n\n 34:10-28, 60\n\n 34:15, 16, 170\n\n 34:21, 59\n\n 34:28, 45, 60, 80\n\n 35:1-3, 67, 71\n\n\n LEVITICUS.\n\n 3:17, 58, 70, 170\n\n 8:30, 15\n\n 11:45, 56\n\n 16:, 160, 162\n\n 16:29-31, 85\n\n 17:13, 14, 170\n\n 19:1-3, 30, 71\n\n 19:29, 170\n\n 20:9, 10, 58\n\n 22:6, 7, 108\n\n 22:32, 33, 36, 45\n\n 23:, 72, 185\n\n 23:3, 42, 71, 307\n\n 23:7, 8, 84\n\n 23:10-21, 83, 84\n\n 23:24, 25, 85, 88\n\n 23:32, 88, 107, 148\n\n 23:27-32, 85\n\n 23:34-43, 84\n\n 23:37, 38, 89, 140\n\n 23:39, 85, 88\n\n 24:5-9, 68, 70, 97, 120\n\n 24:15-17, 58\n\n 25:2-7, 85\n\n 25:8-54, 86\n\n 26:1, 2, 72\n\n 26:34, 35, 43, 86\n\n\n NUMBERS.\n\n 9:, 70\n\n 10:10, 84\n\n 11, 21:, 67\n\n 13, 14:, 72\n\n 14:, 64, 65, 67\n\n 14:35, 73\n\n 15:41, 36, 45\n\n 15:30, 36, 73, 74\n\n 19:21, 70\n\n 23:9, 35\n\n 25:2, 170\n\n 28:9, 10, 68, 120\n\n 28:11-15, 84\n\n 28:17, 18, 25, 84\n\n 28:26-31, 83, 84\n\n 29:1-7, 85\n\n\n DEUTERONOMY.\n\n 1:, 76\n\n 4:12, 13, 61, 79\n\n 4:20, 36\n\n 5:, 81\n\n 5:1-3, 75\n\n 5:4-22, 45\n\n 5:14, 37, 52\n\n 5:12-15, 76, 81\n\n 5:22, 46, 61, 70, 80\n\n 6:1, 70\n\n 7:, 70\n\n 7:6, 45\n\n 9:, 59\n\n 9:10, 80\n\n 9:24, 67\n\n 10:, 162\n\n 10:1-5, 45, 60, 62, 79, 80, 139, 160\n\n 13:6-18, 58\n\n 14:2, 45\n\n 16:, 70\n\n 16:6, 108\n\n 16:9-12, 83\n\n 16:13-15, 84\n\n 16:16, 90, 135\n\n 17:2-7, 58\n\n 23:2, 108\n\n 24:13, 15, 108\n\n 24:17,18, 78\n\n 28:64, 102\n\n 31:24-26, 139\n\n 32:7, 8, 34\n\n 32:16-35, 104\n\n 33:2, 44, 62, 380\n\n 33:27, 28, 35\n\n\n JOSHUA.\n\n 5:, 70\n\n 5:2-8, 64\n\n 6:, 95\n\n 5:12, 40, 67\n\n 6:15, 96\n\n 8:29, 108\n\n 10:12-14, 96\n\n 10:26, 27, 108\n\n 20:7, 17\n\n 24:2, 14, 23, 35, 64\n\n\n JUDGES.\n\n 5:5, 44\n\n 14:18, 108\n\n\n 1 SAMUEL.\n\n 15:29, 9\n\n 19:11, 181\n\n 20:5, 24, 27, 84\n\n 21:1-6, 97\n\n 26:7, 8, 107\n\n\n 2 SAMUEL.\n\n 3:35, 108\n\n 7:23, 45\n\n 24:1, 60\n\n\n 1 KINGS.\n\n 8:2, 65, 30\n\n 8:9, 160\n\n 8:53, 45\n\n\n 2 KINGS.\n\n 4:23, 93, 100\n\n 10:20, 21, 18\n\n 11:5-9, 100, 148\n\n 16:18, 101\n\n 23:5, 262\n\n\n 1 CHRONICLES.\n\n 9:1-32, 93\n\n 9:25, 148\n\n 9:32, 94, 97, 99, 120\n\n 21:1, 60\n\n 23:31, 99\n\n\n 2 CHRONICLES.\n\n 2:4, 99\n\n 5:3, 30\n\n 7:8, 9, 30\n\n 7:12, 90\n\n 8:13, 72, 99\n\n 18:34, 108\n\n 20:7, 35\n\n 23:4-8, 100\n\n 31:3, 99\n\n 36:16-20, 105\n\n 36:21, 86\n\n\n EZRA.\n\n 3:1-6, 30\n\n\n NEHEMIAH.\n\n 8:, 84\n\n 8:2, 9-12, 14-18, 30\n\n 9:6-13, 44\n\n 9:7, 8, 35\n\n 9:13, 14, 37, 49, 106\n\n 9:38, 106\n\n 10:1-31, 106\n\n 10:31, 33, 99, 107\n\n 13:15-22, 91, 103, 108, 126\n\n 13:19, 108\n\n\n ESTHER.\n\n 2:14, 181\n\n\n JOB.\n\n 2:13, 31, 40\n\n 14:12, 22\n\n 31:26, 260\n\n 37:18, 11\n\n 38:7, 13\n\n 38:22, 23, 58\n\n\n PSALMS.\n\n 2:7-9, 511\n\n 6:, 292, 293, 325, 326\n\n 8:[title], 186\n\n 12:[title], 292, 293, 325, 326\n\n 19:7, 163\n\n 33:9, 26\n\n 37:9-11, 18-22, 34, 511\n\n 40:, 163\n\n 40:6-8, 162\n\n 68:17, 44, 62\n\n 78:106, 67\n\n 81:3, 84\n\n 90:2, 9, 36\n\n 90:4, 299\n\n 92:, 100\n\n 95:, 64\n\n 105:43-45, 36\n\n 116:15, 490\n\n 118:22-24, 155\n\n 119:91, 12\n\n 119:142, 151, 145, 400\n\n 122:, 90\n\n 136:6, 11\n\n 147:, 69\n\n 147:16-19, 68\n\n 147:19, 20, 45\n\n\n ISAIAH.\n\n 1:13, 14, 89, 299, 306\n\n 8:18, 57\n\n 14:1, 102\n\n 28:17, 58\n\n 29:13, 397\n\n 40:28, 14\n\n 41:8, 35\n\n 41:17, 45\n\n 42:21, 123\n\n 45:3, 56\n\n 53:, 138\n\n 56:, 52, 91, 126\n\n 56:2, 306\n\n 56:1-8, 89, 101\n\n 58:13, 14, 28, 69, 88, 89, 103, 123, 126, 192, 306\n\n 57:15, 9\n\n 65:, 511\n\n 65:16, 145\n\n 66:22, 23, 100, 141, 305, 512\n\n\n JEREMIAH.\n\n 3:14, 37\n\n 7:23-28, 103\n\n 10:10-12, 9, 26, 43\n\n 11:16, 165\n\n 17:19-27, 91, 104, 126\n\n 26:14, 15, 490\n\n 31:32, 37\n\n 31:33, 163, 309\n\n 31:31-34, 159\n\n 33:25, 12\n\n 36:22, 69\n\n 43:13, 262\n\n\n LAMENTATIONS.\n\n 1:7, 88, 90\n\n 2:5-7, 90\n\n\n EZEKIEL.\n\n 20:, 54, 64, 74, 126\n\n 20:5, 49\n\n 20:12, 43\n\n 20:13, 64\n\n 20:12-24, 65, 72, 73, 104, 305\n\n 21:19-22, 347\n\n 22:7, 8, 26, 104\n\n 23:38, 39, 104, 105\n\n 23:48, 109\n\n 40-48:, 105\n\n 43:7-11, 105\n\n 44:24, 105\n\n 45:17, 99, 105\n\n 46:1, 100, 106, 143, 175\n\n 46:1, 3, 4, 12, 105\n\n\n DANIEL.\n\n 7:, 369, 511\n\n 7:18, 27, 305, 369\n\n 7:25, 501\n\n 8:12, 400\n\n 8:13-16, 62, 107\n\n 9:24-27, 115, 132, 138, 159\n\n\n HOSEA.\n\n 2:11, 87, 88, 90\n\n 6:6, 121\n\n\n JOEL.\n\n 1:14, 18\n\n 2:15, 18\n\n\n AMOS.\n\n 3:1, 2 45\n\n 5:25-27, 64\n\n 8:4-6, 100, 101\n\n\n MICAH.\n\n 5:2, 9\n\n\n ZEPHANIAH.\n\n 1:7, 18\n\n 3:3, 181\n\n\n MALACHI.\n\n 4:1-3, 511\n\n\n 2 ESDRAS.\n\n 6:38, 10\n\n\n ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\n 49:16, 32\n\n\n 1 MACCABEES.\n\n 1:41-43, 110\n\n 2:29-38, 110\n\n 2:41, 110\n\n 9:43-49, 112\n\n 13:22, 69\n\n\n 2 MACCABEES.\n\n 5:25, 26, 111\n\n 6:11, 111\n\n 7:28, 10\n\n 8:23-28, 112\n\n 15:, 112\n\n\n MATTHEW.\n\n 5-7:, 310\n\n 5:17-19, 123, 126, 140, 141, 159, 160, 315\n\n 7:12, 126\n\n 8:5-15, 117\n\n 8:11, 103\n\n 8:16, 108\n\n 12:1-8, 118\n\n 12:3, 4, 97\n\n 12:9-14, 69, 124\n\n 15:9, 397\n\n 17:1, 148\n\n 19:3-9, 122\n\n 19:17, 126\n\n 19:26, 145\n\n 23:23, 131\n\n 24:15-21, 69, 132, 135, 138\n\n 24:37-39, 34\n\n 26:, 180\n\n 27:, 138\n\n 28:, 438\n\n 28:1, 49, 142\n\n 28:19, 20, 159\n\n\n MARK.\n\n 1:14, 15, 115\n\n 1:21, 42\n\n 1:21-31, 117\n\n 1:32-34, 108, 118\n\n 2:23-28, 118\n\n 2:25, 26, 97\n\n 2:27, 28, 22, 48, 69, 118, 121, 140, 192\n\n 3:1-6, 124\n\n 6:1-6, 125\n\n 13:18, 69\n\n 14:30, 107\n\n 16:, 438\n\n 16:1, 2, 9, 49, 143\n\n 16:14, 145\n\n 16:15, 159\n\n\n LUKE.\n\n 2:8-11, 107\n\n 2:34, 57\n\n 4:14-16, 42, 116\n\n 4:30-39, 117\n\n 4:40, 108, 118\n\n 6:1-5, 97, 118\n\n 6:6-11, 124\n\n 9:28, 148\n\n 13:10-17, 130\n\n 14:1-6, 69, 131\n\n 16:17, 126\n\n 17:26, 27, 34\n\n 21:20, 132\n\n 21:24, 102\n\n 21:28, 152\n\n 22:34, 107\n\n 23:46-53, 141\n\n 23:54-56, 48, 141, 143, 182\n\n 24:, 145, 148\n\n 24:1, 48, 143, 182, 438\n\n 24:49-53, 150\n\n\n JOHN.\n\n 1:1-3, 22, 119\n\n 1:1-10, 115\n\n 5:1-18, 126\n\n 5:19, 127\n\n 7:2-14, 37, 30\n\n 7:21-23, 42, 127\n\n 8:1-9, 58\n\n 8:56, 156\n\n 9:1-16, 129\n\n 17:5, 24, 115\n\n 18:18, 69\n\n 19:38-42, 141\n\n 20:, 438\n\n 20:1, 19, 143, 145\n\n 20:26, 147\n\n 21:, 147\n\n 21:20-23, 201\n\n 21:25, 190\n\n\n ACTS.\n\n 1:, 150\n\n 1:3, 147\n\n 1:12, 42\n\n 2:1, 2, 149, 438\n\n 2:1-11, 166, 185\n\n 2:1-18, 83\n\n 2:42-46, 180\n\n 7:38, 53, 59\n\n 7:41-43, 64\n\n 8:26-40, 424\n\n 9-11:, 159\n\n 10:28, 35\n\n 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35, 175\n\n 11:2, 3, 35\n\n 13:5, 172\n\n 13:14, 27, 167\n\n 13:42-44, 168, 175\n\n 14:1, 172, 175\n\n 14:16, 17, 35\n\n 15:, 58, 169, 170\n\n 15:10, 28, 29, 170, 171\n\n 15:21, 42\n\n 16:11, 178\n\n 16:13-15, 172, 175\n\n 17:1-4, 173\n\n 17:4, 10-12, 175\n\n 17:10, 17, 172\n\n 17: 26, 34, 48\n\n 17:29, 30, 35\n\n 18:3, 4, 174\n\n 18:19, 172\n\n 19:8, 172\n\n 20:6-13, 151, 178, 179, 203, 438, 439\n\n 20:29, 30, 192\n\n 21:25, 170\n\n 23:31, 32, 181\n\n 26:12-17, 159\n\n\n ROMANS.\n\n 1:18-32, 26, 35, 146\n\n 2-4:, 45\n\n 2:17, 185\n\n 3:, 184\n\n 3:1, 2, 45\n\n 3:19, 31, 141, 161, 162, 164, 165\n\n 4:1, 185\n\n 4:13-17, 35, 160, 165\n\n 5:, 163\n\n 5:8-12, 28, 161\n\n 6:3-5, 154\n\n 6:23, 58\n\n 7:1, 185\n\n 7:12, 13, 167, 184\n\n 7:21-25, 309\n\n 8:1-7, 309\n\n 8:3, 4, 161, 163\n\n 8:23, 152\n\n 9:4, 5, 45\n\n 11:13, 159\n\n 11:17-24, 165\n\n 13:8-10, 161\n\n 14:, 186\n\n 14:1-6, 183\n\n\n 1 CORINTHIANS.\n\n 5:6-8, 83, 334\n\n 10:13, 22\n\n 11:9, 122\n\n 11:23-26, 153, 159, 180\n\n 15:27, 186\n\n 16:1, 2, 175, 203, 439\n\n\n 2 CORINTHIANS.\n\n 3:3, 163\n\n 8:14, 15, 40\n\n\n GALATIANS.\n\n 3:7-9, 165\n\n 3:13, 14, 152, 161\n\n 3:17, 36\n\n 3:19, 59\n\n 4:4, 5, 115, 126\n\n 4:8-11, 186\n\n\n EPHESIANS.\n\n 1:7, 152\n\n 1:13, 14, 152\n\n 1:20-23, 156\n\n 2:12, 102\n\n 2:11-22, 35, 156, 159\n\n 4:30, 152\n\n 6:2, 3, 161\n\n\n COLOSSIANS.\n\n 1:13-16, 22\n\n 2:, 185\n\n 2:12, 154\n\n 2:14-17, 87, 138, 159\n\n\n 1 THESSALONIANS.\n\n 1:7, 8, 174\n\n 2:14, 173\n\n 5:16, 156\n\n\n 2 THESSALONIANS.\n\n 2:3, 4, 7, 8, 195, 369\n\n 3:10, 324\n\n\n 1 TIMOTHY.\n\n 1:17, 9\n\n 6:16, 9\n\n\n 2 TIMOTHY.\n\n 3:16, 17, 202\n\n 4:2-4, 195\n\n\n TITUS.\n\n 1:2, 145\n\n\n HEBREWS.\n\n 1:, 11, 115\n\n 2:2, 59\n\n 2:13, 57\n\n 3:4, 26\n\n 3:16, 67\n\n 4:9, 323, 512\n\n 7-10, 141, 160, 162, 163\n\n 8:1-5, 160\n\n 8:8-12, 159\n\n 9:, 163\n\n 9:1-7, 160\n\n 9:10, 28\n\n 9:18-20, 52\n\n 9:23, 24, 160\n\n 9:27, 22\n\n 9:28, 102\n\n 11:3, 11, 26\n\n 11:4-7, 34\n\n 11:8-16, 103\n\n\n JAMES.\n\n 1:25, 163\n\n 2:8-12, 141, 161, 167, 170, 184\n\n 2:23, 35\n\n\n 1 PETER.\n\n 1:1, 237\n\n 1:9, 102\n\n 2:4-7, 156\n\n 2:9, 10, 166\n\n 3:6, 130\n\n 3:20, 34\n\n\n 2 PETER.\n\n 2:, 195\n\n 2:5, 34\n\n 3:, 511\n\n 3:5, 6, 11, 34\n\n\n 1 JOHN.\n\n 2:1, 2, 165\n\n 2:18, 195\n\n 3:4, 5, 63, 160, 161, 162, 165, 184\n\n\n JUDE.\n\n 4, 195\n\n 14, 15\n\n\n REVELATION.\n\n 1:10, 186, 187, 192, 203, 206, 439\n\n 4:10, 11, 510\n\n 5:9, 152\n\n 7:9-14, 84\n\n 11:19, 160\n\n 12:, 370\n\n 12:6, 14, 404, 405\n\n 13:1-5, 369\n\n 16:17-21, 58\n\n 21, 22:, 103, 511\n\n 22:1, 2, 512\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\n\n Abyssinians, pp. 424-427\n\n Adam, his influence upon the patriarchs, 3, 31, 32\n\n Adam must have heard the Creator when he set apart the seventh day,\n 16-19\n\n \u201cAfter eight days,\u201d John 20, 147-149\n\n Anabaptists, 422, 423\n\n Analysis of Exodus 16, 39-44\n\n Annual sabbaths enumerated, 84, 85\n\n Apostasies, the two great patriarchal, 33-35\n\n Apostasy in the early church, 193-203\n\n Apostasy, progress of, 324, 329-331, 361, 362\n\n Ark in the heavenly temple contains the law, 161-163\n\n Armenians of the East Indies, 427-432\n\n Article, the, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122\n\n Atonement, day of, no mention of its observance, 30, 86\n\n Atonement, the, relates to the decalogue, 62-64\n\n Atonement, the, relates to the fourth commandment, 62-64\n\n\n Bampfield, Francis, sufferings of, 487, 488\n\n Barnabas, epistle of, 231-235\n\n Barnabas thought the Sabbath too pure for this wicked world, 299-301\n\n Bohemian Sabbath-keepers, 463, 464\n\n Bound, Dr., theory of, concerning the Sabbath, 472-475\n\n\n Calvin caused Servetus to be arrested on Sunday, 440, 441\n\n Calvin\u2019s doctrine and practice concerning Sunday, 436-443\n\n Calvin\u2019s interpretation of first-day texts, 438-440\n\n Calvin\u2019s view of the one-day-in-seven theory, 437\n\n Carlstadt\u2019s faults, extent of, 448, 449, 453, 454\n\n Carlstadt a Sabbatarian, 456, 457\n\n Cathari, 415-417\n\n Causes which made the Sunday usurpation a success, 329-331\n\n Change of the Sabbath not taught in Ps. 118, 155-157\n\n Change of the Sabbath not recorded lest it make the Bible too large,\n 190\n\n Change of the Sabbath unheard of in the first centuries, 204-206,\n 283-293\n\n Christian Sabbath, Origen thus calls the seventh day, 323, 324\n\n Christ\u2019s teaching with respect to the Sabbath, 115-138\n\n Christ in the field of corn, 118-124\n\n Christ\u2019s work on the Sabbath like that of the Father, 126, 127\n\n Chrysostom and Jerome on Sunday labor, 363, 364\n\n Clement\u2019s numbering of the days explained out of Philo, 318-327\n\n Clement on the Lord\u2019s day, 219-222\n\n Climate of Palestine, 69\n\n Col. 2:14-17, exposition of, 138-141\n\n Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper, 401-403\n\n Constantine\u2019s Sunday law, 343-349, 353\n\n Contrast between the origin of the Sabbath and Sunday, 332, 333, 352,\n 353\n\n Councils of the church, character of, 362, 363\n\n Covenant not made with their fathers, 75\n\n Creation, six days of, 9-13\n\n Creation, nature of, 9, 10\n\n Culdees of Great Britain, 400-403\n\n\n Danish and Norwegian Sabbath-keepers, 505, 509\n\n Dark Ages defined, 398, 399\n\n Days, names of, 16\n\n Days, how many, different ones, 16\n\n Decalogue, a complete moral code, 61, 62\n\n Decalogue, perpetuity of in the fathers, 309-312\n\n Deluge, why sent, 33-35\n\n Destruction of Jerusalem caused by Sabbath-breaking, 103-108\n\n Dionysius on the Lord\u2019s day, 214, 215\n\n _Dominicum_ defined, 246-248, 255-257\n\n _Dominicum servasti?_, 244-258\n\n Dutch Sabbath-keepers, 467, 468\n\n\n English Sabbath-keepers, 467, 469, 470, 479-492, 500\n\n Entrance of Sunday into the early church, 261-266\n\n Error not changed into truth by age, 195, 196\n\n Eternity, 9\n\n Eusebius author of the doctrine that Christ changed the Sabbath,\n 355-359\n\n \u201cEvery day\u201d may include simply the six working days, 185\n\n Every man fully persuaded in his own mind, 183-186\n\n\n Famous falsehood examined, 243-258\n\n Fathers, authority of, 199-201\n\n Festivals of the church enumerated, 433, 434\n\n Festivals of the Hebrews enumerated, 82, 83\n\n Fires on the Sabbath forbidden, nature of the statute, 67-71\n\n Firmament defined, 11\n\n First-day history and papal history compared, 213, 282, 283\n\n First-day observance in the exact words of the fathers, 283-289\n\n First mention of the Sabbath after Moses, 99\n\n Flight of disciples not to be on the Sabbath day, 132-138\n\n Fourth commandment expounded, 46-50\n\n Fourth commandment in the New Testament, 141, 142\n\n Fraud in the Bible Dict. of the Tract Society, 211, 212\n\n Frauds in Justin Edwards, 212, 213, 216, 217, 244, 245\n\n Fraudulent testimonials to the Sunday Lord\u2019s day, 211-219\n\n French Sabbath-keepers, 468\n\n Frith, the martyr, judgment on the Sabbath, 459, 460\n\n\n Genesis, bearing of upon the Sabbath, 28-30\n\n Gentiles admitted into the commonwealth of Israel, 159, 160\n\n Gentiles blessed for observing the Sabbath, 101, 102\n\n German Sabbath-keepers, 467, 499, 500, 509\n\n Gilfillan\u2019s inexcusable fraud, 250-258\n\n Globe, our, the Sabbath on, 48\n\n Gregory VII., A. D. 1074, condemns Sabbath-keepers, 420\n\n\n Hallowed identical with sanctified, 17\n\n Hebrews, how God favored them, 44, 45\n\n Hebrews, why made the depositaries of the truth, 33-37, 46, 55, 56\n\n Honors pertaining to the Sabbath law, 61\n\n Hungarian Sabbath-keepers, 500\n\n Hypsistarii, 339, 340\n\n\n Ignatius never uses the term Lord\u2019s day, 211\n\n Ignatius, epistles of, 237-242\n\n Illustration of the alleged sanctification of the seventh day in the\n wilderness, 24\n\n Iren\u00e6us mentions no Lord\u2019s day, 216-218, 271-274\n\n Iren\u00e6us falsely quoted, 271-274\n\n\n Jericho, Sabbath not violated at taking of, 95, 96\n\n Jews, eminent, on the origin of the Sabbath, 26, 27\n\n Jubilee, no record of its observance in the Bible, 30, 86\n\n Justin Edwards\u2019 Sunday Sabbath, B. C. 63, 112\n\n Justin Martyr on Sunday, 267-270\n\n Justin Martyr a no-Sabbath man, 270, 271\n\n Justin Martyr mentions no Lord\u2019s day, 212\n\n\n Knox and the Scotch of the sixteenth century, 443-445\n\n\n Laodicea, Council of, curses Sabbath-keepers, 360, 361\n\n Laying by in store on first-day, 175-178\n\n Lord\u2019s day of John, 187, 192\n\n Lord\u2019s day first applied to Sunday, 222-224\n\n Lord\u2019s Supper the ground of controversy between Luther and Carlstadt,\n 451-453\n\n Luther and Carlstadt, 446-459\n\n Luther might have profited greatly by Carlstadt, 457-459\n\n Luther on Gen. 2:3, 17\n\n\n Man, meaning of, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122\n\n Manna, falling of, not the occasion of the Sabbath, 38, 39\n\n Martyrdom of John James, 489-491\n\n Melito of Sardis, 215, 216\n\n Miracles and judgments in support of Sunday, 374, 378, 379, 392, 393\n\n Miracles pertaining to the Sabbath in the wilderness, 40\n\n Modern historians on Sabbath in the early church, 333-338, 341\n\n Moral obligation of the Sabbath, 50\n\n Morrow defined, 181\n\n Moses rehearses the law, 74-79\n\n Moses in the Mount, 51-61\n\n Mosheim and Neander, 229, 230, 242, 243\n\n Mount Sinai at the giving of the law, 44-46\n\n Mystical Lord\u2019s day, 219-222, 224, 226\n\n\n Nazarenes, 338, 339\n\n Nehemiah\u2019s Sabbath reform, 106-109\n\n New Covenant has a temple and an ark, 160\n\n\n Offerings for the dead as ancient as the Sunday-Lord\u2019s day, 223, 224\n\n Olive tree, the good, 165, 166\n\n Omissions, remarkable, 30\n\n Oracles of God preserved by the Hebrews, 158, 159\n\n Origen on Lord\u2019s day, 225, 226, 291\n\n Other readings of Gen. 2:2, 14\n\n\n Pal\u00e6ologus, 462, 463\n\n Papal usurpation began with reference to Sunday, 274, 275\n\n Patriarchal age, its great light, 31-34\n\n Passaginians, 415-418\n\n Passover festival defined, 83\n\n Penalty of the law, 58\n\n Pentecost, day of, Acts 2:1, 149-151\n\n Petrobrusians, 418-420\n\n Pentecost defined, 83\n\n Perpetual statute for their generations, a parallel precept, 58\n\n Perpetuity and observance of the Sabbath in the fathers, 315-329\n\n Pliny, epistle of, 211, 235-237\n\n Pope Innocent III. responsible for the roll from heaven, 388-391\n\n Precepts given to Israel classified, 51\n\n Presbyterians and Episcopalians contend over Sunday, 471-477\n\n Presbyterians get Sunday into the fourth commandment, 472-476\n\n Priceless value of the Sabbath, 509, 510\n\n Prophets taught the people on the Sabbath, 100\n\n Protestant Sunday-keeping as viewed by a learned Catholic theologian,\n 477, 478\n\n\n Reasons for Sunday stated in the words of the fathers, 289-294\n\n Reasons out of the fathers for rejecting the Sabbath, 299-309\n\n Records of ancient Sabbath-keepers destroyed, 399\n\n Redemption no argument for change of Sabbath, 151-155\n\n Reformation differently viewed by Luther and Carlstadt, 451\n\n Reformers all brought something from Rome, 478\n\n Reformers, just view of, 445, 446\n\n Rest of the Creator, reason for it, 14, 15\n\n Restoration of Israel, if they keep the Sabbath, 102\n\n Resurrection of Christ did not affect the Sabbath, 142-147\n\n Roll from heaven in behalf of Sunday, 385-389\n\n Roman church turns the Sabbath into a fast, 280, 281\n\n Romanists have corrupted the fathers, 200, 201\n\n Rule of faith of the man of God, 202\n\n Rule of faith of the Romanist, 202\n\n Russian Sabbath-keepers, 464-467\n\n\n Sabbatarian principles, 480, 483, 487, 489\n\n Sabbatarians, ancient bodies of, 338-340, 354\n\n Sabbatati or Insabbatati defined, 407-411\n\n Sabbath a sign, 43, 44, 53-58\n\n \u201cSabbath between,\u201d 168\n\n Sabbath-breaking in the wilderness, effect of, 65-67\n\n Sabbath at creation in the early fathers, 312-315\n\n Sabbath defined, 20\n\n Sabbath during Dark Ages, 398-432\n\n Sabbath during the forty years, 64-74\n\n Sabbath given, meaning of the term, 42, 43\n\n Sabbath-keepers in Constantinople, A. D. 1054, 420-422\n\n Sabbath-keepers in Rome, A. D. 600, 374, 375, 400\n\n Sabbath in ancient writers means Saturday, 370, 371\n\n Sabbath in the book of Acts, 167-182\n\n Sabbath in the fourth century, 359-362\n\n Sabbath in the fifth century, 367, 368\n\n Sabbath in the prophetic Scriptures, 100-106\n\n Sabbath in the time of Maccabees, 110-112\n\n Sabbath made known, meaning of the term, 49\n\n Sabbath may be kept over the earth, 102\n\n Sabbath more ancient than circumcision, 128\n\n Sabbath not a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, 76-79\n\n Sabbath not a shadow of redemption, 27, 28\n\n Sabbath not a Jewish feast, 71, 72\n\n Sabbath not mentioned from Adam to Moses, 92-95\n\n Sabbath not mentioned from Moses to David, 92-95\n\n Sabbath, the acts by which it was made, 14-16\n\n Sabbaths, weekly and annual, their difference, 86-92\n\n Sabbath, when made, 15, 16, 20-25, 46, 47\n\n Sabbath, why instituted, 25, 26, 509, 510\n\n Sabbath in the new earth, 510-512\n\n Sanctified, the word defined, 15, 17-19\n\n Sanctification of the seventh day was at the beginning, 23-25\n\n Second tables of stone, who wrote them, 60, 61\n\n Self-contradiction of Justin Edwards, 177, 178\n\n Seventh day, event on the first of time, 13, 14\n\n Seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the week, 48, 49\n\n Seventh-day Baptists of America, 493-499\n\n Seven, signification of the number, 14, 15\n\n Seventh-day Adventists of America, 500-509\n\n Seventh-day Adventists of Switzerland, 509\n\n Shew-bread eaten by David, 97, 98\n\n Siberian Sabbath-keepers, 500\n\n Slander of heretics no sin, 418\n\n Sticks, the case of picking them up on the Sabbath, 72-74\n\n Sun and moon stand still, 96, 97\n\n Sunday a day of relief to souls in purgatory and in hell, 383, 384\n\n Sunday an ancient heathen festival, 258-264, 277, 278, 279, 341, 342,\n 345-349\n\n Sunday arguments of the Dark Ages, what became of them, 470\n\n Sunday as the sister of the Sabbath, 361, 362\n\n Sunday authoritatively established as Lord\u2019s day, 349-351\n\n Sunday at the Council of Nice, 275, 276\n\n Sunday during the Dark Ages, 362-398\n\n Sunday edicts of kings, emperors, popes and councils, 342-346, 349,\n 353, 359-361, 366, 372-398\n\n Sunday festival, origin and growth of, 223, 224, 352, 353\n\n Sunday festival defined by the reformers, 434-436\n\n Sunday, first witnesses for, 228-243\n\n Sunday, how mentioned prior to A. D. 194, 218, 219\n\n Sunday labor in the early church not sinful, 283-289, 296, 299,\n 316-322, 343-345\n\n Sunday labor in the fourth and fifth centuries, 363-366\n\n Sunday Lord\u2019s day not traceable to the apostles, 204-228\n\n Sunday on a level with other festivals in the early church, 264-266,\n 295, 296\n\n Sunday sustained only by the Romanists\u2019 rule, 202, 203, 223, 224,\n 294, 477, 478\n\n Sunday, when first called Sabbath, 370, 371\n\n Superstition of the Jews concerning the Sabbath, 113, 114\n\n\n Tabernacles, feast of, defined, 83, 84\n\n Ten commandments alone on the tables of stone, 79-81\n\n Tertullian\u2019s excuses for Sunday observance, 277, 278\n\n Tertullian on Lord\u2019s day, 222-224\n\n Tertullian\u2019s self-contradiction, 276, 277, 305-307\n\n Theophilus mentions no Lord\u2019s day, 212, 213\n\n Time defined, 9\n\n Time, great week of, 9\n\n Tradition characterized, and exemplified, 198, 201, 227, 228\n\n Tradition for the passover more apostolic than for Sunday, 227, 228\n\n Transylvanian Sabbath-keepers, 460-463\n\n Trask, Mrs., sufferings of, 481-483\n\n Troas, Paul at, 178-182\n\n True God distinguished from false gods, 25, 26\n\n Typical observances no part of the Sabbath law, 98, 99\n\n Time to commence the Sabbath, 107, 108\n\n\n Unfairness of anti-Sabbatarians, 131, 132\n\n\n Waldenses, 403-415\n\n Weeks, how and when made, 16, 30, 31\n\n Wilderness of sin, record of, how connecting Gen. 2:1-3, and Ex.\n 20:8-11, 46, 47\n\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\n Page 141, chapter xix., in the notes, should be chapter xxvii.\n \u201d 255, \u201cand,\u201d in the Latin notes, should be \u201c&.\u201d\n \u201d 295, \u201cexaltation.\u201d in line 16, should be \u201cexultation.\u201d\n \u201d 505, for \u201c$70,000,\u201d read $82,000,\u2014Auditor\u2019s later report.\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note: The errata have been corrected.\n\n\n\n\nCatalogue of Publications\n\n\nFor sale at the Office of the Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich., and\nat the Pacific Press, Oakland, California.\n\n\nPERIODICALS.\n\nTHE ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD. A sixteen-page Religious Family\nNewspaper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times,\nSecond Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, What we must\nDo to be Saved, and other Bible questions. $2.00 a year.\n\nGOOD HEALTH. A monthly journal of hygiene, devoted to Physical, Mental,\nand Moral Culture. $1.00 a year.\n\nTHE YOUTH\u2019S INSTRUCTOR. A four-page illustrated weekly for the\nSabbath-school and the family. 75 cts. a year.\n\nTHE ADVENT TIDENDE. A Danish semi-monthly, sixteen pages, magazine form,\ndevoted to expositions of prophecy, the signs of the times, and practical\nreligion. $1.00 a year.\n\nADVENT HAROLDEN. A Swedish monthly, of the same size, and devoted to the\nsame topics, as the _Advent Tidende_. 75 cts. a year.\n\nSTIMME DER WAHRHEIT. An eight-page German monthly. A religious family\nnewspaper, frequently illustrated. 50 cts. a year.\n\nTHE COLLEGE RECORD. A four-page educational monthly. 10 cts. a year.\n\n The above are published in Battle Creek, Mich. Terms always in\n advance.\n\nTHE SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A twelve-page weekly Religious Paper, devoted\nto the dissemination of light upon the same great themes treated in the\n_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_. Published in Oakland, Cal. $2.00 a\nyear.\n\nLES SIGNES DES TEMPS. A religious monthly journal in French. Published in\nB\u00e2le, Switzerland. $1.00 a year.\n\n\nBOOKS, PAMPHLETS, AND TRACTS.\n\nHISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N.\nAndrews. This work contains an outline of the history of the Sabbath for\nthe period of Six Thousand years. Part First is the Biblical history of\nthe Sabbath and of the first day of the week. Part Second is the secular\nhistory of these two days since the time of the apostles. This volume\nhas been prepared with most careful and patient study. In all cases of\nquotations from secular history, book, chapter, and page are given. And\nbook, chapter, and verse are given of all quotations from the word of God.\n\n 528 pp. $1.00\n\nTHE SANCTUARY AND 2300 DAYS OF DAN. 8:14. By Elder U. Smith. This\nquestion has developed the people known as Seventh-day Adventists, and is\nthe pivotal doctrine upon which their applications of prophecy largely\ndepend. It explains the past Advent movement, shows why those who looked\nfor the Lord in 1844 were disappointed, reveals the fact so essential to\nbe understood, that no prophetic period reaches to the second coming of\nChrist, and shows where we are, and what we are to expect in the future.\nA knowledge of this subject is indispensable to a correct application of\nthe more important prophecies pertaining to the present time.\n\n 352 pp. $1.00\n\nCondensed edition, paper,\n\n 224 pp. .30\n\nTHOUGHTS ON DANIEL, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. An\nexposition of the book of Daniel verse by verse.\n\n 400 pp. $1.00\n\nTHOUGHTS ON REVELATION, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. This\nwork presents every verse in the book of Revelation with such remarks as\nserve to illustrate or explain the meaning of the text.\n\n 400 pp. $1.00\n\nNATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By Elder U. Smith. This work, as its title\nimplies, treats upon the constitution of man, his consequent condition\nin death, and destiny beyond the resurrection. All the passages in\nthe Bible which have a bearing upon these questions are taken up and\nexplained in full, thus giving the most comprehensive view of this whole\nquestion that has yet been presented.\n\n 356 pp. $1.00\n\nLIFE SKETCHES. This work embraces sketches of the parentage, early life,\nChristian experience, and extensive labors of Elder James White, and also\nof his wife, Mrs. E. G. White.\n\n 416 pp. $1.00\n\nWith steel engraving of Elder W.,\n\n 1.25\n\nLIFE OF WILLIAM MILLER, with portrait. This work comprises sketches\nof the Christian Experience and Public Labors of this remarkable man,\ngathered from his Memoir by the late Sylvester Bliss, with Introduction\nand Notes by Elder James White. This book sets forth the true principles\nand real character of the man who was the leading spirit in the great\nAmerican Second-Advent Movement.\n\n 408 pp. $1.00\n\nLIFE OF ELDER JOSEPH BATES, with portrait. This is a reprint of his\nAutobiography, with introduction, and closing chapters relative to his\npublic ministry and last sickness, by Elder James White. The closing\nchapters relate to his labors in the ministry and in moral reforms, and\nthe triumphant close of his long and useful life. This book should be in\nevery family library. Fine tinted paper,\n\n 352 pp. $1.00\n\nPlain white paper,\n\n 352 pp. .85\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY; or, the Great Controversy between Christ and\nhis Angels, and Satan and his Angels, in four volumes. By Mrs. Ellen\nG. White. These volumes cover the time from the fall of Satan to the\ndestruction of sin at the close of the one thousand years of Rev. 20. The\nfirst three of these volumes are in print, and it is expected that the\nfourth, the most interesting and important of the series, will soon be\nready. Each,\n\n 416 pp. $1.00\n\nTHE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN. By Elder D. M. Canright. This work is what its\nname implies, an argument to show that the Bible is not the work of men,\nbut is in deed and in truth the word of God. It is a candid, forcible,\nconclusive argument, sustained by a large array of facts and such\ndeductions of science as rest upon any tolerable certainty. Just the\nwork to put into the hands of honest skeptics, and those who are exposed\nto infidel influences. Adapted to the use of any and all persons who\nbelieve in the Bible.\n\n 400 pp. $1.00\n\nTHE BIBLICAL INSTITUTE. This is the title of a work containing a synopsis\nof the lectures given at the Institute held in Oakland, Cal., April 1-17,\n1877. These cover all the main points of our faith, giving facts and\ndates, and the heads of the arguments.\n\n 352 pp. $1.00\n\nHYMN BOOK. \u201cHymns and Tunes for those who keep the Commandments of God\nand the Faith of Jesus,\u201d is the title of this book. It has 537 hymns and\n147 tunes.\n\n 416 pp. $1.00\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; or, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and\nthe Restitution. A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the editor of\nthe _Christian Statesman_. This work discusses the proposed religious\namendment to the Constitution, especially in its bearing upon the\nsubject of the Sabbath and the first day of the week. This involves an\nexamination of the alleged change of the Sabbath.\n\n 384 pp. $1.00\n\nIn paper covers,\n\n 336 pp. .40\n\nTHE SOUL AND THE RESURRECTION. Showing the harmony of science and the\nBible on the nature of the soul and the doctrine of the resurrection. By\nJ. H. Kellogg, M. D.\n\n 224 pp. 75 cts.\n\nGAME OF LIFE. A scene representing Satan playing with man for his soul.\nThree lithograph illustrations.\n\nIn board,\n\n 50 cts.\n\nPaper covers,\n\n 30 cts.\n\nTHE UNITED STATES IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY; or, an Exposition of Rev.\n13:11-17. By Elder U. Smith. Dealing with our own land and applying to\nour time, this is a portion of prophecy which should possess surpassing\ninterest for every American reader. This work shows by conclusive\narguments the position which the United States government holds in\nprophecy, and the important part it is to act in the closing scenes of\ntime. Issues are even now arising which it is of the greatest importance\nthat all be prepared to meet.\n\n 160 pp. 40 cts.\n\nIn paper covers,\n\n 20 cts.\n\nTHOUGHTS ON BAPTISM. A full treatise, viewing the subject from history\nand the Bible. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.\n\n 189 pp. 35 cts.\n\nTHE SONG ANCHOR. A popular collection of songs for the Sabbath-school and\npraise service.\n\n 164 pp. 35 cts.\n\nBound in muslin,\n\n 50 cts.\n\nPOEM ON THE SABBATH. By Elder U. Smith.\n\n 30 cts.\n\nTHE SEVEN TRUMPETS. A careful and deeply interesting exposition of Rev. 8\nand 9.\n\n 10 cts.\n\nLIFE OF CHRIST, six pamphlets. By Mrs. E. G. White:\u2014\n\n No. 1. His First Advent and Ministry. 104 pp. 10 cts.\n \u201d 2. His Temptation in the Wilderness. 96 pp. 10 cts.\n \u201d 3. His Teachings and Parables. 126 pp. 15 cts.\n \u201d 4. His Mighty Miracles. 128 pp. 15 cts.\n \u201d 5. His sufferings and Crucifixion. 96 pp. 10 cts.\n \u201d 6. His Resurrection and Ascension. 80 pp. 10 cts.\n\nLIFE OF THE APOSTLES, two pamphlets:\u2014\n\n No. 1. The Ministry of Peter. 80 pp. 10 cts.\n \u201d 2. The Teachings of Paul. 80 pp. 10 cts.\n\nFACTS FOR THE TIMES. A collection of Valuable Extracts from Eminent\nAuthors.\n\n 224 pp. 25 cts.\n\nELEVEN SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW. By Elder J. N. Andrews.\n\n 226 pp. 25 cts.\n\nHISTORY OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. By Elder D. M. Canright.\n\n 200 pp. 25 cts.\n\nMODERN SPIRITUALISM. Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism. By Elder\nJ. H. Waggoner.\n\n 184 pp. 20 cts.\n\nREFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.\n\n 168 pp. 20 cts.\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. An examination of a remedial\nsystem in the light of Nature and Revelation.\n\n 168 pp. 20 cts.\n\nTHE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS, AND THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND DESTINY OF\nSATAN. By Elder D. M. Canright.\n\n 144 pp. 20 cts.\n\nOUR FAITH AND HOPE. Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of Christ. By Elder\nJames White.\n\n 182 pp. 20 cts.\n\nMIRACULOUS POWERS. The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual\nGifts, with Narratives of Incidents and Sentiments carefully compiled\nfrom the Eminently Pious and Learned of various denominations.\n\n 128 pp. 15 cts.\n\nRESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST. A vindication of the doctrine. By Elder J. H.\nWaggoner.\n\n 100 pp. 15 cts.\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF GOD, its Gifts and Manifestations to the end of the\nChristian Age. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.\n\n 144 pp. 15 cts.\n\nTHE THREE MESSAGES OF REVELATION 14:6-12, particularly the Third Angel\u2019s\nMessage and the Two-Horned Beast. By Elder J. N. Andrews.\n\n 144 pp. 15 cts.\n\nTHE TWO LAWS, as set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New\nTestaments. By Elder D. M. Canright.\n\n 104 pp. 15 cts.\n\nTHE MORALITY OF THE SABBATH. By Elder D. M. Canright.\n\n 96 pp. 15 cts.\n\nTHE COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES\nCONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N. Andrews.\n\n 112 pp. 15 cts.\n\nGEMS OF SONG. A collection of familiar hymns for religious meetings.\n\n 15 cts.\n\nCHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE SABBATH IN THE NEW. By Elder James\nWhite.\n\n 56 pp. 10 cts.\n\nREDEEMER AND REDEEMED. By Elder James White.\n\n 48 pp. 10 cts.\n\nTHE SIGNS OF THE TIMES FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY. By Elder James\nWhite.\n\n 96 pp. 10 cts.\n\nTHE TRUTH FOUND. A clear and concise argument in behalf of the seventh\nday as the Sabbath of the Lord. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.\n\n 64 pp. 10 cts.\n\nREVIEW OF GILFILLAN. Thoughts suggested by the perusal of Gilfillan and\nother authors on the Sabbath. By Elder Thomas B. Brown.\n\n 64 pp. 10 cts.\n\nMORTON\u2019S VINDICATION OF THE SABBATH. An interesting experience of a\nPresbyterian minister in embracing the Sabbath. By J. W. Morton.\n\n 68 pp. 10 cts.\n\nTHE ANCIENT SABBATH\u2014OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. By Elder D. T. Bourdeau.\n\n 87 pp. 10 cts.\n\nAPPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS. An address to the Baptists in behalf of the\nLord\u2019s Sabbath. By the S. D. B. Gen. Conference.\n\n 46 pp. 10 cts.\n\nTHE REJECTED ORDINANCE. A careful examination of our Lord\u2019s memorial of\nhumility found in John 13. By Elder W. H. Littlejohn.\n\n 64 pp. 10 cts.\n\nMATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR. A thorough exposition of this important chapter. By\nElder James White.\n\n 64 pp. 10 cts.\n\nTHE POET MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. This work shows that Milton\nwas a decided believer in, and an able defender of, the doctrine that in\ndeath man is unconscious.\n\n 32 pp. 5 cts.\n\nFOUR-CENT TRACTS. Redemption\u2014The Second Advent\u2014The Sufferings of\nChrist\u2014The Present Truth\u2014Origin and Progress of S. D. Adventists\u2014The\nCelestial Railroad\u2014The Seventh Part of Time\u2014Ten Commandments not\nAbolished\u2014The Two Covenants\u2014Address to the Baptists\u2014Milton on State of\nthe Dead\u2014The Two Thrones\u2014Spiritualism a Satanic Delusion\u2014Samuel and the\nWitch of Endor\u2014The Third Message of Rev. 14\u2014Tithes and Offerings.\n\nTHREE-CENT TRACTS.\u2014The Second Message of Rev. 14\u2014Who Changed the\nSabbath?\u2014The Lost-Time Question\u2014The Spirit of Prophecy\u2014Scripture\nReferences\u2014The End of the Wicked\u2014Infidel Cavils Considered\u2014The Pocasset\nTragedy\u2014Sabbaton\u2014Wine and the Bible.\n\nTWO-CENT TRACTS.\u2014Christ in the Old Testament\u2014The Sabbath in the New\nTestament\u2014The Old Moral Code not Revised\u2014The Sanctuary of the Bible\u2014The\nJudgment\u2014Much in Little\u2014The Millennium\u2014The Two Laws\u2014Seven Reasons\u2014The\nDefinite Seventh Day\u2014Departing and Being with Christ\u2014The Rich Man and\nLazarus\u2014Elihu on the Sabbath\u2014First Message of Rev. 14\u2014The Law and the\nGospel\u2014Alcoholic Medication\u2014Pork.\n\nONE-CENT TRACTS.\u2014The Coming of the Lord\u2014Perfection of the Ten\nCommandments\u2014Without Excuse\u2014Thoughts for the Candid\u2014A Sign of the Day\nof God\u2014Brief Thoughts on Immortality\u2014Which Day?\u2014Can we Know, or Can\nthe Prophecies Be Understood?\u2014Is the End Near?\u2014Is Man Immortal?\u2014The\nSleep of the Dead\u2014The Sinner\u2019s Fate\u2014The Law of God\u2014What the Gospel\nAbrogated\u2014One Hundred Bible Facts about the Sabbath\u2014Sunday not the\nSabbath\u2014\u201cThe Christian Sabbath\u201d\u2014Why not Found Out Before\u2014Causes and Cure\nof Intemperance\u2014Moral and Social Effects of Intemperance\u2014Tobacco-Using a\nCause of Disease\u2014Tobacco Poisoning: Nicotiana Tabacum\u2014Evil Effects of Tea\nand Coffee\u2014Ten Arguments on Tea and Coffee.\n\n\nWORKS IN OTHER LANGUAGES.\n\nThe S. D. A. Publishing Association issues many of the foregoing\npublications in Danish, Swedish, German, French, and Italian.\n\nIt has a full supply of English Bibles, of all sizes and prices. Also\nMaps and Charts for Sabbath-school use, and a very carefully prepared\nlibrary of excellent reading for the young.\n\n\nHEALTH AND TEMPERANCE PUBLICATIONS.\n\nThis Association publishes, and keeps on hand for sale, a long list of\nbooks, pamphlets, and tracts treating upon the great question of Health\nand Temperance. The various subjects coming under the above head are all\ntreated in a very clear and earnest manner, and are especially adapted\nfor use by those who set forth the gospel of health.\n\n\u261e Full Catalogues of ALL our publications, giving sizes, styles, and\nprices, are sent free on application.","title":"History of the Sabbath and first day of the week","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":165589}