THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 19, 1874

THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELI. J. N. ANDREWS.

TEXT: “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” Dan. 7:25.

The first of these prophecies relates to the work of Christ; the second relates to that of Antichrist. Each of these works pertains to the law of God. No one will dispute that the first of these prophecies predicts what Christ will do to the law of his Father. That Antichrist is the agent presented in the second prophecy, all are agreed. The nature of the work here attributed to him shows conclusively that the laws which he should think to change are those of God. It is a part of his work against the Most High. 1. He shall speak great words against the Most High. 2. He shall wear out the saints of the Most High. 3. He shall think to change times and laws. And the prophecy adds, “They shall be given into his hands” for a certain period of time.

The nature of the work of this wicked power as here represented by Daniel, clearly determines whose are the times and laws which he shall think to change. It is a part of his warfare against the cause of God. He blasphemes the name of God, he wears out his saints, and he thinks to change his law. And this is rendered yet more evident by the form of expression used. It does not say, “He shall change times and laws.” He actually performs the work in the matter of blasphemy and of persecution. But when we come to the changing of the law, it is said, “He shall THINK to do it. How evident that he could not do this in reality. He could blaspheme God; he could wear out his saints; but he could not change the law of

God. He thinks himself able to do this, which is, indeed, the very language of the Douay Bible. How expressive, therefore, is this language of the Holy Spirit. He shall think to do it. Were these the laws of men, there would be no propriety in saying, “He shall think to change” them; for he could change them in reality, and to his heart’s content. And, indeed, there would be no propriety in introducing the laws of men into such a connection. It is the warfare of Antichrist against the name, and saints, and laws, of the God of Heaven that is the theme of this prophecy.

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

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

It is the work of Christ to magnify the law and make it honorable. Our Lord did this when he testified that not one jot or one tittle should pass from it till heaven and earth should pass away. He did it when he taught that those who do and teach the commandments should be highly esteemed in the kingdom of Heaven, and those who break them and teach men so should not be thus esteemed. Matt. 5:17–19. He magnified the law when he showed that it extends even to the intents of the heart. Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28. He also magnified the law when he founded the golden rule upon it. Matt. 7:12. In like manner he did this when he made the keeping of the commandments the condition of entering eternal life. Matt. 19:17. He did it when he taught that any worship which makes void God’s commandments is vain in his sight. Matt. 15:1–9. He did not only magnify the law by such teaching as all this; he did it by his acts. He kept the law of God in every particular. 1 John 3:4, 5. And well he might, for this law was written upon his heart. Ps. 40:8, 10. And yet, by something greater that all this did he honor the law of God. He took the sins of men upon himself, and let the law of God strike him down in the place of the sinner. And by this act he attested his sense of the absolute perfection of the law, and that it was unchangeable and eternal.

Such was the work of Christ toward the law of the Father. There is no fellowship between him and the man of sin, and no connection between the work of the one and that of the other respecting the law of God. Whatever, therefore, is done by way of striking down the law of God, or changing it, pertains solely to Antichrist, and not, in any degree, or in any sense, to the Son of God. The following propositions are worthy of the attention of all thoughtful persons:— 1. It was no part of the work of Christ to change the law of God. 2. It was his express mission to magnify the law of his Father. 3. The record given in the New Testament shows not one trace of changing the commandments of God on the part of the Saviour. 4. But it does show that by his doctrine, his obedience, and his death, he did in the highest degree magnify the moral law. 5. The change of God’s law is the work of Antichrist alone; and with that change Christ has no connection. 6. The apostasy which produced this Antichrist began, according to Paul’s testimony, in the days of the apostles. 7. We may, therefore, expect to find early traces of the grand heresy which distinguishes Antichrist; viz., the doctrine of the change of the law of God, or of its repeal. 8. In the beginning, the work of apostasy pertained to efforts to change or set aside the second and the fourth commandments as ceremonial; but when the power of Antichrist had reached its greatest height, he was declared to be able to change even virtues into vices, and vices into virtues.

The advocates of the sacredness of Sunday suppose they have gained their cause if they have found some evidences that this day was observed with some respect in the early ages of the church. They seem to be certain that the day was then regarded as the Christian Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. They even argue that the testimonies which they produce out of the so-called fathers of the church are ample proof that the apostles changed the law of God, though the New Testament bears testimony in every way to the contrary of this. The strongest testimony in behalf of this supposed apostolic change of the Sabbath is produced out of Mosheim, and is as follows:— “All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church at Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers.”—Mosheim’s Mosheim, cent. i, part ii, chap. iv, sec. 4.

This statement of Mosheim is often cited in the most triumphant manner to prove the change of the Sabbath, and to establish, by apostolic authority, the sacredness of Sunday. Now it is a very remarkable fact, that we are able, from the testimony of Mosheim himself, to show that this sanctity of Sunday was at that time utterly unknown. The proof on this point is very direct and plain. Mosheim unwittingly exposes the fallacy of this supposed Sunday sacredness in the following statement respecting the law of Constantine, which was enacted in A. D. 321. He says of the law:— “The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians was, in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.”—Mosheim, cent. iv, part ii, chap. iv, sec. 5.

Here is an express statement that the law of Constantine made Sunday observance more strict than it had formerly been, and caused its observance to be attended with greater solemnity. Now carefully read this edict which thus made Sunday a day of greater solemnity than before. Here is the edict:— “Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.”—Encyclopædia Britannica, article, Sunday.

Certainly, here is something worthy of the notice of those whose respect for Sunday rests upon the authority of Mosheim. Constantine’s Sunday law caused the day to be observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. But what was the nature of this law? It gave to the farmer full liberty to carry on his business on the first day of the week. How, then, did it cause the day to be observed with greater solemnity? Take notice of the answer. It forbade those who were merchants and mechanics from carrying on their business on Sunday. It follows, therefore, from Mosheim’s own showing, that up to this time all classes of men had labored on Sunday. And as he makes his statement with special reference to the case of the Christians it is also evident that up to this time the whole body of those who bore the name of Christians did freely labor on that day, but that from that time the mechanics were restrained in their business on Sunday, while the farmer was allowed, “freely and at full liberty,” to carry on his farming.

We prove, therefore, from the most valued witness in behalf of Sunday observance that it was not kept as a day of sacredness during the first three centuries of the church, but was, with exception of the time employed in religious meetings on that day, simply a day of ordinary business. And what Mosheim thus unwittingly, but truthfully, states, to the utter discomfiture of his own previous effort in behalf of the sacredness of the day, is also stated by many writers. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, an eminent prelate of the church of England, thus states the case:— “The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord’s day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and, therefore, when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord’s day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandman whatsoever.”—Ductor Dubitantium, part i, book ii, chap. ii, sec. 59.

This is a very important statement. The first day of the week was a day of ordinary business in the early ages of the church. And this very fact proves that, though it is now called “the Lord’s day,” it could not have been considered thus in those ages; for men can never innocently appropriate to their own business that time which God claims as his own. Here is another testimony on this same point:— “The Lord’s day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God’s people to pitch on this or that day for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business: nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service.”—Morer’s Lord’s Day, p. 233. That Sunday was not kept as a day of abstinence from worldly business before

the time of Constantine is expressly stated by Sir Wm. Domville. Thus he says:— “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine, in A. D. 321.”—Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291.

These testimonies show most conclusively that Sunday was a day of ordinary business prior to the time of Constantine, except such portions of it as were used in public worship. All, therefore, which can be said of Sunday observance in the first three centuries, is in substance this: that it was a day on which, very generally, the professed people of God held religious assemblies, but on which, also, they attended to their ordinary labor, when not in the house of worship. But not Sunday alone was thus honored as a day of religious meetings in the early church. Wednesday and Friday were honored in the same manner, not as days of abstinence from labor, but as days for public assemblies of the church. Thus Mosheim says of them:— “Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion.”—Ecclesiastical History, cent. i, part ii, chap. iv, note ‡.

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

Here were three days observed as voluntary festivals in the early church; viz., Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. Of the comparative sacredness of these three festivals, Dr. Heylyn says:— “If we consider either the preaching of the word, the ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers, the Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as is most likely.”—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. iii, sec. 4.

These three ancient festivals were not thought in those days to rest upon any divine command, nor was any one of them considered as worthy to fill the place of the ancient Sabbath, as a day of sacred time, made such by the commandment of God, or by the authority of the apostles. And thus Dr. Heylyn states the case:— “Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolic mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week.”—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. i, sec. 10.

And Sir Wm. Domville bears the following remarkable testimony on this point:— “Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to his apostles.”—Examination of the Six Texts, supplement, pp. 6, 7.

These testimonies show very clearly the real foundation of Sunday observance. It is not found in God’s commandment, but in the tradition of men that makes that commandment void. We have listened to the strong testimony of Mosheim in behalf of this so-called Christian Sabbath. And we have also seen that though he designates Sunday as set apart by “the express appointment of the apostles,” he elsewhere informs us that it was, even with Christians, a day of ordinary labor till the time of Constantine, A. D. 321. As to “the express appointment of the apostles,” we have seen in a former discourse that no trace of this exists in the New Testament, and there is certainly no claim on the part of the early ecclesiastical writers that such appointment ever was made. Let us now hear what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, has to say on this point:— “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun

to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”—Rose’s Translation of Neander, p. 186.

These statements are sufficient to place this subject in a very clear light. We may be certain from them that those who first observed these festivals had no idea of what was afterward to grow out of them. Neander speaks of the beginning of the idea that men should not labor on Sunday. He cites Tertullian alone, with whom this idea appears to have originated. These are Tertullian’s words as translated in Kitto’s Cyclopædia, article, Lord’s Day. He says:— “On the day of the Lord’s resurrection alone we ought to abstain, not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest we should give place to the devil.”

This is the first mention of anything like abstinence from labor, and this is at the end of the second century. Tertullian is the first writer who calls Sunday, Lord’s day. Dr. Heylyn, however, speaks thus of him:— “Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church.”—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. viii, sec. 13.

One grand element of success in the advancement of the Sunday festival is found in the fact that it was the day most generally observed by the Gentile nations in honor of their chief god, the sun. Even Tertullian, when advocating the observance of Sunday, finds it necessary to state that he has not the same religion as the Persians who worshiped the sun. He says:— “But if we, like them, celebrate Sunday as a festival and day of rejoicing, it is for a reason vastly distant from that of worshiping the sun.”—Wm. Reeves’s Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, vol. i, pp. 238, 239.

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

This same writer, speaking of the fact that Sunday was the day generally observed in the Gentile world at the time when it was also springing up as a festival in the Christian church, thus defends the establishment of Sunday in that church:— “That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord’s day, and their Sabbath. . . . That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it, inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day, at any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival.” Vol. xviii, p. 409.

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

It is a remarkable fact that the edict of Constantine in behalf of Sunday was in every respect a heathen law. According to the testimony of Mosheim, Constantine did not renounce heathenism till A. D. 323, two years after his famous Sunday edict. He had previously adopted the opinion that Christ ought to be worshiped; but up to A. D. 323, he “combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient gods.” Mosheim’s Historical Commentaries, cent. iv, sec. 7. That he was a heathen in A. D. 321, when he enacted his edict for Sunday, is further attested in that the day after

this edict, he issued a decree commanding the practice of heathen divination. See “Blair’s Chronological Tables,” p. 196; “Ross’ Index of Dates,” p. 330. But the edict speaks for itself. Constantine does not command men to keep the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, or the day of Christ’s resurrection. He uses very different language. He commands those to whom his decree relates, to “rest on the VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN.” Here is a plain and explicit reference to the day observed by the heathen world from ancient times in honor of the sun. Milman, the editor of Gibbon, says of this edict:— “The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to be observed. . . . But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple in the sanctity of the first day of the week. . . . In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world.”—History of Christianity, book iii, chapters i and iv.

These facts are sufficient to show how greatly indebted is Sunday to the ancient worship of the chief god of heathenism on that day. Let us now consider some things pertaining directly to the church of Rome in connection with the Sunday institution. The earliest mention of Sunday in the Christian church is by Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. And it is remarkable that it is written at Rome, and is especially descriptive of the celebration of the Sunday festival in that church. He says:— “And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read as much as time will give leave; when the reader is done, the bishop makes a sermon,” &c.—Justin Martyr’s First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127.

It was only 56 years after this time that “the bishop” of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It was the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover. But while the eastern churches did this upon the fourteenth day of the first month, the western churches, among which the church of Rome was chief, celebrated the passover on the Sunday following that day, unless, indeed, the day happened to fall on Sunday. But in the year 196, Victor, bishop of Rome, took upon himself to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. It is a most significant fact that the first attempt of the bishop of Rome to rule the Christian church was by this edict in favor of Sunday. Bower says of it:— “This bold attempt we may call the first essay of papal usurpation.”—History of the Popes, vol. i, p. 18.

And Dowling, in his “History of Romanism,” p. 32, terms it the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.” This was only one generation after the time of Justin Martyr, and it was just prior to the time of Tertullian, the first writer who gives Sunday the title of Lord’s day, and the first one who speaks of refraining from business on that day. Surely, Sunday made some advancement at Rome from A. D. 140 to A. D. 196, when Victor issued his Sunday edict. But the churches of Asia informed the Roman bishop that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor gave way to an ungovernable passion, and excommunicated the bishops of all those churches. But he could not compel them to submit to him. Thus the matter rested till the Council of Nice, in A. D. 325, when the church of Rome, by the powerful aid of the Emperor Constantine, was able to carry this point. Heylyn says of this struggle:— “The Lord’s day found it no small matter to obtain the victory.”—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. ii, sec. 5.

(Concluded Next Week.)