A LAW FOR RESTING ON SUNDAY.
By George I. Butler
In our last issue consideration was given to the edict issued by Constantine in behalf of Sunday. This edict of Constantine greatly accelerated the current already setting strongly against the ancient Sabbath. It furnished some authority, if it was heathen, in behalf of the Sunday. Every advance it made correspondingly depressed the Sabbath, inasmuch as keeping two days in each week as a rest day would be absurd. An able writer thus expresses the result throughout the Roman Empire: “Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the Roman empire, the party that had contended for the observance of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to be more and more generally established ever after this time, throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is no evidence, however, that, either at this, or at a period much later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and tradition.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, pp. 280, 281. We see, therefore, that that which caused the Sabbath to be greatly neglected was the heathen decree of the Emperor. Heathenism and corrupted Christianity united their forces in putting down the Sabbath and exalting Sunday in its place. It might be said that this decree was the expiring act of heathenism. In one sense it was so; but the kind of Christianity which took its place really resembled heathenism more than it did the pure and humble religion of Christ and his apostles. This remark at first may seem harsh and incredible; but truly the reflecting, observing mind must admit its truthfulness. What resemblance is there between the plain, simple forms of worship observable in the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and the gorgeous, pompous ceremonials of the Catholic Church? What resemblance is there in the appearance, manners, and dress of the two,—in our Saviour going about on foot, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, healing the sick, and benefiting all, clad in his seamless coat, the garb of the poor, and the lordly priest, clad in his official robes of purple or scarlet, bowing before images with his train of attendants, and exacting the highest homage? What resemblance is there in the doctrine of the two? Christ taught the need of repentance, faith, baptism, and the living of a humble, pure, holy life of obedience to the truths of God’s word and the principles of God’s law. But look at the Catholic ceremonials, the confessions to the priest, the prayers for souls in purgatory, the holy water, vows of celibacy, worshiping of images, elevating and adoring the bread, believing it to be the actual flesh of our Lord and Saviour! And what resemblance is there in the spirit of the two? Our Saviour was ever seeking to alleviate suffering, to benefit all within his reach. He wept over the people of Jerusalem because they would not let him save them, prayed, even for his enemies, while hanging on the cross in the greatest agony. On the other hand, look at the bloody Crusades, at the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s day, when the blood of the poor Huguenots ran down the streets of Paris, when the papists surprised them through deception; and look at the poor Waldenses, butchered by thousands, men, women, and children, because they would not take the pope’s authority, instead of the Scriptures as their rule of action. See the Inquisition with its horrors, men and women there tortured on the rack, or starved to death in deep dungeons. These things were done when the Roman Church had the power. What, we say, are the resemblances between their practices and the pure religion of Jesus? But there is a striking resemblance on the other hand between the ceremonies, the manners, the forms of worship, the bowing to images, the resplendent robes and persecuting spirit of Catholicism, and heathenism; indeed, Catholics themselves admit that many of their customs were derived from the heathen. On this interesting point we will venture to quote from two eminent Catholic writers. Cardinal Baronius, perhaps the most authoritative Catholic writer, says, “That many things have been laudably translated from Gentile superstition into the Christian religion, hath been demonstrated by many examples and the authority of the Fathers. And what wonder if the most holy bishops have granted that the most ancient customs of the Gentiles should be introduced into the worship of the true God, from which it seemed impossible to take off many, though converted to Christianity?” Bervaldus, another Catholic writer, speaks as follows: “When I call to mind the institutions of the holy mysteries of the heathen, I am forced to believe that most things appertaining to the celebration of our solemnities and ceremonies are taken thence; as, for example, from the Gentile religion the shaven heads of priests, turning round of the altar, sacrificial pomps, and many such like ceremonies which our priests solemnly use in our mysteries. How many things in our religion are like the Roman religion? How many rites common!” Truly our remark that Catholicism resembles the heathen worship more than it does the religion of Christ, cannot be denied. Catholicism is a system of mixed Christianity and heathenism, with the latter predominating. The edict of Constantine, and the full adoption of the heathen Sunday by the Church, marks the point where this heathen union was consummated. Constantine at that point represented the heathen, being an ardent sun-worshiper. Pope Sylvester, at that time bishop of Rome, represented that Church. In its efforts to elevate Sunday, it joyfully accepted this heathen decree and heathen day, and thus fully blended the heathen system with their corrupted form of Christianity. From that point the barriers were broken down, and heathens and heathenism largely took possession of the church. At this point, so history informs us, many of the humble, God-fearing Christians withdrew into retired places, where they could still worship God according to the Scriptures. Pope Sylvester, by his apostolical authority, changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of “Lord’s Day.” See “Ecclesiastical History of Lucius,” cent. 4, cap. 10, pp. 739, 740. It had been called by that title by a few writers before; but Sylvester, as head of the church, now officially decided that its title should be “Lord’s Day.” Thus Constantine elevated the Sunday as a heathen festival to be observed throughout the Empire, while Pope Sylvester changed it into a Christian institution, dignifying it by the title of “Lord’s Day.” Concerning the grounds upon which Sunday stands, we will here give a quotation from Dr. Heylyn: “Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands: On custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day of rest from labors, and restraint from business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme majesty as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them.”—History of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 12. Here we have truly set before us the authority on which the Sunday Sabbath rests. How different from that of the Sabbath of the Lord! The former is wholly human; the latter wholly divine. The former originated in heathenism and idolatry, and was finally adopted as a rest day by a corrupted church on the authority of a Roman tyrant; the latter began by the act of God himself, at the creation of the world, in resting, blessing, and setting apart the day for man to keep; and in commanding his people to observe it for all time. Eusebius, who was a bishop, and a great flatterer and favorite of the Emperor Constantine, seems to admit that the change wrought in the Sabbath at this time was by human authority. He says: “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lord’s day.”—Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. 1, p. 361. We see at last a change of the Sabbath quite fully wrought; at least to this extent, that the Sabbath was put down by a Catholic council, and denounced under a curse as heretical, and that the Sunday was generally considered a day for public worship and, at least, for partial rest. We will next notice other steps by which the latter was rendered still more sacred in the eyes of the people.