WHAT HISTORY SAYS CONCERNING THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.
By W. A. Colcord
“WHO changed the Sabbath?” is a question frequently asked to-day. Anciently God’s people observed the seventh day. For over four thousand years no other day was spoken of as the Sabbath. A change has taken place. Another day is now called and observed as the Sabbath. How came this about? Was it God or man who made the change? This is an interesting and important question. It is said by some that Rome changed the day. Others, disliking to think that they are in any way paying homage to that power, deny this. What, therefore, are the facts? In the first place, we may ask,— What Constitutes a Change?
To prove a change in the Sabbath from seventh to first day, three things must be shown: (1) That the seventh day ceased to be observed as the Sabbath; (2) that the first day was observed as a Sabbath; and (3) that it was observed in the place of the Sabbath. Nothing short of this could constitute a change of the Sabbath. Holding meetings on the first day does not prove a change, nor even the religious observance of the day, for two days might be so observed at the same time, and were for a time. A change consists in the transference of the observance and obligations of one day to the other. All this took place in time, but not in apostolic times, as it certainly would have done had the change been by divine appointment. The seventh-day Sabbath was generally observed by Christians for centuries; the first day was not observed as a sabbath for nearly two hundred years; and it did not fully take the place of the Sabbath till about the fifth century. Mr. Morer, a learned clergyman of the Church of England, says: “The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves.”—Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189. Prof. E. Brerewood, of Gresham College, London, says of the seventh day: “That Sabbath was religiously observed in the East Church three hundred years and more after our Saviour’s passion.”—Learned Treatises of the Sabbath, p. 77. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, an eminent Church of England writer, speaks thus of Sunday observance: “It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that commandment.”—Ductor Dubitantium, part 1, book 2, ch. 2. John Ley, another English author, says: “From the apostles’ time until the Council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews’ Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea, notwithstanding the decree of that council against it.”—Sunday a Sabbath, p. 163. Lyman Coleman says, “Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing, until it was wholly discontinued.”—Ancient Christianity Exemplified, sec. 2, ch. 26. The historian Socrates, middle of fifth century, writes: “Altho almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refused to do this.”—Book 5, ch. 22. Sozomen, another historian of the same period, says: “The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day, which custom is never observed at Rome.”—Book 7, ch. 19. Archdeacon Farrar says: “Little need be said of the change from the seventh to the first day of the week. The first disciples kept both days, the Sabbath for rest, and the Sunday for worship. The Christian church made no formal but a gradual and almost unconscious transference of the one day to the other.”—Voice from Sinai, pp. 166, 167. Neander, the greatest church historian of the nineteenth century, says: “The festival 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.”—Neander’s Church History, Rose’s translation, p. 168. These clearly show that the Bible Sabbath was long observed by Christians; that Sunday was not observed as a Sabbath for a considerable time; that the Sunday sabbath was always “only a human ordinance,” and that the change came about gradually. Who brought it about? Rome Changed the Sabbath.
Neander, the prince of church historians, says, “Opposition to Judaism early led to the special observance of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath.”—Church History, Torrey’s translation, vol. 1, p. 402. Note, he does not say a divine command led to the change, but “opposition to Judaism.” And from whence came this opposition?—From Western Rome, and especially from the Church of Rome itself. Proof: The Eastern churches would not consent to degrade the Sabbath by making it a fast day, Neander informs us, but he says, “In the Western, and especially in the Roman Church, where the opposition against Judaism predominated, the custom, on the other hand, grew out of this opposition, of observing the Sabbath also as a fast day.”—P. 404. “Opposition to Judaism” early led to the observance of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath, he says; and this opposition “predominated” and was especially manifested “in the Roman Church.” And yet some deny that Rome changed the Sabbath, and challenge any one to produce the “slightest historical proof” of it. Here is more than slight proof. Rome led in elevating the Sunday, and in trampling the Sabbath of the Lord out of sight. The Eastern churches observed the Passover (erroneously called Easter) on the fourteenth day of the first month, as God had appointed; the Western churches, and especially the Roman Church, on a Sunday. In 196 A.D., Victor, bishop of Rome, commanded the Eastern churches to imitate the Western in this respect. They refused. Then, says Neander, “The Roman bishop, actuated by that hierarchical spirit which, as we have already observed, had already begun to show itself in the Roman Church, published sentence of excommunication against the churches of Asia Minor on account of this trivial point of dispute.”—P. 409. The point in dispute was they would not honor Sunday as Rome wished them to, so she excommunicated them. This act Bower styles “the first essay of papal usurpation,” and Dowling, the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.” And it was simply an attempt on the part of Rome to elevate the Sunday at the expense of a divine appointment. Another proof that Rome changed the Sabbath! Eusebius (270–338 A.D.), an early bishop, and the reputed father of ecclesiastical history, says, “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day.”—Commentary on Psalm 92. The whole system of papal hierarchical apostasy was engaged in changing the Sabbath, and this system had its head in the bishop of Rome. Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciple denomination, spoke truly when he said of the Sabbath, “If it be changed, it was that august person changed it who changes times and laws ex-officio. I think his name is Dr. Antichrist.”—Bible Advocate, Jan., 1848. Twenty-five hundred years ago God described the power that would change the Sabbath. He said, “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.” Dan. 7:25. Why, then, should any one be in doubt as to who changed the Sabbath? There is the prophecy; here is the history—tho but a fragment of what might be presented. Some may deny that Rome claims the change of the Sabbath as the mark of her authority. But she does. She asks, “How prove you that the church hath power to command feast and holy days? Ans.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday.”—Douay Catechism, p. 58. It is not, as some have asserted, “the claim to remit sins.” “Sin is the transgression of the law.” The claim to forgive transgressions of the law is certainly not so great as that of changing the law itself. But the prophecy settles the point. He was to think to “change the times and law”—the very thing the5Papacy has done in changing the Sabbath and the law of God. This, therefore, is its mark. Just as the Papacy grew, so the Sabbath was changed. Of the former, Fisher, in his “History of the Church,” p. 104, says, “The hierarchical organization gradually became perfected.” Coleman, as already noted, says the seventh day was observed “with a rigor gradually diminishing, until it was wholly discontinued;” and Farrar, that “the Christian church made no formal, but a gradual, and almost unconscious, transference of the one day to the other.” The apostate church called Sunday the Lord’s day. God nowhere claims this as His day, but He does the seventh. The Papacy claims the first. Prior to the fourth century, there was no law, human or divine, for its sabbatical observance. Says Chambers’ Encyclopedia, “Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D.” (Article Sabbath.) After enumerating the various Sunday laws passed by the Roman Government from 321 to 425, at the instance of church bishops, Neander says, “In this way the church received help from the State, for the furtherance of her ends.” (Vol. 3, p. 405.) Yes, “in this way” Church and State were united, and the Papacy gained her power and supremacy. Sunday laws are the badge and sign of Church and State union. Men are seeking to unite these in this same way again to-day. In this way they are forming “an image” to the Papacy, and seeking to enforce its “mark.” Read Revelation 13. The countries enlightened by the Reformation, which continued to observe Sunday and enforce Sunday laws, have never wholly severed connection with Rome. There still exists a bond of sympathy between them and Rome; they are steadily drifting back toward Rome, and will yet clasp hands with her over the Sunday sabbath and its enforcement by oppressive laws. That is what all this present agitation for Sunday laws means, and that is where it will end, in oppressing those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Read Revelation 12, 13, and 14. In the name of Christ we warn all to take the other side of this question, “Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come;” and His law is the standard in the judgment. Rev. 14:6, 7; Eccl. 12:13, 14. Will it not be safe to keep the day God kept in the beginning, the day He specifies in His holy law and claims as His “sign” (Ex. 31:12–17; Eze. 20:12, 20), and the day that Christ, our Example, kept all His life on earth? Let all say with Joshua, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”