ORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By J. H. W.
BEARING in mind that it has been fully proved that the decree of Constantine was the first authority for Sunday rest, I ask if here is not a most important item of reliable history in proof of our position? Of the times more than a century later than Constantine, Heylyn speaks thus of the building up of this institution:— "The faithful, being united better than before, became more uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord's day all the honors of an holy festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it came into that height which hath since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; being earnest to advance this day above all other; and to the edicts of the one, and ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth." One of the most effectual means of degrading the Sabbath, and of exalting the Sunday above it, in the feelings and practice of the people, was to make the Sabbath a fast-day, and to forbid fasting on the Sunday. A rigidly enforced fast is always burdensome to any people; and while the Sabbath was made a gloomy day to them, everything was done that could be, to make the Sunday a day of personal enjoyment. It is easy to tell which day would become the popular one, under such circumstances. This was the course pursued by the governors of the church, as all historians testify. It was a shrewd step in the direction of an entire change of the day of Sabbath observance. But it was not by any one step that this change was brought about. Nor was it a brief work. As the historian says, it was not done all at once, but by degrees. Dr. Hase in his "Church History," thus testifies:— "The Roman Church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day." This practice, "in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath," was altogether of Rome. The Eastern churches long refused to comply with this order, as Dr. Heylyn testifies:— "In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone, the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 602, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censure." But Rome prevailed. It was decreed by the Council of Nice, and confirmed by Constantine, that "the primacy should remain with Rome;" and, though the Eastern churches long resisted the usurpations of the Roman bishops, this decree was never reversed, and the emperors were diligent to see that it was enforced. As long as the primacy of Rome was acknowledged, and maintained by the emperors, of course the faith promulgated by Rome was "Catholic," and all dissenters were heretics, to be punished with anathemas from the church, and more immediate penalties by the emperors. The action of Justinian, who fully established the supremacy of the Pope (John 2), is proof as strong as any can require, that the emperors stood at nothing that could make effective the Roman faith. The following is from Bower's "History of the Popes":—8"While the Arian king was striving by the most just and equitable laws, to clear the church from all simony in the west, the Catholic emperor was employing the most unjust and unchristian means of clearing her from all heresies in the East, that of persecution, and the most cruel persecution any Christian emperor had yet set on foot or countenanced. For by an edict which he issued to unite all men in one faith, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, such as did not, in the space of three months, embrace and profess the Catholic faith, were declared infamous, and, as such, excluded from all employments, both civil and military, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and their estates confiscated, whether real or personal. These were convincing arguments of the truth of the Catholic faith: but many, however, withstood them; and against such as did, the imperial edict was executed with the utmost rigor. Great numbers were driven from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked." Such were the means by which people came to the unity of the faith in the early church. And it must be borne in mind that Justinian and other emperors did not declare any faith,—they simply enforced the faith which had been declared by the Catholic bishops and councils. And what was the declared faith and practice of the Catholic Church, in regard to the Sabbath and Sunday, in the time of this inhuman conduct of Justinian? Leo the Great was made Pope a little less than a century before Justinian's execrable action in behalf of the church. Of Leo, "McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia" says:— "Leo I., saint and Pope, surnamed The Great, noted as the real founder of the Papacy." He was the real founder of the Papacy in this sense, that he did more than all his predecessors to subject all the churches to the authority of the Roman bishops; and Bower represents his course, in the accomplishment of this purpose, as dishonorable, unscrupulous, utterly unworthy of anyone bearing the name of a Christian. But it is enough that he put forth every effort to establish the Papacy, that he should be sainted; it is this that covers all sins in their estimation. The character and position of Leo cannot but be appreciated in connection with the upbuilding of the Sunday institution. The Bibliotheca Sacra has an article on the subject of the change of Sabbath, written by Rev. L. Coleman, author of "Ancient Christianity Exemplified." In this he speaks as follows:— "The reasons for keeping the first day in preference to the seventh, have already been stated from Justin Martyr. They are more fully explained by Leo the Great, of the fifth century. On this day the world had its origin. On the same day, through the resurrection of Christ, death came to an end, and life began. It was upon this day also that the apostles were commissioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature, and to offer to all the world the blessings of salvation. On the same day came Christ into the midst of his disciples, and breathed upon them, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost. And finally upon this day the Holy Ghost was shed upon the apostles. So that we see as it were an ordinance from Heaven evidently set before us, showing that on this day, on which all the gifts of God's grace have been vouchsafed, we ought to celebrate the solemnities of Christian worship." This is, indeed, a very important document—important because of the position of the author; of the influence he exerted over the church, which, as we here see, is not lost even to the present day; important as most fully explaining the reasons for keeping Sunday, not one of which the Scriptures ever noticed; important as an example, showing how an ordinance from Heaven can be deduced from a Papal "as it were." And if such respect is paid to these words of Leo the Great, Pope, in this century, by a leading Protestant publication in America, what must have been their influence, their force, when Leo had supreme control over the faith of Christendom, and was backed by the authority of the emperors. In the entire absence of evidence from the Scriptures, in favor of the Sunday institution, what can we think of the knowledge or frankness of a man who will affirm that not an item of history can be produced to show that the Papacy changed the Sabbath? As decisive as is this evidence, it is not the strongest that we have to offer. McClintock and Strong make the following statement:— "Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations. The Council of Laodicea (A. D. 364), however, enjoined Christians to rest on the Lord's day." This puts it very mild indeed. In regard to the influence of the decisions of this council, they say:— "Sixty canons were published which were accepted by the other churches." In their synopsis of these, they say:— "Canon 29 forbids Christians observing the Jewish Sabbath." In these two statements we get the whole truth: 1. It enjoined the observance of the first day of the week. 2. It forbade the observance of the Sabbath. Let it be remembered that this council was held in less than half a century of the time when Constantine issued his first decree, for the first observance of the venerable day of the sun as a day of rest from labor. As the historian says, it was taken from the hands of the emperors by Popes and councils, and rest enforced upon it as a Christian festival. I am happy to be able to give the most definite information on the action of this council on this subject. I will here give three versions of this celebrated canon. First the original, as given by the council itself, in Latin:— "Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizare, et in Sabbato otiari, sed ipsos eo die operari: diem autem Dominicum preferentes otiari, si modo possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint Judaizantes sint anathema apud Christos." The following is the German translation as given in Bishop Hefele's "History of the Councils":— "Dass die Christen nicht Judaiziren und am Sabbat nicht müssig sein, sondern an diesem Tage arbeiten sollen; den Tag des Herrn aber sollen sie besonders ehren und wenn möglich an demselben nicht arbeiten, wenn sie aber als Judaisten erfunden, so sollen sie von Christus ausgeschlossen sein." The following is an English translation:— "Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's day, should rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ." There is no necessity that I should take another step to fully establish my propositions. It is abundantly proved, beyond all chance of denial, that the first law of any kind for resting from worldly labor on the first day of the week, was that of Constantine, who commanded only certain classes to rest upon it as the venerable day of the sun, in conformity with his worship of Apollo, the sun god. And in less than half a century after that time, a Catholic council enacts a canon which was accepted as orthodox, which not only contains the first formal church law for the observance of the Sunday, but likewise forbids the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, under penalty of being accursed from Christ! Now, if anyone can imagine what would be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to learn what it could be. In less than half a century after Constantine's first Sunday decree, we find this sweeping canon of the Council of Laodicea. In less than a century after the publication of this canon, Leo the Great gave his decision in the most emphatic terms, that Christians ought to rest on the Sunday and not on the Sabbath. And in less than a century after Leo's decision, Justinian subjected all, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, to the Catholic faith, of which the substitution of the Sunday for the Sabbath was a prominent part, of which they had to make a public profession within three months, under penalty of being declared infamous, excluded from all employments, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and having their estates, of whatever nature, confiscated. Now, it being clearly shown that a part of the Catholic faith to which they were subjected, under such severe penalties, was that people should not rest on the Sabbath, and that they should not work on the Sunday, is it a wonder that, under the canons of councils, the decisions of Popes, given under penalty of being accursed from Christ, and enforced by the edicts of emperors, under such penalties as were rigorously inflicted by Justinian,—is it a wonder that the observance of Sunday became so prevalent throughout the empire? Is it not rather a wonder that so many clung to the Sabbath of the Lord, even in those perilous times, as history attests there did, in spite of the terrible persecutions to which they were subjected? And is it not still more wonderful that Protestant ministers, with all these facts of history within their reach, will gravely point to this prevalence of Sunday-keeping as evidence of the united faith of the Christian church in favor of the first-day Sabbath? While I have fully proved my proposition, I have presented but a tithe of the evidence that is ready at my hand. In "Ancient Christianity Exemplified," p. 531, Coleman says, in reference to the decrees of the Council of Laodicea:— "Christian emperors confirmed and extended these decrees. All public shows, theatrical exhibitions, dancing, and amusements, were strictly prohibited. Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day, by solemn suspension of all secular pursuits, and abstinence from amusements and vain recreations. The Council of Laodicea, canon 29, about the same time forbade the observance of the Jewish Sabbath." Coleman is an ardent advocate of Sunday, but he has presented the most incontestable proof of the truthfulness of our position. And in these statements he has only spoken in harmony with all history. Let us mark well the words of Coleman. Speaking of the imperial decrees, he adds: "Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day," etc. These were church laws, compelling the strict observance of Sunday, and faithful attendance upon public worship on that day, and holding an ecclesiastical curse over those who kept the Sabbath; and this action was taken by various councils.
J. H. W.
(To be continued.)