The Change of the Sabbath.
By C. P. Bollman
THE motives of the leaders in the early church who consented to the commingling of Christianity and paganism are thus stated by Gibbon:— "The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman Empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals."—Decline and Fall, chap. 28. But, as shown in a previous article, notwithstanding the use made of this edict by those leaders in apostasy, the bishops of Rome, the Bible Sabbath was observed, especially in the East, till the Roman Catholic council of Laodicea prohibited it under anathema. And Lyman Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sec. 2, says: "Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church." But it was not alone their pagan predilections that influenced the early Gentile Christians in their choice of Sunday; prejudice against the Jews had no small share in the matter as appears from several considerations. That this hatred of the Jews was not only common at that time, but active and virulent, is shown by the following expressions attributed to Constantine himself by Eusebius: "Let us have nothing in common with that most hostile rabble the Jews." "Let us withdraw ourselves from that most odious fellowship." "Use every means that the purity of your minds may not be affected by a conformity in anything with the customs of the vilest of mankind." These sentiments were expressed by the emperor after his conversion(?), and in view of such utterances it has been most justly remarked that "to have nothing in common with the Jews, they rejected the Sabbath; and to be in conformity with them in nothing, they adopted the Sunday and the image-worship of their heathen neighbors. Surely they made a success of having nothing in common with the Jews." Protestants all agree that the papal system has in it many features borrowed from Paganism; and just so surely as it has, Sunday-keeping is one of them. Every Bible student knows that the Scriptures contain no hint of a change of the Sabbath by divine authority; scores of first-day writers have acknowledged the fact; ecclesiastical historians of note have repeatedly said that "the festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance;" and the Christian at Work, a respectable Presbyterian journal, has acknowledged the same truth, and twice published it to the world within the last two years; what need we further witness? Do we not justly accuse "the mystery of iniquity," which even in Paul's day was working for the corruption of the church, with the crime of thinking to change the law of God, especially the fourth commandment? It matters not that apologists for the change plead that "it was no irreverent or undelightful thing to adopt it [Sunday], inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day at any rate;" nor that the change was necessary, as the North British Review pleads (vol. 18, p. 61), "because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby should be had in among all the Gentiles with whom they lived" had they kept any other day than Sunday. It was none the less entirely unauthorized, and therefore a sin against God; and in blindly accepting this false sabbath from the Church of Rome, Protestants have been made to "drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." But what do Catholics themselves say about this matter? How do they account for the change? Let a Catholic work entitled Abridgment of Catholic Doctrine answer:— "Ques.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Ans.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
"Ques.—How prove you that?
"Ans.—Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power." Another Catholic work, the Doctrinal Catechism, offers proof as follows, that Protestants are not guided by Scripture:— "Ques.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Ans.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority." This is the view which Catholics take of this matter; and as both history and Scripture prove that they did make the change, the only question for each dividual to settle is, whether or not he will follow the plain teaching of the word of God. The Lord in thunder tones from Sinai said: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" but the Church of Rome says, through emperors, popes, and councils, "The first day is the Sabbath." Which shall we believe? "If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."
C. P. BOLLMAN.