THE COMMANDMENT FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING
By A. T. J.
THE COMMANDMENT FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING
THE author of the "Abiding Sabbath" insists that the Sunday-sabbath "is established as an apostolic institution;" and that "the religious use of Sunday" has "the high sanction of apostolic authority;" not only by the example of the apostles, but by their plain commands—in fact, by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Thus he says:— “Preachers of the gospel of the resurrection and founders of the church of the resurrection, they [the apostles] gave a new, sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.”—P. 198. Now an “injunction” is, “That which is enjoined; an order; a command; a precept.” Enjoin, is “to lay upon, as an order or command; to give a command to; to direct with authority;” “this word has the force of pressing admonition. It has also the sense of command.” “Explicit denotes something which is set forth in the plainest language, so that it cannot be misunderstood.”—Webster. “Explicit injunctions,” then, are commands that are set forth in language so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Therefore Mr. Elliott’s unqualified declaration is that, by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood, the apostles have given a sacred character to Sunday. But everybody who ever read the New Testament, knows that that is not true. And so does Mr. Elliott; for on page 184 he plainly confesses “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” And that by the word “Sabbath” in this place he means the Sunday is undoubted, because he immediately begins an argument to account for this “complete silence,” and to justify it. But knowing, and confessing, as he does, “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command” for the observance of the first day of the week is concerned, it is impossible to conceive by what mental process consistent with honesty, he could bring himself, in less than fifteen pages from these very words, to say that the apostles gave a “sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.” Compare pp. 184 and 198. And it is by such proofs as this that Sunday is shown to be the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath! It is such stuff as this that Professor William Thompson, D. D., Professor Llewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D., all of Hartford, Conn., “after a careful (?) and thorough (?) (!) examination” accounted worthy of a prize of five hundred dollars; and to which, by a copyright, the American Tract Society has set its seal of orthodoxy. But although he finds this “complete silence,” he finds no difficulty in accounting for it; and here is how he does it:— “It is not difficult to account for the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned. . . . The conditions under which the early Christian church existed were not favorable to their announcement. . . . The early church, a struggling minority composed of the poorest people, could not have instituted the Christian Sabbath in its full force of meaning. The ruling influences of government and society were against them.”—P. 184. Therefore, according to this five-hundred-dollar-prize Christianity, commandments for the observance of Christian duties can be announced only when the conditions under which the church exists are favorable to their announcement; that is, when the ruling influences of government and society are in favor of it. And the one great distinguishing institution of Christianity is dependent upon “the ruling influences of government and society,” for “its full force and meaning”! Christians can wear the badge of their profession only when the majority favor it! We confess that that is in fact the true doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath. We have heard it preached often. And we know that is the doctrine upon which it was based in the origin of its claim to Christian recognition. But is that the kind of religion that Christ instituted in the world? Is that the manner of “Christian walk and conversation” to which he referred when he said, “Enter ye in [strive to enter in] at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”? Was it to incite his disciples to faithfulness under the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society” that Christ said, “The brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”? Was it to induce the “early Christian church” to wait for the sanction of the majority, and the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society,” that Christ gave the command, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”? The fact is that Mr. Elliott’s reason for the “complete silence” of the New Testament in regard to a command for the observance of the Sunday, as well as the doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath itself, is contrary to every principle of the doctrine of Christ. Well, then, according to Mr. Elliott’s scheme of Christian duty and faithfulness, when was the “Christian Sabbath” really instituted “in its full force and meaning”? He tells us plainly. Hear him:— “For the perfect establishment of the Christian Sabbath, as has already been observed, there was needed a social revolution in the Roman empire. The infant church, in its struggles through persecution and martyrdom, had not the power even to keep the Lord’s day perfectly itself, much less could the sanctity of the day be guarded from desecration by unbelievers. We should expect therefore to find the institution making a deepening groove on society and in history, and becoming a well-defined ordinance185nance the very moment that Christianity became a dominant power. That such was the case the facts fully confirm. From the records of the early church and the works of the Christian Fathers we can clearly see the growth of the institution culminating in the famous edict of Constantine, when Christianity became the established religion of the empire.”—P. 213. Now as there was no command for the observance of the Sunday institution, and as it was not, and could not be, kept by the “struggling minority” that formed the early Christian church, the “deepening groove on society and in history” that was made by the institution,” could have been made only by influences from beyond the struggling minority, i. e., from the majority. And that is the fact. The majority were heathen. The worship of the sun was the chief worship of all the heathen. And as ambitious bishops, in their lust of power, of numbers, and “of the ruling influences of government and society,” opened the way for the heathen to come into the church, bringing with them their heathen practices and customs; the day of the sun, being the chief of these, thus gained a place under the name of Christianity, and so went on making its “deepening groove on society and in history,” until it culminated in “the famous edict of Constantine,” in honor of “the venerable day of the sun,” and commanding its partial observance. Of this famous edict, we shall let the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” himself tell:— “The Emperor Constantine was converted, and Christianity became, practically, the religion of the empire. It was now possible to enforce the Christian Sabbath and make its observance universal. In the year 321, consequently, was issued the famous edict of Constantine commanding abstinence from servile labor on Sunday. The following is the full text:— “‘The Emperor Constantine to Helpidius. “‘On the venerable day of the sun, let the magistrates and people living in towns rest, and let all workshops be closed. Nevertheless, in the country, those engaged in the cultivation of land may freely and lawfully work, because it often happens that another day is not so well fitted for sowing grain and planting vines; lest by neglect of the best time, the bounty provided by Heaven should be lost. Given the seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, both for the second time.’” The man who can see in the life of Constantine any evidences of conversion, possesses a degree of penetration truly wonderful; equal, indeed, to that which can discern “transient elements” where it demonstrates that there are none. The one act of Constantine which is most nearly consistent with the idea of conversion, was performed in March, A. D. 313, eight years before the earliest date we have ever heard claimed for his conversion. That act was the edict of Milan, “the great act of toleration,” which “confirmed to each individual of the Roman world the privilege of choosing and professing his own religion,” and stopped the persecution of Christians. But even this one act that was consistent with conversion, was undone by his “conversion,” for soon after his “conversion” the edict of Milan was revoked. We shall name here some of his principal acts after his “conversion:” March 7, A. D. 321, he issued an edict in honor of the venerable day of the sun. The very next day, March 8, 321, he issued an edict commanding the consultation of the soothsayers. In 323 Licinius was murdered by his orders, in violation of a solemn oath given to his own sister, Constantia. In 326 he was guilty of the murder of his own son, Crispus, his nephew, Licinius, and his wife, Fausta, to say nothing of others. To the end of his life he continued to imprint the image of Apollo, the sun-god, on one side of his imperial coins, and the name of Christ on the other. In view of these things we sincerely doubt that he was ever converted at all. And we most decidedly call in question the Christian principle that could dwell consistently with a life so largely made up of heathen practices, and stained with so much blood. But to say nothing further on the subject of the “conversion” of Constantine, it is evident from Mr. Elliott’s argument that the “influences of government and society” which were essential to the complete sanctity of the “Christian Sabbath,” and for which it was compelled to wait nearly three hundred years, were embodied in an imperial edict of such a man, in honor—not of the Lord’s day, nor of the Christian Sabbath, nor of Christ, but—of the venerable day of the sun; that the legislation which was to enforce the “Christian Sabbath,” and make its observance universal, was a piece of legislation that enforced the “venerable day of the sun,” and made its observance partial, that is, obligatory upon only the people who lived in towns, and such as worked at trades; while country people might freely and lawfully work.” However, on the nature of this legislation, we need ourselves to make no further comment. The author of the “Abiding Sabbath” exposes it so completely that we can better let him do it here. He says:— “To fully understand the provisions of this legislation, the peculiar position of Constantine must be taken into consideration. He was not himself free from all remains of heathen superstition. It seems certain that before his conversion he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god. . . . The problem before him was to legislate for the new faith in such a manner as not to seem entirely inconsistent with his old practices, and not to come in conflict with the prejudices of his pagan subjects. These facts serve to explain the peculiarities of this decree. He names the holy day, not the Lord’s day, but the “day of the sun,” the heathen designation, and thus at once seems to identify it with his former Apollo-worship; he excepts the country from the operation of the law, and thus avoids collision with his heathen subjects.” Now as he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god; as he had shaped this edict so as not to be inconsistent with his old practices, and not to conflict with the prejudices of his pagan subjects; as he gives the day its heathen designation, and thus identifies it with his former Apollo-worship; and as in it he avoids collision with his heathen subjects; then we should like to know where in the edict there comes in any legislation for his Christian subjects. In other words, if he had intended to legislate solely and entirely for his heathen subjects, and to enjoin a heathen practice, could he have framed an edict that would more clearly show it than does the one before us? Impossible. Therefore, by Mr. Elliott’s own comments, it is demonstrated that the famous edict of Constantine was given wholly in favor of the heathen, enjoining the observance of a heathen institution, Sunday, in honor of the great heathen god, the sun. And if that was to favor Christianity (?), then so much the worse for the Christianity (?) which it favored. At the very best it could only be heathenism under the name of Christianity. Such is the command, and such its source, that it is seriously proposed shall be observed instead of the holy commandment of the living God, spoken with a voice that shook the earth, and twice written with his own blazing finger upon the enduring stone. Such is the day, and such its sanctions, that it is proposed shall wholly supplant the day to which have been given “the highest and strongest sanctions possible even to Deity”—the day upon which he rested, which he blessed, which he sanctified, and which he has distinctly commanded us to keep, saying, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work. The observance of the seventh day is that which we, by the word of God, urge upon the conscience of every man. But if we had no better reasons for it than are given in this five-hundred-dollar-prize essay, or than we have ever seen given, for the observance of Sunday, we should actually be ashamed ever to put our pen to paper to advocate it. A. T. J.