Sunday-Keeping—Is It of Rome?
The claim that the Christian Church is indebted to the papacy for Sunday as a Christian institution, rests upon manifold proofs. We have, first, the prophecy (Dan. 7:25) that the papal power should undertake to change the law of God; and it is easy to show that what the Church of Rome has attempted to do in changing the Sabbath, is a most explicit fulfillment of the prophecy; and further, that no other event can be found which can be claimed as a fulfillment, and if that has not fulfilled the prophecy, then the prophecy has failed. We have, secondly, the testimony of history showing how the first day of the week was lifted up among festival days, till finally that power which attempted to dictate respecting both faith and practice to all the churches, claiming to be the head over all, even Christ's vicegerent upon earth, endeavored to enforce it upon all as a divine institution. We have, thirdly, the doctors of the Catholic church expressly claiming that their church has changed the Sabbath, that it had the right and power to change it, that its success in putting Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is proof of its right in this respect, and that all who observe Sunday as the Lord's day, thereby acknowledge the right of that church to institute festivals of precept, and therefore act inconsistently when they refuse to observe other festivals ordained by the same church. And this teaching they put into their standard catechisms for the instruction of their children; and the priests and all Catholics who are intelligent in regard to their faith, will tell us that such is the position of that church respecting the institution of the first-day Sabbath. But here an attempt is made to nullify all this evidence by the assertion that we do not receive the institution of the Sunday-Sabbath from the Catholics, but from the apostles; and that Romanists themselves claim that the change was made by apostolic authority, and hence that it is wholly wrong to call Sunday-keeping a papal observance. We recently received a letter from a Methodist minister who had just read the tract published at this Office, entitled, "Who changed the Sabbath ?" in which are given extracts from Catholic catechisms in which they claim to have made the change. Our clerical friend thought we were appealing to the prejudices of the people on the Sabbath question. We replied that we were not appealing to prejudice, but to facts; that we claim no more than what the Catholic church itself claims, that it has made the change, and that we are indebted to it for the Sunday-Sabbath. He replies that the catechism of the Council of Trent claims "that the change was made during apostolic times, and was done by apostolic authority." And he adds, "If your authorities are correctly quoted, of which fact I have no doubt, it simply shows the want of harmony in that church respecting this question; but as my authority is that of a Council, and 'published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth,' it will stand against all the individual writers that can be brought on the other side." The catechisms from which we quote do not rest upon merely individual authority. They are not the expression simply of individual opinion, but published by authority, and used for the education of Catholic children everywhere. And we may be sure that a church which exercises such untiring and keen surveillance over all the literature that goes into the hands of its members, would not tolerate any lack of harmony in the fundamental principles which they teach their children. That the Catholic church claims that the change was made in apostolic times, we are well aware. For instance, in one of the catechisms quoted in the tract above mentioned, in answer to the question, "What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday ?" this answer is given: "We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition." Now because they refer it to apostolic times and apostolic tradition, does that invalidate their claim and ours that it is an institution of the Catholic church? Let us look at this point candidly. The rule of the Protestant is, that whatever is taught in the Bible, we can find there as well as others, so that there is no need of tradition in the matter. But do the Romanists claim that this change of the Sabbath can be proved from the Bible? By no means. On the contrary, they say that "the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change" (Cath. Chris. Instructed); and after referring to Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Rev. 1:10, they say, "Neither the one nor the other [of these texts] tells us that the first day of the week was to be henceforth the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church." (Id.) They further speak of it as "a change for which there is no scriptural authority," and say that Protestants do not find for their practice in this respect any "permission clearly laid down in the sacred volume." (Doctrinal Catechism.) They call it a change "that cannot be evidently proved from any text of Scripture." (Robt. Manning.) And they even go so far as to say that it is "against the plain letter of the Bible." Thus the Catholic claims no apostolic authority for the change except what rests upon tradition; but the Protestant does not admit tradition as of any authority in matters of faith; therefore the Catholic reference to apostolic authority for the change of the Sabbath is not of such a kind as Protestants can indorse at all. All Protestants are ready to admit that purgatory, prayers for the dead, and invocation of the saints, are Catholic doctrines, and rest upon the authority of the Catholic church; yet that church claims apostolic authority in these matters, even more distinctly than for the change of the Sabbath; not written out, to be sure, in the New Testament, but resting on tradition; and they throw it into the face of all Protestants, that if they could produce no better proof for these doctrines, than Protestants can produce for first-day observance, then might Protestants indeed have good cause to laugh them to scorn. This brings us to the second stage of the answer to the question whether the Catholic appeal to apostolic authority for Sunday-keeping invalidates our claim that it is a Romish institution. The fact already established that they have no apostolic authority except what rests upon tradition, destroys it for all Protestants. But there is something more. When we search for the so-called Christian Sabbath, as a historical fact, where do we find it? In the apostles' days! No. In the age immediately following? No. It is not till we come down well into the centuries, to that period which developed in its strength the great apostasy, that we find it taking its place authoritatively in the church; and then we find Sylvester, one in that line of the bishops of Rome now called popes, formally giving to Sunday the imposing title of "Lord's Day," and enforcing it by the unrepealed law of Constantine which, before his conversion to Christianity, he enacted in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival. This is the time, and these the circumstances under which, Sunday-keeping first appeared in fact, as a Christian institution of binding obligation. Every one will acknowledge that it is just to attribute the origin of any institution to that people among whom, and by whose instrumentality, it first appears. But the Catholics say Sunday is of apostolic authority. What of that? So they say of all their errors and corruptions. But when we search the apostolic writings, and do not find them, oh! they tell us, they rest on tradition. And Sunday-keeping rests right there too. Are not all these things then of Roman Catholic origin? and do not all who receive them take them from that church ? To illustrate: Suppose any church of the present day, the Methodist for instance, should succeed in introducing and establishing some new practice. Suppose they should say then that it was not their own, but was introduced by the apostles. Would it make any difference what they should claim in regard to its apostolic origin, if we could not find it there? None at all. Every one would say that such institution was wholly a Methodist concern; and this would be a correct decision. Just so with the Sunday-Sabbath. Facts, applied according to the same principle, show it to be wholly a Romish institution. U. S.