THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY,
ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.
"An unjust judgment proceeding from a layic is bad, from a priest worse, still worse from a college of priests, and from a general council superlatively bad." JEROME.
As highly as we esteem the American Tract Society for the good things they have done, and are doing, we find cause for regret that they do not undeviatingly confine themselves to the Scriptures as a guide in matters of religion; but that in some instances they have made statements, not warranted by the scriptures, but are entirely gratuitous, and are calculated to mislead the minds of their readers. Error loses none of its bad consequences by being supported by many advocates: nor is the truth less valuable and excellent for having but few. When the irreligious conspire against the Lord, and when his professed friends array themselves against his holy law, and use false and deceptive means to supplant their sentiments, though they may be associated in numbers that would vie with the stars of heaven, yet, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision;" their violent dealings will eventually recoil upon their own heads. The precious Book of God is the standard of gospel truth, and we rejoice that it is in the hands of the community, and that they are not under the necessity of taking for granted, what cunning and designing men introduce for the commandments of God, unless it is found in his word; for now it may with propriety be said, that "The ignorance of the law is no excuse for its violation." The article referred to as exceptionable may be found in tract 177, page 6, entitled, The Institution and Observance of the Sabbath. If an enlightened Christian society, of such pre-eminent talents, so extensive in influence and resources, can, in the face of all Protestant christendom, make such absurd and false statements, to subserve an unscriptural cause, we shall cease to be astonished at the innovations of the less enlightened and more bigoted hierarchy of Rome. In remarking on the exceptionable article in the Tract, we do not wish to countenance Sabbath profanation, but only to correct improper statements, and show the imposition which is practiced on the community, and what measures are resorted to, in order to render the Sabbath of the Bible unpopular and obsolete, by sustaining the day imposed by human authority. We will take the article in course, and point out as we pass, some of the false statements which are made, and calculated of themselves, to make erroneous impressions on the mind, and endeavor to illustrate the subject and place the truth in its proper light. In the first place we will notice the manner in which he introduces the article. "Without entering into the merits of the hypothesis, (says the writer,) which supposes that the true Sabbath of the creation was lost in the time of Joshua and Hezekiah, by the unusual prolongation of some days, we shall introduce arguments more within the observation of general readers." To which we remark, that the writer here holds out false colors, and uses this argument just as unarmed merchantmen use wooden guns and painted ports, to give a resemblance of strength, for the purpose of keeping the enemy at bay; for it is at once discoverable that the week is not divided by the length of its days, but by the days themselves; and the order of the weeks could not be deranged if one day should tarry eight and forty hours: the next would take its number and order. But allowing the argument to have weight, the rule would work the wrong way; for no reason can be given why another day should be received into any week, because the days had been unusually long. But this is all unnecessary, for when our Saviour was on earth, he recognized the Sabbath then in observance; and all controversy is therefore at an end. In the next place the writer says, "Here it should be remembered that the keeping of the precise seventh day may be considered a part, from the design of the institution itself, which was that one seventh portion of our time should be dedicated to rest and religious purposes." Here is an assertion which is unauthorized by the Bible, and the writer is unable to be responsible for the consequences of perverting the truth so grossly. In the first place, in the institution of the Sabbath, [Gen. ii, 2, 3,] no requirement is made for a seventh portion of our time; but on the seventh day God ended his work, "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested." That the Sabbath was made for man, we have the testimony of our Saviour; but a seventh portion of time is nowhere spoken of in connexion with the Sabbath, but only the seventh day. It may be urged that the seventh day is a seventh of our time. It may now be, but there is not the least proof that that was the case when the Sabbath was instituted; for we cannot ascertain whether all the days previous to the creation of the sun or solar system, (which was on the fourth day,) were of the same length with the seventh, they might, or might not have been. So that the doctrine of the seventh portion of our time, falls either by scripture, or by any certain analogy, nor will he find relief in any other part of the Scriptures which are in every place referring to it, expressly for the seventh day, and he cannot in any wise screen himself from the suspicion of down right presumption and willful perversion of the Bible. Again, "It may be asked, [says the writer,] 'upon what authority has the day been changed?' In reply to this, we answer, Upon the same authority by which it was first instituted. The Saviour of the world declared himself to be 'the Lord of the Sabbath;' having the same authority to change it as to institute it." There is no dispute as respects his power to change the Sabbath, or to have annihilated the world; but the question is, did he do it? where is the evidence? The writer has ingeniously acknowledged that there is no mention made in the gospels of such a precept from him. Now if it is not in the Scriptures it is in no part of the Christian religion, but an innovation. The writer assumes that on his resurrection day he finished the work of redemption, and made this the plea for the sanctification of the day; but the Scriptures no where attribute to his resurrection the completion of the work of redemption. Our Saviour said on the cross, "It is finished," and bowed his head and gave up the Ghost. The scriptures state that he redeemed us to God by his blood, and arose for our justification. Again as an evidence of the change of the Sabbath, he states, "On the first day of the week he met two of his disciples going to Emmaus, and opened their hearts to understand the scriptures: and on the evening of the same day, he met the eleven when Thomas was absent, and gave them his blessing." This is his first proof of his sanctioning the day. "Again, eight days after, being the first day of the week, when the disciples were together and Thomas with them, Jesus chose this day again to meet with them." To these statements we will reply, 1st. His meeting his two disciples going to Emmaus, and blessing them, instead of being an argument for his sanctioning the day, is on the contrary a proof that the day should be secularized; because his disciples were traveling about fifteen miles, without any pretence of a religious purpose, and away from the place where the disciples were; and Jesus did not reprove, but blessed them in it. As to his meeting the eleven on the evening of the same day, we observe that they were together for fear of the Jews, and sat at meat, the doors being shut, when he appeared and reproved them for their unbelief. This was not a meeting for religious purposes, but for fear of the Jews. In regard to his meeting with them eight days after, the Bible does not state that it was the first day of the week; and any person that can count eight can see the deception. One day after the first day evening would have been the second day evening; and eight days after could not be on the first day of the week, but the second, which would go as much to prove his sanction of the second day as the first. Again, he states that "although Christ met frequently with his disciples, no mention is made of any other but the first day of the week, and this always in connection with the assembling for religious purposes—having chosen it above the rest and called it by name, our Saviour authorized the observance of it by his own practice, which with us ought to have the force of law." If ignorance was the cause of this gross misrepresentation, it would be tolerable; but this cannot be plead. No mention is made of his meeting with his disciples at all in connection with their assembling for religious purposes, and but once of his meeting with them on the first day, and that when they were sitting at meat with closed doors, for fear of the Jews. As to our Saviour's authorizing the observation by his own example and practice, we will recite the particulars relating to it. Previous to his passion it is allowed he observed the seventh day; after his resurrection, he met the two disciples attending to their secular business, (traveling,) and caused their hearts to burn within them; the same evening he met the eleven while they were together for fear of the Jews, and sat at meat, and reproved them for their unbelief, and afterwards said, "peace be with you." Eight days after, which was the second day of the202week, at evening he met them again and said, "peace be unto you." Some days after he appeared to his disciples as they were fishing; and again at Galilee, but no mention of the particular day or of any meeting for religious purposes. Now any person can at one glance see that no example for first-day observance can here be plead, but the facts go to prove it a secular day; and if "his example and practice has the force of law," we are guilty if we do not use it as such. The writer having settled the question as it respects the sanctification of the first day by the example and practice of Christ, as the true Sabbath, argues the transfer of the blessing from the seventh to the first day, by the following circumstances: 1st. He opened the hearts of two of his disciples to understand the Scriptures, and met with the eleven, "and breathed on them, that they should receive the Holy Ghost;" [John xx, 19, 23;] which was fulfilled on the day of pentecost, which, he vainly pretends, was on the first day of the week. Be this as it may, the scripture is silent in respect to it, and no possibility remains for ascertaining the day of the week, only that it was the fiftieth day from the passover, which commenced the fourteenth day of the first month, and occurred at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion; but if any particular regard is paid to the day on which this gracious outpouring occurred, it was to be regarded as pentecost, for as such, and such only, is it mentioned. And these circumstances are all that the writer brings to prove the change of the blessing from the seventh to the first day of the week; and what more did he in opening the understanding of the disciples while they were attending to their business, (i. e., traveling,) than what Christians daily experience when spiritually minded? What was intended by his breathing on them, more than that he administered peace to them, we know not; which also took place on the second day (or Monday) evening, at his second meeting with them. In the next place the writer brings his arguments for a change "from the practice of divinely inspired apostles," of which he states that "nothing is more evident from the Acts of the Apostles and the early history of the church, than that our Lord's first disciples and their immediate followers met for religious worship uniformly on the first day of the week, which was afterwards called the Lord's day." And he mentions once in the course of Paul's ministry, that a meeting is named on the first of the week, which was at Troas; which is all the meeting on the first of the week, which the Scriptures do mention, except the evening which he first met the eleven. So that the writer has nothing to justify the assertion which he has made, that the disciples met uniformly on the first day of the week. The meeting at Troas being a night meeting, and altogether an occasional one, we will examine the practice of the apostles in this respect. The Jews commenced the day at sunset, as will be seen by turning to Gen. i, the even was before the morning. Mark i, 32; Lev. xxiii, 32, and which is agreed to by most authors. Dr. Chambers in his Cyclopedia, states that "the civil day begins at midnight: yet the ecclesiastical, or scriptural day begins at the evening." * The directions which Paul gave to the Corinthians, respecting the collection for the saints, does not imply a meeting on the first day of the week, but to lay by himself in store, or at home, as some ancient versions have it, but as a private collection only, and contrary to the practice of church collections, that each might have by him, on Paul's arrival, what he designed to bestow; and doubtless as his arrival was immediately to be expected, the earliest opportunity to make the investigation and collection was to be improved; and as the brethren would hear the epistle read on the Sabbath, it should be their first business on their return to their homes. So upon investigations of this subject, after examining the passages quoted by the writer, there is but a shadow of evidence of any regard to the first day by the primitive churches, and even this shadow of semblance, it is found, may fairly be explained away. But should we turn our attention to the circumstance that our Saviour did observe the seventh day, during his incarnation, and that after his resurrection it was still the custom of the apostles to meet on the Sabbath in the synagogue, at the river side with the Jews on the Sabbath, "with the Gentiles on the next Sabbath," (see Acts xiii, 14, 27, 42, 44; xvi, 13; xvii, 2; xviii, 4, and sundry other places,) that the writer of the Acts does speak of the Sabbath, and speaks of their frequent meeting on it. When we take into view the direction of our Saviour to his disciples, forty years after his passion, to pray that their flight from Jerusalem be not on the Sabbath day, and that when speaking on the moral law he said, whosoever breaketh one of these least commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, [Matt. v, 19,] and that James said, "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture," &c., "ye do well." "For he that keepeth the whole law, yet offendeth in one point is guilty of all; for He that said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James ii, 8, 10. And from the analogy he might have said, He that said, do not kill, said also, remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Now if we keep the whole law, and offend in this, we are guilty of all. That Paul also said, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. We must believe that the apostles did observe the seventh and not the first day for the Sabbath: and as there is not the least shadow of scripture evidence that the Lord's day [Rev. i, 10] was intended for the first day of the week, we pass it by without further notice, and will briefly recapitulate the whole of the evidences, in the light in which they stand, for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. In the first place, the day of the birth of our Saviour, or of his death, or ascension, have as strong claims on us for observation as that of his resurrection, for aught the Scriptures say, or reason would dictate. 2. The day of the week on which he arose cannot be ascertained by the scriptures, as will be seen by attentive reading of the foregoing; but admitting it to have been on the first day of the week, which the writer positively asserts, the evidences of its claims are as follows: 1. Jesus met two of his disciples traveling the road, and conversed with them, but did not reprove them for secularizing the day by traveling fifteen miles, without any pretence to religious purposes. 2. He met the eleven first-day evening, while they were assembled for fear of the Jews. 3. He met with them eight days after, which was on the second day, or Monday, (not the first day as is erroneously stated by the writer in the tract.) The next evidence of regard of the first day (as claimed) is the meeting of the disciples on pentecost, a feast of the Jews, without any information of what day in the week it was. The next is the meeting of Paul on the night part of the first day, at Troas (probably) at the close of the Sabbath, and departing on his journey on the first day morning. The next is his directing his Corinthian brethren to lay by them in store, or, as some ancient versions have it, at home, as God had prospered them, on the first of the week, what they designed to bestow on the poor saints at Jerusalem, without even a request for a meeting for that purpose. Again, [Rev. i, 10,] "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," which applies only to the Sabbath, as Christ said he was "Lord of the Sabbath day." These evidences, if properly considered, would be of themselves, sufficient to show any person who is not blinded by the prejudices of education, that no regard was paid to the first day as holy time. But when we consider that the phrase, first of the week, is not in the original text, it puts the matter at rest with all candid and attentive readers of the scripture. The writer having gone through with his scripture testimonies for the first day of the week being the true Christian Sabbath, he gleans a little from ecclesiastical history, and appeals to the Fathers, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, in confirmation of his position, and quotes Ignatius, who wrote in the first century, "Every lover of Christ celebrates the Lord's day as the most excellent and chief of all days." It would be well here to state, that we place but little confidence in the writings of the Fathers, for two reasons. First, because they were uninspired, and were as likely to follow their own conceits and human reasonings, as good men of our day; many of whom are in gross error in regard to observances, and St. Paul has informed us in his epistles, that the mystery of iniquity did already work, and that a falling away should come; and Peter said in his second epistle, [Chap. ii, 1,] "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies;" "and many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness they shall with feigned words make merchandise of you," &c. Now, with these cautions from the holy and inspired apostles, we are not willing to take the writings of the Fathers as a rule, unless they agree with the Bible, and then they are of no use. Second, because the writings of the Fathers have passed down to us through the church of Rome, and many corruptions and interpolations may be in them: for it was a popular thing with the Romish clergy, to do evil that good might come; (hence all their lying miracles) but since the writer of the tract places confidence in them, we will introduce some quotations from the same, and others of the fathers, and ecclesiastical historians, and then leave the reader to judge whether "The whole current of ecclesiastical history shows that it has been the constant and uninterrupted practice of the church throughout the world, since the days of the apostles, to observe the first day of the week as the true Sabbath." We will first notice those to which he alludes, and show that although they are pressed to give evidence on one side of the question only, yet they will nevertheless explain themselves, so as not to oppose the Sabbath. His quotation is from Ignatius; we will show from unquestionable authority, that he has not been fairly quoted in some instances. There is probably a diversity of opinions concerning Ignatius' epistles, as the different copies are differently expressed; and many who know the corruptions of papists, conclude that it has been, (if ever genuine,) greatly corrupted. As some copies have been acknowledged so, the passage from Ignatius, which has been much circulated to answer the purposes of the first day institution, which the writer of the tract has partly quoted, we will give, as is expressed in an acknowledgedly interpolated epistle. "Instead of sabbatizing, let every Christian keep the Lord's day, the day on which Christ arose again, the queen of days, on which our life arose, and death was conquered by Christ." Ep. interpol. ad. Magnes. Is. Vossl. Edit. p. 140. "The longer epistles which go under the name of Ignatius, are supposed to be genuine, and read (META TO SABBATISAL) not instead of sabbatizing, 'but after observing the Sabbath let every Christian keep as a festival the Lord's day,'" &c.—Ep. ad. Magnes. Is. Vos. Ed. p. 35.—Cornthwaite. Nor are the quotations from Justin Martyr and Tertullian against this doctrine. They might meet on Sunday, and consider it one of their chief days, and yet not disregard the Sabbath. Yet all the custom mentioned by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, are far from being apostolic. For instance, the mixing water with the wine in the Eucharist; and according to Tertullian—Lucius, cent. 3, fol. 96. "Tertullian says, that the passover and pentecost were solemn days for baptizing." Fol. 96. "The passover is said to be one of the Christian festivals;" the controversy about which, he says, was agitated in divers places: of which we have abundant testimony, after the introduction of festivals. Athenatius, bishop of Alexandria, said they assembled on the Saturday; not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.—Dr. Care, p. 175. "Athenatius shows the day of ecclesiastical assemblies to be the Sabbath,203the dominical day, the second of the Sabbath, (which some suppose to be Monday) and quantum sabbati, (Wednesday probably.) Magdeburgenses, 4th cen. fol. 224. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, (A. D. 390) said, "When I come to Rome I fast on the Sabbath; when I am here I do not fast," Cent. 5, fol. 436. Here it should be noticed that fasting was only used on the Sabbath where they were wishing to bring it into disrepute. "Sozomenus has delivered down the fact that at Constantinople, and almost amongst all, the Christians did assemble upon the Sabbath, and also on the first of the week; but at Rome and Alexandria not so." Magdeburgenses, 4th cen. fol. 224. Cent. 5, fol. 477, they say on the authority of Sozomenus, that the "ecclesiastical assemblies in Rome, were not upon the Sabbath, as in other countries." Soz. lib. 7, chap. 19. Augustine says, (speaking of the fasts on the Sabbath, and the diversity of opinions on it,) "If they should say that it was sinful, they would condemn the Roman church, and many places near to it, and farther from it; and if they should think it sinful not to fast upon the Sabbath, then they should blame many eastern churches, and the far greater part of the christian world." Chrisostom's letter to Jerome. Athenatius, (Hom. de. Sem. fol. p. 1060, and Socrates Scholasticus, the ecclesiastical historian, liber 5, chap. 21,) who testifies that the Sabbath was used to celebrate the holy mysteries (or church ordinances) in most parts of the world, his words are these: "Touching the communion there are sundry observations and customs; for though in a manner all the churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and receive the holy mysteries every Sabbath day after other, yet the people inhabiting Alexandria and Rome do not use it, the Egyptians adjoining to Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebais of a tradition do celebrate the communion upon Sunday." This, says a learned writer, was in the fourth century, between the years 380 and 397. (Bamp. inquiry.) We will add a few more testimonies, to show that early writers did agree, and those of more modern times acknowledge what we contend for to be correct, and that the primitive christians did observe the seventh and not the first day as the Sabbath. Constantine passed an edict and sent it to all the governors of provinces, that they should forthwith observe the dominical day; that they should honor holy days consecrated to martyrs, A. D. 321. Eusebius' life of Constantine, fol. 58-60. Constantine admonishes all the subjects of the Roman empire that they should keep holy the days dedicated to the Saviour, and likewise those which are Sabbaths should be honored, or worshipped, and gave a law to the presidents of all nations, that they observe the Dominical day according to the will of the emperor, and that they should honor the days of the martyrs. The emperor Constantine commanded that the dominical day should be free from hearing causes and doing business except husbandry or tillage. Lucius, cent. 4, fol. 41. Grotius says, "Therefore the christians also who believed Christ would restore all things to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in monogamia, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, on which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts xi, 21, which custom remained to the time of the council of Laodicea, (about 365) who then thought meet the gospels should be read on that day. These things considered [says he] refute those who pretend that the first day of the week, or Lord's day, is substituted in the room of the Sabbath, for there is no where any mention made of such a thing by Christ or his apostles; and whereas the christians met on that day on which the Lord arose, as well as on the Sabbath, They did not this from any divine or apostolic practice; but from the liberty granted them by voluntary consent." Grotius' Explanation of the Decalogue. After all that has been brought to prove the point in question, and which we think has fairly put the matter to rest, as respects the observance of the seventh day for the Sabbath until changed by the church of Rome; so far at least as the testimony of the fathers can or will be considered testimony, which however we consider far from dictating any part of our duty for reasons afore mentioned. "The Bible only is the religion of Protestants," and unless our religionists at the present day will consent to be governed by the Bible as sole director, we may well fear a second relapse of the church into a philosophical religion, (which is already making its appearance, and taking bold strides to defeat evangelical faith,) from which a recovery will be hopeless. Let us, then, undeviatingly attend to the Bible, take its plain and obvious sense, make it the man of our counsel and the rule of our faith; remembering the momentous caution in Revelation xxii, 18, 19, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city." "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commands, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."—An old Tract.