The Causes of Sunday Observance
By Frederick M. Wilcox
It is a law of physics that every effect has a producing cause; and while this is true in the physical world, it is just as true in the realm of moral ethics. What conditions working in the Christian church led up to the adoption of the first day of the week as the rest day of the majority of the human family instead of the Sabbath ordained by the Lord? In a general way, the cause can be denominated sin; the conditions leading up to this step are departure from God, love of the world, and popularity. Every student of church history knows that the purity of the apostolic church did not long remain unsullied. Paul states that the mystery of iniquity was at work even in his day; and he predicted that it would soon develop into the man of sin, who would work havoc with the truth of God. 2 Thess. 2:7. And in Paul's parting exhortation to the elders of the church at Ephesus he tells them that of their own number should men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20. Even in the end of the first century the Christian church began to depart from the simplicity of the faith, and to cater to the ideas and prejudices of the heathen world around them; and by the end of the second century this departure from original purity was indeed marked. Christianity began to wear the garb of heathenism. The conversion of the heathen became more superficial; and as these men united with the church of God, they brought with them many customs and practises of their former heathen worship. Ministerial parity became a thing of the past. The ministers of the larger churches took to themselves influence and prestige which their larger following gave. The churches at Rome, Alexandria, and at some other places became centers of influence and direction for many smaller congregations within their sphere of influence. Thus it was that the distinctions between the ministers in charge of these various centers and the less prominent churches became more and more marked. Upon the so-called conversion of Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth century, a new and strange impetus was given to the Christian faith, and the Christian religion became the religion of the empire. Then began the scheming of the various bishops and presbyters for recognition at the court of Constantine. Rome had for centuries been the mistress of the world; and as in the affairs of state her authority had been acknowledged, it seemed but natural that her authority should also be conceded in spiritual matters, especially as the emperor recognized the claims of the church at Rome, and gave to its opinions superior weight and authority. The popularity of the Christian religion in the empire only served to bring to its standard more subjects of the heathen faith. Scores united with the Christian church more in the hope of temporal gain than of spiritual advantage. And the church itself, having lost its fine sense of the character of Christianity, eagerly held out every inducement to augment its membership from the ranks of its heathen neighbors. Customs, festivals, and practises were modified, given Christian names, and incorporated into the practise of the church. Prominent among these came the Sunday festival. This day was dedicated to the worship of the sun, and upon it were held heathen feasts in honor of that deity. That the Christian church might not appear "causelessly peevish" and deter the conversion of its heathen neighbors, it saw fit to take this day observed by the heathen world and incorporate it into the practise of the church as a Christian institution, not in honor of the natural sun, but of the Sun of Righteousness. And as it happened that this day was the one upon which Christ rose from the dead, it was set apart in honor of his resurrection. Another reason which prompted this change was that odium, then as now, attached to the Jewish nation. And the so-called Christian church, that it might in no sense be classed with the Jews, the more readily embraced this change. In the Western church the Sunday sabbath was held as a joyous festival in contradistinction to the Lord's Sabbath, which was appointed as a fast-day. And in the love men have for feasting instead of fasting, this distinction between the two days was not without its effect in disposing them to this innovation. But this change was not accomplished in a moment. The entrance of sin is always insidious, and error creeps gradually into the church of God. Thus it was with the change in the practise of10the early church in regard to the Sabbath. The seventh-day Sabbath, says the historian, was observed for several centuries after Christ; and, indeed, after first-day observance was inaugurated, the observance of the two days ran parallel for some time. But the popularity of the church and the prejudices of its unconverted members from heathenism gradually gave to the first day the prominence, and seventh-day observance sank almost out of sight. In proof of these statements we have not cited specific historical references. These might be quoted by the score. But every intelligent student of church history will willingly admit the correctness of the above statements. Thus we see that the Sunday sabbath was wholly a product of the union of professed Christianity and heathenism. It has no foundation in the Word of God. The Sabbath was changed by the authority of the church, and that, too, at a time when the church was far separated from the Lord, and was not directed by his Spirit, nor was it walking in the light. To an institution originating in this way, should we give honor to-day? How does its sacred character compare with the day the Lord blessed and set apart for the use of his children in all ages? Bible or tradition — which is the authority for the Christian? Will you, dear reader, obey the ordinance of the Lord, or the commandment of men?