THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 23, 1856

THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

THE SABBATH CANNOT BE CHANGED.

In all these declarations we rely solely on the word of God, and ask you to believe only that which is in harmony with it. And as God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, is the author of the Bible, its teachings define our obligation to the very highest authority. In it we are taught that God made the world in six days: that he rested the seventh day: that he blessed, sanctified, or hallowed, the seventh day: and he commanded that the seventh day be kept holy.

These are express declarations of the Bible, and therefore need no further proof. Let us with reverence examine them.

It is a fact plainly revealed that God made the world in six days: also that he rested the seventh day: and these declarations will forever remain true. They can never, in the untold ages of eternity, be

any less true than on the day that God finished his work and rested. God's rest, or Sabbath, was on the seventh day; and the seventh day can never cease to be the Sabbath or Rest-day of God, for it can never cease to be a fact that God rested on the seventh day. Thus it will be seen that the Sabbath institution is founded on fixed and unalterable facts, and is itself a fixed and unalterable institution.

In the account of creation week we are told that God made the world in the first six days; therefore he did not rest on any other day than the seventh. And as it will always remain true that God rested on the seventh day, so it can never become true that he rested on any other day. Therefore, as the seventh day can never cease to be the Rest-day or Sabbath of the Lord, so no other day can ever become his Rest-day or Sabbath. And as we have before found that the Sabbath is a fixed institution based on unalterable facts, so do we find that it is unalterably fixed to the seventh day.

Again, it is as true to-day as it was six thousand years ago that the Lord blessed and hallowed the seventh day; and as we find no account in the Bible of his having removed the sanctity from that day, or having bestowed it upon another, and as that alone is his rest or Sabbath-day, we must unavoidably conclude that it is at this time the holy Sabbath of the Lord.

And again, it is commanded in plain terms in God's law, that the seventh day be kept holy. We are commanded to keep holy that day which God made holy. Now it must be admitted that laws, as they are designed to define our obligation, should be most definitely and clearly stated. If a law be ambiguous or indefinite, it necessarily leads to confusion and injustice. And it is equally necessary, to a correct understanding of our obligation, that the repeal or amendment of a law should also be stated in plain terms. Now the law enjoining the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is as clearly and definitely expressed as language can be made to express ideas. But, on the other hand, the Bible does nowhere say that the sanctity has been taken from the seventh day, or that the law has been altered or repealed. Therefore we truly believe that the most solemn obligation rests upon us to observe God's holy Rest-day—the memorial of his great work of creation. And its importance as a memorial cannot be too highly valued. "It is the great safeguard against atheism and idolatry. If men had always kept the Sabbath, they never could have forgotten God; never would have doubted the existence of the Creator, for this institution was designed to point them back to the time when he created the heavens and the earth. And they never would have worshipped other gods; for this institution points out the true God, who created all things in six days and rested the seventh."

OUR SAVIOUR DID NOT CHANGE THE SABBATH.

When it is once shown (as we have shown) that the institution of the Sabbath does not admit of a change, and that the keeping of no other day than the seventh can be enforced by the commandment, it does not seem to be strictly necessary to go further and prove that it has not been changed; as it would not really be just to require us to prove that a thing has not been done, which we have just proved cannot be done. It properly belongs to those who advocate the change to show that the change has been made by the author of the institution. But as the proof of our position is abundant, and as many seem to take it for granted that the Saviour did change it, we will examine this also.

Now if a change has been made we ought to find it in the Bible, for we cannot think that we shall be brought into judgment to answer before God concerning matters not written in his word. And if it is in his word, it must be either expressed or implied. But it is not expressed, as you must know; for there is not one word about a change of the Sabbath in all the New Testament, nor in all the prophets who have spoken of the work of Christ. Neither is it implied; for if you will take the New Testament and look it through you will not find one text from which you could possibly gather that the day was changed. But you may say that from your very childhood you have been instructed that it was changed; and we would urge you to inquire with yourselves if your belief of a change did not proceed from such instruction instead of being derived from the Bible. And if your children should ask you to point out the change in the Bible, to what passage would you point, on which you would be willing to see them risk their eternal welfare? Do you know of any? If not, does your faith for the keeping of Sunday rest on the Bible, or on the word of a frail mortal like yourself? As you value your eternal welfare, weigh well this most important question. To aid you in your inquiries we will point to those things usually considered sufficient to authorize a change.

1. The Saviour broke the Sabbath. If this had not been actually urged by some we would not think it possible that any could believe it. If the Saviour had broken the Sabbath as the Pharisees accused him, it would not prove that it was changed or abolished, (for it was recognized afterwards without any recognition of a change,) but it would prove that Jesus was a breaker of his Father's law. This may be disproved in various ways. (1.) He said what he and his disciples did was "lawful," that is, conformable to law, which of itself, not only contradicts the objection, but shows that the law existed and was in full force; for no action can be called conformable to law where there is no law relating to it. (2.) He said he had kept his Father's commandments; [John xv, 10;] of course he did not break the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. (3.) The Scriptures abundantly prove that he was without sin.

2. The resurrection of Christ was on the first day. This may be allowed; but the commandment which requires you to keep the Sabbath does not command you to keep the Resurrection-day, but the Rest-day; nor is there any commandment given teaching us to observe the day of the resurrection. Now there is no commandment teaching the observance of a weekly Sabbath but the fourth of the ten, and if the keeping of the Sunday cannot be enforced by it, there is no law for its observance. But did you ever think how the fourth commandment would read to strike out the Rest-day, and put the Resurrection-day in its place? We will see:

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, &c. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the first day; wherefore the Lord blessed the first day and hallowed it." This rendering destroys the commandment, because it contradicts the facts on which it is based. And if you neglect or refuse to keep the day that God has commanded, and in its place keep one that

he has not commanded, do you not fear that you will be put to shame in that day when "God will bring every work into judgment"? Let us, then, "fear God and keep his Commandments."

But we have an authorized memorial of the resurrection. It is baptism. Read Rom. vi, 1-5. And as the holy Spirit has given one, let us not mock God by devising another, especially as the one so devised conflicts with that law by which we shall be judged.

3. The holy Spirit was poured out on the first day. The scripture says it was on "the day of Pentecost," which signifies the fiftieth day, not the first day, and which always occurred on the fifth day of the third month, and of course, not always on the first day of the week. Dr. Adam Clarke, however, says that the day of Pentecost was always on the sixth day of the third month; if so, as the Saviour rose on the sixteenth of the first month, and that was the first day of the week, it would bring the day of Pentecost in that year on the second day of the week, or Monday. But allowing that the day of Pentecost was on the first day, how do we learn that it is our duty to keep the day on which the Spirit was poured out? Do we find any commandment for it? We do not. This event has no bearing on the Sabbath, as God has not authorized us to keep a day for any such consideration.

4. The disciples met on the first day to celebrate the resurrection. The events of only one First-day are recorded in the gospels; viz., that one immediately succeeding the crucifixion. The word is said by Matthew once, by Mark twice, by Luke once, and by John twice, but all referring to the same day. In order to show that the apostles did not observe the first day or celebrate the resurrection, we will relate these events as recorded in the four gospels.

After the Lord was risen the women came to the sepulchre early in the morning. Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1. These went and told his disciples that he was raised, but they did not believe them. Luke xxiv, 1-11; Mark xvi, 9-11. The same day two disciples went to Emmaus, and Jesus walked and went with them, and was made known to them near the close of the day, being seven and a half miles from Jerusalem. Luke xxiv, 13-35; Mark xvi, 12. They returned to Jerusalem just before the day closed, and found the eleven and others together, and told them they had seen the Lord, but they did not believe them. Luke xxiv, 33-35; Mark xvi, 12, 13. While they were talking about these things Jesus himself came into the room, where they sat at meat, and said, "Peace be unto you;" and then proceeded to upbraid them because they did not believe he was risen. Luke xxiv, 36; John xx, 19; Mark xvi, 14.

Two things should be particularly noticed: (1.) They did not believe that he was raised, and of course were not met to celebrate his resurrection. (2.) They "sat at meat;" now by turning to Acts i, 13, it will be seen that they "abode" together, and instead of being at a public meeting, they were at their own residence eating their evening meal. It is claimed from John xx, 26, that Christ's next meeting with them was on the first day; but the seventh day from that first day would have taken it to the next first day, and "after eight days" would certainly carry it past the next first day. On the scripture usage of such terms compare Matt. xvii, 1, with Luke ix, 28. Some say he met with them only on First-day, which cannot be true; for Acts i, 3 says he was seen of them forty days, which is the full number of days between his resurrection and ascension. It needs but little study to perceive that there is no warrant in the gospels for neglecting to keep God's holy Rest-day, the seventh day of the week.

5. The disciples met on the first day to break bread. Acts xx, 7. As Paul was on his journey to Jerusalem he came to Troas; and the church met to break bread, and Paul preached until midnight. The scripture says also there were many lights, and he continued talking even till break of day, which shows beyond a doubt that it was an evening meeting. According to the reckoning of time which God ordained and they observed, the evening was the first part of the day. See Gen. i. Each day commenced at sunset; and as this is God's own arrangement, the Sabbath should now be kept in that manner.

Therefore a meeting on the evening of the first day would occur on what is now called Saturday night. And as he held his meeting all night, even till break of day, and then departed, it is evident that he departed on his journey on First-day morning, now called Sunday morning. In the discussion of this question this passage is very important, as it contains positive evidence that the disciples did not observe the first day of the week, or consider it a sacred day. And we would appeal to you: Does Acts xx, show that the first day was ever hallowed? Does it command you to keep it? It does not; nor does any other scripture teach it; and as the keeping of Sunday is not enjoined in the Bible it cannot be sin to labor on that day.

6. Paul commanded that collections be taken on the first day. 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2. A close examination of this passage will show that this statement is not correct. Said Paul, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him," which can have no reference to a public collection. A late writer, (J. W. Morton,) says:

"The Apostle simply orders that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up at home some portion of his weekly gains, on the first day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, 'by him;' and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means 'in the collection-box of the congregation.' Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, 'by one's self, i. e., at home'. Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it 'apud se,' with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, 'chez soi,' at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, 'bei sich selbst,' by himself, at home. The Dutch, 'by hemseelen,' same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, 'appresso di se,' in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, 'en su casa,' in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, 'para isso,' with himself. The Swedish, 'naer sig sielf,' near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above."

Dear reader, do you seriously think that the order of Paul indicates that any sanctity was attached to the first day at that time? If Paul had said, on the Sabbath-day let every one of you lay by him in store, we should not expect to make any one believe that it proved the sanctity of the day. On the contrary we should expect it would be urged as a reason why the Sabbath need not be kept, in that its sanctity would have been slighted by an order to attend to secular concerns on that day. Let us then be impartial, and not let our prejudices pervert the truth, and turn aside the testimony of God's word.

7. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Only one thing is proved by this text, which is, that there is one day in this dispensation known as the Lord's day—one day he claims as his own. But this text does not tell us what day it is. We must look to other scriptures to ascertain that. Now take your Bibles and learn from it what is the Lord's day. Ex. xx, 10. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Chap. xxxi, 13. "Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep." Isa. lviii, 13. "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day." The Sabbath is the Lord's day; his holy day is the day that he hallowed or sanctified, which was the Rest-day—the seventh day of the week. No other day does God ever call his own; no other is called holy, for no other was ever sanctified.

8. The work of redemption is greater than the work of creation. This is often given as a reason for keeping the day on which Christ arose; but for several reasons we think it cannot be allowed. (1.) It is presumption; for no one really knows it to be true. God himself alone can judge, and he has not revealed it to us. But we know that in his word he lays great stress on his claim to the title of Creator, and makes this the distinctive characteristic of his being and test of all false gods, that he made all things. Jer. x. (2.) If it were true it has yet no bearing on this question, as the Sabbath has no reference to redemption, but was instituted before the fall of man. (3.) Redemption is not yet completed, but is a subject of hope. Rom. viii, 22, 23. We have a memorial of the Saviour's death in the Lord's supper; [1 Cor. xi, 26;] and of his resurrection in baptism; [Rom. vi, 1-5;] but of the whole work of redemption complete we have none. It is not yet completed. (4.) Were the assumption true that redemption is greater than creation, and the resurrection the greatest part of the whole work, it would not prove that it was therefore pleasing to God for us to keep the day of the resurrection; for he has never required us to keep the day on which his greatest work was performed, but the day on which he did no work at all! How then shall we come before God, selecting the day on which we think the greatest work was done, and in keeping it claim to obey the commandment which requires us to keep the first-day? "This wisdom cometh not from above."

It often occurs that, when these points are examined and found to contain no warrant for profaning God's holy Sabbath, we are met with the declaration that We are required to keep one seventh part of time, or one day in seven, but no particular day. The inconsistency of this is shown by those who urge it, for it is urged by those who oppose the true Sabbath, the seventh day, which they would have no right to do if their declaration was true. For if no particular day be indicated by the law it must be left entirely to our choice, and we might as properly choose the seventh day as they the first. And as they oppose the seventh day, so do most of them argue that we ought to keep the first day; but if no particular day be commanded how do they ascertain it to be duty to keep the first day? How could an indefinite commandment, which pointed out no particular day, be made to enforce the keeping of the first day? But are we firmly of the opinion that if the commandment enjoined to observe the first day, as plainly as it now does the seventh day, there would be enough, even amongst those who oppose it now, to point out its striking particularity.

The Lord never commanded the observance of one seventh part of time, or one day in seven, except as it fell on the seventh day of the week. To say that the Lord hallowed one day in seven, but no particular day, is as absurd as to say that Christ rose from the dead on one day in seven but on no day in particular. The Scriptures teach that God sanctified the very day on which he rested; and surely no one will presume to say that God did not rest on any particular day. As one definite day is the Resurrection-day of the Son, so is one definite day the Rest-day of the Father. And as the Son did not rise on more than one day of the week, so the Father did not rest on more than one day of the week. It is truly absurd to say that the day of the Lord's Sabbath or rest, which he also hallowed, and which he commanded his creatures to remember to keep, was no particular day. What would you think of him who should undertake to regularly celebrate the day of his birth, or the day of his marriage, and yet observe no particular day? Or what would you think of your friend who should cross the Atlantic and then solemnly affirm that he landed at New York on one day in seven but on no day in particular? You would surely think he had left his senses in his fatherland. And shall we treat God's law in such a manner as to make it utter such absurdities? Remember, he says he is a jealous God, and has commanded us in all things to be circumspect.

THE SAVIOUR KEPT THE SABBATH.

Some think that this fact has no bearing on this question; but they lose sight of their duty herein brought to view. He said he came to do the will of his Father, and commands us to follow him; and the apostle John says of him who professes to abide in Christ, that he "ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1 John ii, 6. But he walked according to the requirements of his Father's commandments. He says, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." Heb. x, 7. This is quoted from the scripture which says, "I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Ps. xl, 8. Can we follow him, and walk as he walked,

if we do not the Father's will—if we keep not the Father's commandments—if his law is not within our hearts! Who is the servant of God but he that obeys God? And who will enter into the kingdom of heaven through Christ our Saviour but they that do the will of his Father which is in heaven? To profess faith in Christ the Son is not of itself sufficient for salvation; for Jesus said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt. vii, 21. This then, is a very important point. The Saviour himself said he had kept the Father's commandments and it is safe to obey God—to keep his commandments, and to follow his Son.

THE APOSTLES KEPT THE SABBATH.

This we might expect, because the Saviour had instructed them to follow him in obedience to the Father's will, and they walked even as he walked, and taught others so.

Luke xxiii, 56. At the time of the crucifixion they "rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment;" and the commandment enjoins to rest the seventh day, and not the first day. And we find by the next chapter that the first day immediately succeeded the Sabbath, and of course the Sabbath-day was the last day of the week.

Acts xiii, 14, 27. This 14th verse and context says that Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue and preached on the Sabbath-day. In verse 27 Paul said the prophets were read every Sabbath-day. Though this passage does not say that they kept the Sabbath, it contains important information on the subject by showing that Paul and Barnabas, who were ministering in A. D. 45, and Luke, who wrote in A. D. 63, called that the Sabbath-day whereon public meetings were held in the synagogue, which we very well know was the seventh day. Thus we have the testimony of the apostles and Evangelist that the Sabbath was not changed, but remained on the seventh day, after the resurrection and ascension of the Saviour.

Verses 42, 44. By these we learn that after the Jews had departed from the synagogue the Gentiles requested that the gospel be preached to them the next Sabbath; and that accordingly the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. At this time, then, the apostles did not recognize, neither did the Gentiles know of the change for which so many now contend.

Acts xv, 21. The testimony of this chapter is very important, because it contains an account of a council of "the apostles and elders," at Jerusalem [verse 6.] held in A. D. 52; and James said that Moses was read in the synagogue every Sabbath-day. Thus James with Paul recognized that as the Sabbath-day on which Moses was read in the synagogues, which was the seventh day. We would here remark that, (1.) it cannot with propriety be claimed that because this council was held at Jerusalem by those who were Jews by birth, that therefore they called that day the Sabbath which had ceased to be the Sabbath, to conciliate the Jews; for those same individuals were appointed to preach the gospel, "beginning at Jerusalem;" [Luke xxiv, 47;] so that the gospel in its purity and power went forth from that very place at the hands of those very men. (2.) They spoke by consent of the Holy Spirit, as we learn by verse 28. (3.) The council was called for the express purpose of considering the claims of Jewish ordinances, which they decided were not binding. But the Sabbath of the Lord was not in any wise Jewish, as we have proved; and the decision of the apostles and elders here confirms it.

Chap. xvi, 13. This text shows that there were other places besides the synagogues where the worshipers of God assembled on the Sabbath. At Philippi Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke attended one of those Sabbath meetings by a river side.

Chap. xvii, 2. This text says that Paul reasoned three Sabbath-days in the synagogue; also that it was his "manner" so to do.

Chap. xviii, 1-4. Here is a very important testimony. At Corinth Paul lived a year and six months, following his occupation of tent-making, and preaching every Sabbath, persuading the Jews and the Greeks.

Against all this strong array of testimony from the Acts of the apostles the advocates of the keeping of Sunday only produce the meeting on the evening of First-day at Troas, where it is not said that that First day was a Sabbath, or was considered sacred, or that the churches had any custom of that kind; but on the contrary it is clear that Paul started on his journey on Sunday morning; hence, that text contains positive proof that the first day was not considered a sacred day by Paul.

THE EARLY CHURCH KEPT THE SABBATH.

In proving the customs of the apostles and their teachings, we doubtless prove also the custom of the early church. Neither would it prove anything against this view to show that some of the members of the church at an early age violated the Sabbath: as you will allow that we inherit no right to be fornicators because some in the church at Corinth were such; [1 Cor. v, 1;] nor dare we turn away from God and plead the example of those in the church at Galatia; [Gal. i, 6, 7;] Peter dissembled, and Paul and Barnabas contended sharply, but we may not. We do not plead custom, but law, as a rule of duty. Our lives are not to be regulated by the actions of mortals like ourselves, but by the revealed will of the infinite God. Said Paul, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." 1 Cor. xi, 1. But if Paul had not followed Christ it would be wrong to follow him. We must follow the apostles as they followed Christ, and we must follow Christ because he kept his Father's commandments, and was pure and sinless.

Dr. Henry, a Protestant commentator, acknowledges that the first day of the week is not called the Sabbath in the Bible, and was not so called by the primitive church. But we have the fullest proof that one day of the week was in the New Testament, and by the apostles and the primitive church called the Sabbath, which was, of course, the seventh day.

Also, the first day of the week was by men (but not in the Bible) called the Lord's day; and from the second to the fifth century there was much contention in the Western Roman Empire as to the respective claims of the Sabbath and the Lord's day. And some writers of that age are quoted to prove that they kept the Lord's day instead of the Sabbath. Now as they meant the first day when they said the Lord's day, and kept it instead of the Sabbath, it is proof positive that they did not call the first day of the week the Sabbath; and this shows that the Sabbath was the proper name of the seventh day, even by consent of the Roman church, for centuries after the resurrection of Christ. In the Eastern Empire and in Africa the observance of the Sabbath continued longer than in Western Rome, as the Bishop of Rome obtained the supremacy, and the Western States were more immediately under the control of the ambitious and corrupt rulers of the church. The American Presbyterian Board of Publication, in tract No. 118, states that the observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath did not cease till it was abolished after the Empire became Christian: that is, after the State came under Papal rule.

Neander, the celebrated historian, says it was far from the intention of the apostles and the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.

THE WALDENSES KEPT THE SABBATH.

The Waldenses were a body of Christians who stood aloof from the church in its alliance with the secular power, and consequently remained free from many of the corruptions and Pagan notions which the heathens had incorporated into their religion when they came into the national church. Mosheim in his Church History, Vol. I, p. 352, says "They complained that the Roman Church had degenerated under Constantine the great, from its primitive purity and sanctity. They denied the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff."

Robinson, in the History of Baptism, says, "They were called Sabbati and Sabbatati, so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept Saturday for the Lord's day."

Jones, in his Church History, says that because they would not observe saints' days, they were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also.

A commissioner of Charles XII, of France, reported that he found among them none of the ceremonies, images, or signs, of the Romish Church, much less the crimes with which they were charged; on the contrary they kept the Sabbath-day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the primitive church, and instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith and commandments of God.

SUNDAY-KEEPING A HUMAN ORDINANCE.

In proof that the early church did not consider the first day sacred, we find, besides the testimony of the New Testament, that early ecclesiastical writers did not consider the keeping of Sunday an institution of divine appointment. In this respect there is a great difference between early and modern writers. Thus Wm. Tyndale, in the sixteenth century, said it was changed by men to put a difference between Christians and Jews. But as long as it has no sanction in the Bible, it is as if we should worship idols to put a difference between us and the Jews, who were forbidden idolatry in the same law that commanded to keep the Sabbath.

Bishop Cranmer, who was born in 1489, said they observed the Sunday according to the judgment or will of the magistrates; which is no better warrant than Daniel would have had to cease to worship God for the king's order.

Melancthon, who wrote in behalf of the German Reformers, said it was not founded on any apostolical law, but rested solely on tradition; but our Saviour, when on the earth, sharply rebuked those superstitious ones who made void the commandment of God by their tradition. Does not Jesus in his gospel yet speak to us? Are not his words left on record for our instruction? Then let us leave traditions which lead us to transgress the commandment of God.

Eusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, said, "All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, [meaning thereby Sunday,] as more appropriately belonging to it, because it had a precedence, and is first in rank, and is more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath;" meaning thereby the seventh day. Upon this we remark, (1.) The seventh day was not and is not the Jewish Sabbath, but the Lord's Sabbath. (2.) God put more honor upon the seventh day than upon the first day. (3.) Its sanctity did not depend upon its precedence in the week of days, but upon the express act of God, who hallowed the Sabbath, or seventh day. And (4.) the keeping of the Sabbath-day cannot with safety be made to rest on the will of man to the neglect of the commandment of God.

Sunday-keeping was enforced in the cities of the Roman Empire in A. D. 321, by Constantine, who still permitted labor in the country on that day. But in 538, when the civil power was transferred to the church, and Western Rome came under Papal rule, the council of Orleans prohibited the country labor also. It was not generally observed in the Eastern churches till some time after.

Neander, the learned and justly celebrated historian, says, "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance; and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them and the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century, a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin."

It was not kept in England and Scotland till the thirteenth century, although Christianity was introduced and societies formed in Scotland as early as the fifth century, and in England, it is probable, in the first century. Parliament was held in England on Sunday until the time of Richard II, when at the instigation of the Roman church, it was adjourned till the following day, and Sunday-keeping was established by law; and since that time many Sabbath-keepers have suffered severe persecutions, because of their adherence to the Sabbath of the Bible. Laws for the observance of Sunday were, through the influence of the Pope of Rome, passed in England before that time, but on account of aversion to the change on the part of the people they were not effectual.

In America, also, some have been persecuted for keeping the Rest-day of the Lord. Many States have laws binding men to keep the Sunday, and some of them are exceedingly unjust and cruel toward the observers of the Sabbath. These are not, at present, generally enforced; but there is a growing disposition manifested to protect this human institution at the expense of the divine; so much so that we have no inducement but the love of God and of his truth to turn from the traditions of men to the commandment of God at this time.

J. N. A. (To be Continued)