WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH? by John Norton Loughborough

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 17, 1857

WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?

By John Norton Loughborough

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, we understand to be that testimony which is brought to light by investigating a train of circumstances which are connected with a case which is up for examination. Circumstantial evidence is good proof of truth, and in all cases if rightly interpreted, is an index to truth. Yet to have a train of circumstances prove a case, one must be quite positive that no other construction than the supposed one can be justly placed on those circumstances.

"As a friend once remarked to me, many an innocent man has been condemned to the gallows by circumstantial evidence. A man is suspected of having committed murder, how carefully he is watched, how closely he and his premises are inspected. Blood is found on his sleeve, and a bloody knife in his house. He was from his house at the time the murder was committed, and was seen going towards the scene of the murder one hour previous to the murder. This perhaps with a few other circumstances satisfies the jury, and the man is condemned as a murderer; and yet perhaps these circumstances might all have been explained. The blood on his knife and sleeve may be other than human, and his going towards the scene of murder, for altogether a different purpose than to take the life of his fellow. As it was in the case of the butcher in England, who was condemned to the gallows by circumstantial evidence. He was engaged in his occupation and heard a cry of murder; and in his haste ran to the scene of action with his bloody knife in his hand; he found a fellow-being murdered by the hands of an assassin. Others testified that when they came to the murdered man, no one was to be seen but the butcher with his bloody knife, and these circumstances had cost him his life, had it not been for the confession of the murderer himself at the time the butcher was marched upon the stage, to be hung. So we see the importance of weighing well circumstantial evidence before resting a case upon it."

But as you might infer from the heading of this article, we are not going to condemn totally circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is good for nothing when the facts are known to be to the contrary of the supposed circumstances. For instance if in the case above, three witnesses should solemnly swear that they saw another man, [not the one in whose house was found the bloody knife and sleeve,] commit the murder, what would the circumstances supposed above, really weigh? Nothing.

In some scripture questions there is some circumstantial evidence that may be brought forward; but that evidence must receive its coloring from either positive evidence, or facts known.

The change of the Sabbath is a question on which some circumstantial evidence may be brought forward which will either tend to convict the murderer of God's Sabbath, or if the change were a heaven-born act, show who shall have the glory of that work.

Protestants have come on with their circumstantial evidence to show that Christ set aside the seventh day, or the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and has given us the first day of the week in its stead. They do not even pretend that they have positive evidence of this: but it is all either circumstantial or inferential. So they give us two circumstances of Christ's meeting with his disciples; [but one of which however happens to fall on the first day of the week;] and another circumstance of Paul's meeting with a certain church on the first day of the week; and finally a fourth circumstance, that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.

Now of these circumstances we say, if they were to effect an institution that was established by no better testimony than inferences, if there was no positive evidence against them, they might weigh something, providing no other construction could be placed on those circumstances, than that they were to show a transfer of respect to the first day of the week. But to array them against a positive command of God is fallacy; and we here say of these circumstances, [as has often been shown through the Review, and as may be seen by our publications on the Sabbath,] facts are against making an application of them so as in any way to make them favor the idea that first-day is a holy day.

Not only will positive witnesses testify contrary to the construction that has been placed on these circumstances, but the facts connected with these circumstances give altogether a different coloring to the subject. Christ has declared in a positive manner, [Matt. v, 17-19,] that "not a jot or tittle—a letter or point that distinguishes between letters—shall pass from the Law" till the consummation of all things. [So John Wesley renders, "Till all be fulfilled."] So, never before the consummation will the command teach the observance of any other day than the seventh. There is positive evidence against the circumstantial; and of the construction placed on the above circumstances, we say, Mark shows the fallacy of the first, that Christ met with them to commemorate his resurrection; for by his testimony [Mark xvi, 14] we learn that they did not believe that Christ had risen from the dead, and it would be folly to say they were commemorating his resurrection. Of the second occasion of Christ's meeting with his disciples, we say, as we have before intimated, it was not on the first day of the week; because, being after eight days from the first meeting, it could not have fallen earlier than the second or third day of the week.

Of the circumstances of Paul's meeting with the church at Troas on the first day of the week, the facts show that it was only an evening meeting preceding the first day of the week, and that Paul spent the whole of First-day from day-break, in starting on a journey, seven miles of which he went on foot, while a ship sailed around, about fourteen miles, and he took passage on board.

Of the fourth circumstance, that John "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," it would have to be shown by good evidence that the Lord's day was the first day of the week, before the construction placed upon it to favor Sunday-keeping could be admitted. And when we look for testimony showing what day is the Lord's, it invariably points us to the seventh day instead of the first. Ex. xx, 10; Isa. lviii, 13; Mark ii, 28. We see then that the circumstantial evidence produced to show that Christ or his apostles changed the Sabbath, fails to prove that they changed it.

But when our Protestant friends fail in their circumstantial evidence drawn from scripture, to establish the divine authority for the change of the Sabbath, their next resort is to the testimony of historians respecting the course of the Fathers of the church, as they are called. Now, suppose they could show that the Fathers, one half of them, from the close of the first century till 538 kept the first day, and that from that time forward nine tenths kept it, would that show any divine authority for keeping the day? It would not, unless they could show that the influence that caused these Fathers to keep the day was from heaven. Protestant theologians tell us that the good men of the primitive church would not have kept the day unless they had been divinely instructed thus to do. We have failed to find any divine instruction for the keeping of that day, and when we get a description of the age in which the observance of this institution by Christians commenced, we are left to look on its origin as other than divine. Paul says [2 Thess. ii,] speaking of the degenerate times that were about to come on the church: "The mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth, [hindereth,] will let [hinder] until he be taken out of the way."

Apostasy, then, had already commenced in the days of Paul, which was to be developed more fully in the Man of Sin, [Papacy.] This is Paul's prediction concerning the time which was immediately to follow him. We see how literally it was fulfilled. Mosheim tells us, "The disingenuous and vicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down as it were, by lies and fictions, produced among other disagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious productions more credit and weight." Again he tells us, that in the third century, by this means the church had "degenerated much from primitive simplicity." Enfield says in his Philosophy, "The first witnesses of Christianity had scarcely left the world, when this work began." This work then commenced in the days of Paul. We ask, then, is it safe to take the position that the acts of men in that degenerate age were divinely required, unless we have good evidence to that effect? We think it is not.

But concerning that age in which some circumstantial evidence for Sunday-keeping has been taken hold of by Protestants, we will ask one of their own writers, and see if he will tell us whether it was by divine, or human authority that the observance of the day came in. Neander in his "History of the Christian Religion and Church," page 168 says:— "Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday, very early, indeed, into the place of the Sabbath. * 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 from the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."

Here then we find a frank admission from one of their own historians, that there is none but human authority for Sunday-keeping. But still the question is before us, Who changed the Sabbath? We see that circumstantial evidence, as well as positive is lacking to prove that Sunday-keeping is of divine origin. We wish to present a little circumstantial evidence, as to who did it. But lest you say of us that we put a wrong construction on these circumstances we will first give a little positive evidence, and shall then construe the circumstantial with it.

We claim that the change of the Sabbath was the work of the Mystery of Iniquity, or that which finally became the Papacy. Daniel declared that the little horn [chap. vii, which commentators agree with us signifies the Papacy] should think to change laws. This they have thought to do, and attempted to do. But what has been the result of the changes they have made in God's Law? According to their own statements they have changed the Sabbath. Q. "By whom was the Sabbath changed?" A. "By the governors of the church." Abridgement of Christian Doctrine.

We say then, not only did God predict that the Papal power would change his Law, and they admit that they have changed the Sabbath; but, circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that it was through Papal influence that men were induced to keep Sunday as a Sabbath.

The sum of our circumstantial evidence which we wish to present at this point is comprehended in this: these sects that maintained their principles pure and received not the doctrines of the Papal church, while they thus stood never kept the Sunday institution, and did keep the Lord's Sabbath. After presenting the facts in regard to these sects, we think it will be plain to be seen which way the circumstantial evidence points as regards the change of the Sabbath. There were three sects, at least, quite prominent from the fourth to the sixteenth centuries that kept themselves distinct from the Papal church: the Waldenses, the Abyssinians, and the Armenians.

The following is the Papist's own account of the Waldenses, given by Reinerius Sacho, an inquisitor of Rome, who traveled among them: "Of all the sects which have been, or now exist, none is more injurious to the church [i. e., of Rome,] for three reasons: 1. Because it is more ancient. Some aver their existence from the time of Sylvester; others, from the time of the apostles. 2. Because it is so universal. There is scarcely any country into which this sect has not crept. And 3. They have a great appearance of piety, as they live justly before men, believe rightly all things concerning God, and confess all the articles contained in the creed; only they hate and resist the church of Rome, and in their accusations are easily believed by the people."—Rel. Ency., art. Waldenses.

"They had no connection with the Catholic church, which they regarded as anti-Christ from the time of Pope Sylvester."—Rel. Ency.

Robinson, in his History of Baptism, says of them: "They were called Sabbati and Sabbatati, so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the Saturday for the Lord's day." "They were also called Insabbatati, because they rejected all the festivals, or sabbaths, in the low Latin sense of the word."

Of the Abyssinians, the Encyclopedia says:— "Various attempts have been made to bring this church under the Papal yoke, but without success." "About the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Portuguese Jesuits renewed the mission to Abyssinia, when the Emperor created one of them patriarch; and he not only swore allegiance to the Roman pontiff, but also obliged his subjects to forsake the rites and tenets of their ancestors, and to embrace the doctrine and worship of the Romish church." The Romanists held this dominion but a short time, but while they held it, Gibbon says, "They enjoined upon the Abyssinians to work and to play on the Sabbath." [Gibbon's Dec. and Fall, Vol. IV, p. 565.] This shows that up to that time they had had a regard for the Sabbath, or, why enjoin upon them to break it?

Of the Armenians [of whom we are informed that they kept the Lord's Sabbath,] Dr. Buchanan says in his Christian Researches, p. 242: "Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mahometan and Papal corruptions." Rel. Ency., art. Armenians.

Perhaps some are ready to object, that these sects now keep the first day. Our argument is not founded on their present position. We have shown that while they kept themselves free from the contaminations of the Romish church, they did disregard the Sunday institution and kept the Lord's Sabbath. And the fact that they now keep Sunday can be traced for its origin to the corrupting influence brought upon them by the Romish church. In concluding these few remarks, we would say, Is there not in the facts presented above, strong circumstantial evidence according also with the positive, that it is the Man of Sin that has thought "to change times and laws."

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. Round Grove, Ills. Aug. 25th, 1857.