HISTORY OF THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 8, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

THE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES.

(Continued.)

The origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of Sunday is now distinctly understood. When God made the world, he gave to man the Sabbath that he might not forget the Creator of all things. When men apostatized from God, Satan turned them to the worship of the sun, and as a standing memorial of their veneration for that luminary, caused them to dedicate to his honor the first day of the week. When the elements of apostasy had sufficiently matured in the Christian church, this ancient festival presented itself as a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord. The manner in which it obtained a foothold in the Christian church has been already shown; and several facts which have an important bearing upon the struggle between these rival institutions have also been given. The general history of both during the first five centuries of the Christian era will now engage our attention. Of the observance of the Sabbath in the early church, Morer speaks thus:

"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 189.

That the observance of the Sabbath was not confined to Jewish converts, the learned Giesler explicitly testifies:

"While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath and the passover [1 Cor. v. 6-8], with reference to the last scenes of Jesus' life, but without Jewish superstition. In addition to these, Sunday, as the day of Christ's resurrection, was devoted to religious services."—Eccl. Hist., vol. i, chap. ii, sec. 30.

The statement of Mosheim may be thought to contradict that of Giesler. Thus he says:

"The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful."—Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii, chap. iv, sec. 4.

It will be observed that Mosheim does not deny that the Jewish converts observed the Sabbath. He denies that this was done by the Gentile Christians. The proof on which he rests this denial is thus stated by him:

"The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks in his letter to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the week, or what we call the Lord's day."—Id., margin.

The proposition to be proved is this: The Gentile Christians did not observe the Sabbath. The proof is found in the following fact: The churches in Bithynia assembled on a stated day for the celebration of divine worship. It is seen therefore that the conclusion is gratuitous, and wholly unauthorized by the testimony. Of the Sabbath and first day in the early ages of the church, Coleman speaks as follows:

"The last day of the week was strictly kept in connection with that of the first day, for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued."—Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi, sec. 2.

This is a most explicit acknowledgment that the Bible Sabbath was long observed by the body of the Christian church. It is true that Coleman speaks also of the first day of the week, yet his subsequent language shows that it was a long while before this became a sacred day. Thus he says:

"During the early ages of the church it was never entitled 'the Sabbath,' this word being confined to the seventh day of the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said, continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts to Christianity."—Id., &c.

This fact is made clearer by the following language, in which the historian admits Sunday to be nothing but a human ordinance:

"No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the institution of the Lord's day, or the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week."—Ancient Christ. Exam., chap. xxvi, sec. 2.

The historian does not seem to realize that in making this truthful statement he has directly acknowledged that the ancient Sabbath is still in full force as a divine institution, and that first-day observance is only authorized by the traditions of men. Coleman next relates the manner in which this Sunday festival which had been nourished in the bosom of the church, usurped the place of the Lord's Sabbath; a warning to all Christians of the tendency of human institutions, if cherished by the people of God, to destroy those which are divine. Let this important language be carefully pondered. He speaks thus:

"The observance of the Lord's day was ordered while yet the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and importance which belonged, at first, to that great day which God originally ordained and blessed. . . . But in time, after the Lord's day was fully established, the observance of the Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally denounced as heretical."—Id., &c.

Thus is seen the result of cherishing this harmless Sunday festival in the church. It only asked toleration at first; but, gaining strength by degrees, it gradually undermined the Sabbath of the Lord, and finally denounced its observance as heretical.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, a decided opponent of sabbatic obligation, while admitting the general observance of the Sabbath by the Christians during the first three hundred years, asserts that they did not regard it as obligatory in the highest sense of that word. Thus he says:

"The Lord's day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that commandment; but they did it also without any opinion of prime obligation, and therefore they did not suppose it moral."—Ductor Dubitantium, part i, book 2, chap. ii, sec. 51.

That such an opinion relative to the obligation of the Sabbath had gained ground extensively among the leaders of the church, as early at least as the fourth century, and probably in the third, is sufficiently attested by the action of the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, which anathematized those who should observe the Sabbath, as will be noticed in its place. That this loose view of the morality of the fourth commandment was resisted by many, is shown by the existence of various bodies of steadfast Sabbatarians in that age, whose memory has come down to us; and also by the fact that that council made such a vigorous effort to put down the Sabbath. Coleman has clearly portrayed the gradual depression of the Sabbath, as the first-day festival arose in strength, until Sabbath-keeping became

heretical, when by ecclesiastical authority, the Sabbath was suppressed and the festival of Sunday established as a new and different institution. The testimony of Jeremy Taylor, a distinguished bishop of the English church, which in important particulars confirms that of Coleman, is of much value. The first of these ancient Sabbatarian bodies was the Nazarenes. Of these Morer testifies that,

"They retained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were in reality neither one nor the other."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 66.

And Dr. Francis White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church leaders for that heresy; and he classes them with heretics as Morer has done. Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard, as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct successors. Thus Gibbon testifies:

"The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterward called, the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of Christ. . . . The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity."—Dec. and Fall, chap. xv.

It is not strange that that church which fled out of Judea at the word of Christ should long retain the Sabbath, as it appears that they did as late as the fourth century. Morer mentions another class of Sabbath-keepers in the following language:

"About the same time were the Hypsistarii, who closed with these as to what concerned the Sabbath, yet would by no means accept of circumcision as too plain a testimony of ancient bondage. All these were heretics, and so adjudged to be by the Catholic church. Yet their hypocrisy and industry was such as gained them a considerable footing in the Christian world."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 67.

The bishop of Ely names these also as a body of Sabbath-keepers whose heresy was condemned by the church. The learned Joseph Bingham, M. A., gives the following account of them:

"There was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians, that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their sabbaths and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen, whose father was once one of this sect, gives the account of them."—Antig. of the Chris. Church, book xvi, chap. vi, sec. 2.

It must ever be remembered that these people, whom the Catholic church adjudged to be heretics, are not speaking for themselves; their enemies who condemned them have transmitted to posterity all that is known of their history. It would be well if heretics, who meet with little mercy at the hand of ecclesiastical writers, could at least secure the impartial justice of a truthful record.

Another class are thus described by Cox in his elaborate work entitled, "Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties:"

"In this way (that is, by presenting the testimony of the Bible on the subject) arose the ancient Sabbatarians, a body it is well known of very considerable importance in respect both to numbers and influence, during the greater part of the third, and the early part of the next, century."—Page 280.

The close of the third century witnessed the Sabbath much weakened in its hold upon the church in general, and the festival of Sunday, although possessed of no divine authority, steadily gaining in strength and in sacredness. The following historical testimony from a member of the English church, Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham college, London, gives a good general view of the matter, though the author's anti-Sabbatarian views are mixed with it. He says:

"The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed, together with the celebration of the Lord's day, by the Christians of the east church above three hundred years after our Saviour's death; and besides that, no other day, for more hundred years than I spoke of before, was known in the church by the name of Sabbath but that: let the collection thereof and conclusion of all be this: the Sabbath of the seventh day, as touching the obligation of God's solemn worship to it, was ceremonial; that Sabbath was religiously observed in the east church three hundred years after our Saviour's passion. That church, being a great part of Christendom, and having the apostle's doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it if it had been deadly."—Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, ed. 1631.

Such was the case in the eastern churches at the end of the third century; but in such of the western churches as sympathized with the church of Rome, the Sabbath had been treated as a fast from the beginning of that century, to express their opposition toward those who observed it according to the commandment.

In the early part of the fourth century occurred an event which could not have been foreseen, but which threw an immense weight in favor of Sunday into the balances already trembling between the rival institutions, the Sabbath of the Lord and the festival of the sun. This was nothing less than an edict from the throne of the Roman empire in behalf of "the venerable day of the sun." It was issued by the emperor Constantine in A. D. 321, and is thus expressed:

"Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by heaven."

Of this law a high authority thus speaks:

"It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday. . . . By Constantine's law, promulgated in 321, it was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work."—Ency. Brit., art., Sunday.

Another eminent authority thus states the purport of this law:

"Constantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A. D. 321) that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work on that day."—Ency. Am., art., Sabbath.

Thus the fact is placed beyond all dispute that this decree gave full permission to all kinds of agricultural labor. The following testimony of Mosheim is therefore worthy of strict attention:

"The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been."—Eccl. Hist., cent. iv, part. ii, chap. iv, sec. 5.

What will the advocates of first-day sacredness say to this? They quote Mosheim respecting Sunday observance in the first century—which testimony has been carefully examined in this work—and they seem to think that his language in support of first-day sacredness is nearly equal in authority to the language of the New Testament; in fact, as supplying an important omission in that book. Yet Mosheim states respecting Constantine's Sunday law, promulgated in the fourth century, which allowed all kinds of agricultural labor on that day, that it caused the day to be "observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been." It follows therefore, on Mosheim's own showing, that Sunday during the first three centuries was not a day of abstinence from labor in the Christian church. On this point bishop Taylor thus testifies:

"The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord's day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and therefore when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord's day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandman whatsoever."—Duct. Dubitant., part 1, book 2, chap. 2, sec. 60.

Morer tells us respecting the first three centuries, that is, respecting the period before Constantine:

"The Lord's day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God's people to pitch on this or that day for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 255.

And Sir Wm. Domville says:

"Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321."—Exam. of the Six Texts, p. 291.

That such an edict could not fail to strengthen the current already strongly set in favor of Sunday, and greatly to weaken the influence of the Sabbath, cannot be doubted. Of this fact an able writer bears witness:

"Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the Roman empire, the party that had contended for the observance of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to be more and more generally established ever after this time, throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is no evidence, however, that either at this, or at a period much later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, good Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and tradition."—Cox's Sabbath Laws, &c., pp. 280, 281.

This extraordinary edict of Constantine caused Sunday to be observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. Yet we have the most indubitable proof that this law was a heathen enactment; that it was put forth in favor of Sunday as a heathen institution, and not as a Christian festival; and that Constantine himself not only did not possess the character of a Christian, but was at that time in truth a heathen. It is to be observed that Constantine did not designate the day which he commanded men to keep, as Lord's day, Christian Sabbath, or the day of Christ's resurrection; nor does he assign any reason for its observance which would indicate it as a Christian festival. On the contrary, he designates the ancient heathen festival of the sun in language that cannot be mistaken. On this important point Milman, the learned editor of Gibbon, thus testifies:

"The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple in the sanctity of the first day of the week."—History of Christianity, book 3, chap. 1.

And he adds:

"In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world."—Id., book 3, chap. 4.

J. N. A.