Your ShelfYour Projects

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH

2%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 25, 1862

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 17.

Read the full edition

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.

CERTAIN doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that the "stated day" of Pliny's epistle is the first day of the week. For this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument is this: That in Pliny's time and afterward, that is, from the close of the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept the Lord's day, meaning thereby the first day of the week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the week. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. To prove these points Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:
"Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to them this question, viz., 'Dominicum servasti?'—'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' If they had they were Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death. And what, when they continued steadfast, was their answer? 'Christianus sum: intermittere non possum,'—'I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.' It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of course keep the Lord's day, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion."—Sabbath Manual, p. 120.
Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same argument and for the same purpose. [See his "History, Authority, and Use of the Sabbath."] The importance attached to this statement and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr. Edwards gives no authority for his statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken it from the Acta Martyrum, an ancient collection of the acts of the martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that bishop Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star Chamber, against Thraske, who was accused, before that arbitrary tribunal of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced therefore for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when being tried by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:
"The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the Acta of the martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question, Dominicum servasti? but he does not cite a single instance from them in which the question was put. We are left therefore to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere, they are to be found. The most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart, entitled, 'Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta.' I have carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm that among the questions there stated to have been put to the martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two hundred years afterward, the question, Dominicum servasti? does not once occur, nor any equivalent question."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 260–261.
This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter, either that the "stated day" of Pliny was the first day of the week, or that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether they had observed it or not. After quoting all the questions put to the martyrs in and before Pliny's time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was put to them, Domville says:
"This much may suffice to show that Dominicum servasti? was no question in Pliny's time as Mr. Gurney intends us to believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr. Gurney's unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry. What may have been the authority on which bishop Andrews relied when stating that Dominicum servasti? was ever a usual question put by the heathen persecutors. I shall, with this view, pass over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny's time and the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose, and shall come at once to that martyrdom, the narrative of which was, I have no doubt, the source from which bishop Andrews derived his question, Dominicum servasti? 'Hold you the Lord's day?' This martyrdom happened A. D. 304. The sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the proconsul Anulinus. In the account given of their examinations by him, the phrases, 'celebrare Dominicum' and 'agere Dominicum,' frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb 'servare' used in reference to Dominicum. I mention this chiefly to show that when bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question was, Dominicum servasti? it is very clear that he had not his author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory he coined a phrase of his own."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 263–265.
Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the martyrs, which is quite similar, in most respects, to Gurney's and Edwards's quotation from Andrews. He then adds:
"The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of bishop Andrews that, 'Hold you the Lord's day?' was the usual question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this narrative affords no support to that assertion; yet nothing is more easy than this proof; for bishop Andrews has quite mistaken the meaning of the word Dominicum in translating it 'the Lord's day.' It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers, in and subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a church, and at other times the Lord's supper, but NEVER the Lord's day. My authorities on this point are— "1. Ruinart, who upon the word Dominicum, in the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note in which he says it is a word signifying the Lord's supper ('Dominicum vero designat sacra mysteria'), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian in support of this interpretation. "2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine's works. They state that the word Dominicum has the two meanings of a church and the Lord's supper. For the former they quote, among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo Cæsarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer also to St. Augustine's account of his conference with the Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus. "3. Gesner, who in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749, gives both meanings to the word Dominicum. For that of the Lord's supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes Cyprian and also Hillary."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 267, 268.
Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:
"It thus appearing that the reference made by bishop Andrews to the 'Acts of the Martyrs' completely fails to establish his dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney's regard for truth, when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the 'stated day' mentioned in Pliny's letter as that on which the Christians held their religious assemblies, was 'clearly the first day of the week,' is proved by the very question which it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the martyrs, Dominicum servasti? 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word 'clearly,' in order to make it more impressive, Mr. Gurney is without any excuse."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 270, 271.
The justice of Domville's language cannot be questioned when he characterizes the favorite first-day argument as—
"One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to pass current for truth."—Id., pp. 272, 273.
The investigation to which this statement has been subjected shows, 1. That no such question is upon record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth century.3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the Acta Martyrum, in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify relative to the character of this work for veracity:
"As to those accounts which have come down to us under the title of Acta Martyrum, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their authority is for the most part of a very questionable nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever."—Historical Commentaries, cent. i, sec. 32.
Such is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it to theologians.

ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.

The festival of Sunday is more ancient than the Christian religion: its origin being lost in remote antiquity. It did not originate however from any divine command or from piety toward God: on the contrary, it was set apart as a sacred day by the heathen world in honor of their chief god, the sun. It is from this fact that the first day of the week has obtained the name of Sunday. Webster thus defines the word:
"Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week."
And Worcester in his large dictionary uses similar language:
"Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week."
The North British Review in a labored attempt to justify the observance of Sunday by the Christian world styles that day, "THE WILD SOLAR HOLIDAY OF ALL PAGAN TIMES." Vol. xviii, p. 409.
Verstegan says:
"The most ancient Germans being pagans, appropriated their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the sun, whereof that day doth yet in our English tongue retain the name of Sunday." Antiquities, p. 10, London, 1628.
The same author speaks thus concerning the idols of our Saxon ancestors.
"Of these, though they had many, yet seven among the rest they especially appropriated unto the seven days of the week. . . . . Unto the day dedicated unto the especial adoration of the idol of the sun, they gave the name of Sunday, as much as to say the sun's day or the day of the sun. This idol was placed in a temple, and there adored and sacrificed unto, for that they believed that the sun in the firmament did with or in this idol correspond and co-operate." Verstegan's Antiquities, p. 68.
Jennings makes this adoration of the sun more ancient than the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For in speaking of the time of that deliverance he says:
"The idolatrous nations in honor to their chief god, the sun, began the day at his rising." Jewish Antiquities, book 3, chap. 1.
He represents them also as setting apart Sunday in honor of the same object of adoration:
"The day which the heathens in general consecrated to the worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which according to our computation was the first day of the week." Id., book 3, chap. 5.
The North British Review thus defends the introduction of this ancient heathen festival into the Christian church:
"That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord's day and their Sabbath. . . . . If the authority of the church is to be ignored altogether by Protestants, then it is no matter; because, opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish Sabbath. That primitive church in fact was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it, in as much as the first day of the week was their own high day at any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival." Vol. xviii, p. 409.
It would seem that something more potent than patriotism and expediency would be requisite to transform this heathen festival into the Christian Sabbath, or even to justify its introduction into the Christian church. A further statement of the reasons which prompted its introduction, and a brief notice of the earlier steps toward transforming it into a Christian institution, will occupy this division of the subject. Chasie, a clergyman of the English Church, in 1652 published a work in vindication of first-day observance, entitled "The Seventh-day Sabbath." After showing the general observance of Sunday by the heathen world in the early ages of the church, Chasie thus states the reasons which forbid the Christians attempting to keep any other day:
"1. Because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby should be had in, among all the Gentiles with whom they lived. How grievous would be their taunts and reproaches against the poor Christians living with them and under their power for their new as sacred day, had they chosen any other than Sunday. 2. Most Christians then were either servants or of the poorer sort of people; and the Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except on their Sunday. 3. Because had they assayed such a change it would have been labor in vain; they could never have brought it to pass."—Pp. 60–62.
Thus it is seen that at the time when the early church began to apostatize from God and to foster in its bosom human ordinances, the heathen world—as they had long done—very generally observed the first day of the week in honor of the sun. Many of the early fathers of the church had been heathen philosophers. Unfortunately they brought with them into the church many of their old notions and principles. Particularly did it occur to them that by uniting with the heathen in the day of weekly celebration they should greatly facilitate their conversion. The reasons which induced the church to adopt the ancient festival of the heathen as something made ready to hand, are thus stated by Morer:
"It is not to be denied but we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him. And we find by the influence of their examples, other nations, and among them the Jews themselves doing him homage [2 Kings xxiii, 5; Jer. xliii, 13, margin]; yet these abuses did not hinder the fathers of the Christian church simply to repeal, or altogether lay by, the day or its name, but only to sanctify and improve both, as they did also the pagan temples polluted before with idolatrous services, and other instances wherein those good men were always tender to work any other change than what was necessary; and in such things as were plainly inconsistent with the Christian religion; so that Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it) the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, pp. 22, 23.
That this heathen festival was upon the day of Christ's resurrection doubtless powerfully contributed to aid "patriotism and expediency" in transforming it into the Lord's day or Christian Sabbath. For, with pious motives, as we may reasonably conclude, the professed people of God early paid a voluntary regard to several days, memorable in the history of the Redeemer. Mosheim, whose testimony in behalf of Sunday has been presented already, uses the following language relative to the crucifixion day:
"It is also probable that Friday, the day of Christ's crucifixion, was early distinguished by particular honors from the other days of the week."—Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii, chap. iv, note .
And of the second century he says:
"Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion."—Id., cent. 2, part ii, chap. iv, sec. 8.
Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who chose Sunday:
"Because our Saviour rose that day from amongst the dead, so chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Saviour's passion; and Wednesday on the which he had been betrayed; the Saturday or ancient Sabbath being meanwhile retained in the eastern churches."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. i, sec. 12.
Of the comparative sacredness of these three voluntary festivals the same writer testifies:
"If we consider either the preaching of the word, the ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers, the Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as is most likely."—Id., part 2, chap. 3, sec. 4.
Among these festivals, considered simply as voluntary memorials of the Redeemer, Sunday had very little pre-eminence. For it is well stated by Heylyn:
"Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. i, sec. 10.
Domville bears the following testimony, which is worthy of lasting remembrance:
"Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or his apostles."—Ex. of the Six Texts, Supplement, pp. 6, 7.
"Patriotism and expediency" however, erelong elevated immeasurably above its fellows that one of these voluntary festivals which corresponded with the "wild solar holiday" of the heathen world, making that day at last "the Lord's day" of the Christian church. The earliest testimony in behalf of first-day observance that has any claim to be regarded as genuine, is that of Justin Martyr, written about A. D. 140. Before his conversion he was a heathen philosopher. The time, place, and occasion of his first Apology or Defense of the Christians, addressed to the Roman emperor, is thus stated by an eminent Roman Catholic historian. He says that Justin Martyr
"Was at Rome when the persecution that was raised under the reign of Antoninus Pius began to break forth, where he composed an excellent apology in behalf of the Christians."—Du Pin, Vol. i, p. 53.
Of the works ascribed to Justin Martyr, Milner says:
"Like many of the ancient fathers, he appears to us under the greatest disadvantage. Works really have been lost; and others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his; and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority."—Hist. Church, cent. 2, chap. iii.
If the writings ascribed to him are genuine, there is little propriety in the use made of his name by the advocates of the first-day Sabbath. He taught the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution; and there is no intimation in his words that the Sunday festival which he mentions was other than a voluntary observance. Thus he addresses the emperor of Rome:
"And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read, as much as time will give leave; when the reader has done, the bishop makes a sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them to the practice of such lovely precepts; at the conclusion of this discourse we all rise up together and pray; and prayers being over, as I now said, there is bread and wine and water offered, and the bishop, as before, sends up prayers and thanksgiving, with all the fervency he is able, and the people conclude with the joyful exclamation of, Amen. Then the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of by, all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons. But the wealthy and the willing, for every one is at liberty, contribute as they think fitting; and this collection is deposited with the bishop, and out of this he relieves the orphans and the widows, and such as are reduced to want by sickness, or any other cause, and such as are in bonds, and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, he is the guardian and almoner to all the indigent. Upon Sunday we all assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead; for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after, which is Sunday, he appeared unto his apostles and disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your consideration."—Justin Martyr's First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127.This passage, if genuine, furnishes the earliest reference to the observance of Sunday as a religious festival in the Christian church. It should be remembered that this language was written at Rome, and addressed directly to the emperor. It shows therefore what was the practice of the church in that city and vicinity, but does not determine how extensive this observance was. It contains strong incidental proof that apostasy had made progress at Rome: the ordinance of the Lord's supper being changed in part already to a human ordinance; water being now as essential to the Lord's supper as the wine or the bread. And what is still more dangerous as perverting the institution of Christ, the consecrated elements were sent to the absent, a step which speedily resulted in their becoming objects of superstitious veneration, and finally of worship. Justin tells the emperor that Christ thus ordained; but such a statement is a grave departure from the truth of the New Testament.
This statement of reasons for Sunday observance is particularly worthy of attention. He tells the emperor that they assembled upon the day called Sunday. This was equivalent to saying to him, We observe the day on which our fellow citizens offer their adoration to the sun. Here both "patriotism and expediency" discover themselves in the words of Justin, which were addressed to a persecuting emperor in behalf of the Christians. But as if conscious that a heathen festival as the day of Christian worship was not consistent with their profession as worshipers of the Most High, Justin betakes himself for reasons in defense of this observance. He assigns no divine precept nor apostolic example for this festival. For his reference to what Christ taught his disciples, as appears from the connection, was to the general system of the Christian religion, and not to the observance of Sunday. If it be said that Justin might have learned from tradition what is not to be found in the New Testament relative to Sunday observance, and that after all Sunday may be a divinely appointed festival, it is sufficient to answer, 1. That this plea would show that the Sunday festival is nothing but a tradition. 2. That Justin Martyr is a very unsafe guide; his testimony relative to the Lord's supper differing essentially from the New Testament. 3. The American Tract Society, in a work which it publishes against Romanism, bears the following testimony relative to the point before us:
"Justin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanctus, an old Sabine deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of the impostor Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by a modern writer in relating a historical fact, exposure would immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward be suspected. And assuredly the same measure should be meted to Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact alluded to by Livy the historian."—The Spirit of Popery, pp. 44, 45.
Justin assigns the following reasons in support of Sunday observance: "That being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark void in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead." Bishop Jeremy Taylor most fittingly replies to this:
"The first of these looks more like an excuse than a just reason; for if anything of the creation were made the cause of the Sabbath, it ought to be the end, not the beginning; it ought to be the rest, not the first part of the work; it ought to be that which God assigned, not that which man should take by way of after justification."—Ductor Dubitantium, part 1, book 2, chap. 2, sec. 45.
It is to be observed, therefore, that the first trace of Sunday as a Christian festival is found in the church of Rome. Soon after this time, and thenceforward, we shall find "the bishop" of that church making vigorous efforts to suppress the Sabbath of the Lord, and to elevate in its stead the festival of Sunday.
It is proper to note the fact also that Justin was a decided opponent of the ancient Sabbath. In his "Dialogues with Trypho the Jew," he thus addressed him:
"This new law teaches you to observe a perpetual Sabbath; and you, when you have spent one day in idleness, think you have discharged the duties of religion. . . . . If any one is guilty of adultery, let him repent, then he hath kept the true and delightful Sabbath unto God. . . . . For we really should observe that circumcision which is in the flesh, and the Sabbath, and all the feasts, if we had not known the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, upon the account of your iniquities. . . . . It was because of your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe the Sabbath. . . . . You see that the heavens are not idle, nor do they observe the Sabbath. Continue as ye were born. For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of the Sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was by the determinate counsel of God, born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham without sin."—Brown's Translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64.
This reasoning of Justin's deserves no reply. It shows however the unfairness of Dr. Edwards, who quotes Justin Martyr as a witness for the change of the Sabbath [Sabbath Manual, p. 121]; whereas Justin held that God made the Sabbath on account of the wickedness of the Jews, and that he totally abrogated it at the death of Christ; the Sunday festival of the heathen being evidently adopted by the church at Rome from motives of "expediency" and perhaps of "patriotism." The testimony of Justin, if genuine, is peculiarly valuable in one respect. It shows that as late as the year A. D. 140, the first day of the week had acquired no title of sacredness; for Justin thrice mentions the day: twice as "the day called Sunday," and once as "the eighth day."—Dialogues with Trypho, p. 65.
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)