HISTORY OF THE SABBATH

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 29, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

(Continued.)

THE FESTIVAL OF SUNDAY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION.

But the law of Charlemagne, though backed with the authority of the church, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, by the remissness of Lewis, his successor, had become very feeble. It is evident that canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention of terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not sufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute than any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor. Thus we read:

"Thereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, that they would send out some precept more severe than what was hitherto extant, to strike terror into their subjects, and force them to forbear their ploughing, pleading, and marketing, then grown again into use; which was done about the year 853; and to that end a synod was called at Rome under the popedom of Leo IV."—Dialogues, &c., p. 201.

At this synod the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Thus Heylyn testifies:

"Under the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, a synod was held at Rome, A. D. 853, under pope Leo IV, where it was ordered more precisely than in former times, that no man should thenceforth dare to make any markets on the Lord's day, no, not for things to eat; neither to do any kind of work that belonged to husbandry. Which canon being made at Rome, confirmed at Compiegne, and afterwards incorporated as it was into the body of the canon law, became to be admitted without further question in most parts of christendom; especially when the popes had attained their height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their devotion. For then the people who before had most opposed it might have justly said, 'Behold two kings stood not before him, how then shall we stand?' Out of which consternation all men presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay by their labors, and amongst those the miller, though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. v, sec. 7; Morer, p. 272.

This was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five years after this we read as follows:

A. D. 858. "The Bulgarians sent some questions to pope Nicholas, to which they desired answers. And that [answer] which concerned the Lord's day was that they should desist from all secular work."—Id., p. 273.

Morer informs us respecting the civil power, that,

"In this century the emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed the philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which, according to Constantine's toleration, were permitted in the east. This same care was taken in the west by Theodorus, king of the Bavarians, who made this order, that 'if any person on the Lord's day yoked his oxen, or drove his wain, his right-side ox should forthwith be forfeited; or if he made hay and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist, which if he did not he was to receive no less than fifty stripes.'"—Dialogues, &c., pp. 251, 262.

Of Sunday laws in England in this century we read:

A. D. 876. "Alfred the great, was the first who united the Saxon Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to make a law that among other festivals this day more especially might be solemnly kept. . . . And whereas the single punishment for sacrilege committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord's day, he should be doubly punished."—Id., pp. 284, 285.

Nineteen years later, the pope and his council still further strengthen the sacred day. The council of Friburgh, in Germany, A. D. 895, under pope Formosus, decreed that the Lord's day, men "were to spend in prayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be provoked to anger." The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in England was carried steadily forward:

"King Athelston, in the year 926, made a law that there should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord's day, under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine of thirty shillings for each offense."—Id., pp. 285-287.

In a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed that all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, &c., on Sunday, should cease. "And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a freeman, he was to pay twelve oræ, if a servant, he severely whipt." We are further informed that,

"About the year 940, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it decreed that above all things the Lord's day should be kept with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient practice."

A. D. 967. "King Edgar commanded that the festival should be kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till day-break on Monday."

"King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, about the year 1009, called a general council of all the English clergy, under Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and Wolston, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and what belonged to it."—Id., pp. 285-287.

Nor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn tells us of the piety of a Norwegian king:

"Olaus, king of Norway, A. D. 1028, being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and having in his hand a small walking-stick, he took his knife and whittled it, as men do sometimes when their minds are troubled or intent on business. And when it had been told him as by way of jest how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and set fire unto them, that so he might revenge on himself what unawares he had committed against God's commandment."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. v, sec. 2.

In Spain also the work went forward. A council was held in Coy in Spain, A. D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of pope Leo IX, where it was decreed that the Lord's day "was to be entirely consecrated to hearing of mass."—Dialogues, &c., p. 274.

To strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the people, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the following statement:

"It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani, who lived A. D. 1056, that every Lord's day they were manumitted from their pains, and flutered up and down the lake Avernus, in the shape of birds."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. v, sec. 2.

At the same time another argument of a similar kind was brought forward to render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us respecting that class who in that age were most zealous advocates of Sunday observance:

"Yet still the others went on their way; and to induce their proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care, they brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to the damned in hell, who during the day, have some respite from their torments, and the ease and liberty they have is more or less according to the zeal and degrees of keeping it well."—Dialogues, &c., p. 68.

If therefore they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their friends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their torments on that day! In a council at Rome, A. D. 1078, pope Gregory VII, decreed that as long as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast day, those who desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from eating meat. In the eastern division of the Catholic church in the eleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal in sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the western division of that church:

"But it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they did labor and fast. And this, with little opposition or interruption, save that which had been made in the city of Rome in the beginning of the seventh century, and was soon crushed by Gregory, then bishop there, as before noted. And howsoever Urban II did consecrate it to the weekly service of the blessed virgin, and instituted in a council held at Clermont, A. D. 1095, that our lady's office should be said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian folks should worship her with their best devotion."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. v, sec. 13.

It would seem that this was a crowning indignity to the Most High. The memorial of the great Creator set apart as a festival on which to worship Mary as the mother of God! In the middle of the twelfth century the king of England was admonished not to suffer men to work upon Sunday:

"Henry II entered on the government about the year 1155. Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff (in South Wales), which from St. Peter charged him, that upon Sundays throughout his dominions, there should be no buying or selling, and no servile work done."—Morer, p. 288; Heylyn, part ii, chap. vii, sec. 6.

It seems that the sacredness of Sunday was not yet sufficiently established, a divine warrant being still unprovided. The manner in which this urgent necessity was met is related by Heylyn in language somewhat severe:

"In the very entrance of the thirteenth age, Fulco, a French priest and a notable hypocrite, lighted upon a new Sabbatarian fancy, which one of his associates, Eustachius, abbot of Flay in Normandy, was sent to scatter here in England; but finding opposition to his doctrine he went back again. The next year after, being 1202, he comes better fortified, preaching from town to town and from place to place, that no man should market on the Lord's day. Now for the easier bringing of the people to obey their dictates, they had to show a warrant sent from God himself, as they gave it out. The title was this:

"A HOLY MANDATE, touching the Lord's day, which came down from heaven unto Jerusalem, found on St. Simeon's altar in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of all the world, which lying there three days and three nights, struck with such terror all that saw it, that falling on the ground they besought God's mercy. At last the patriarch and Akerias the archbishop [of I know not whence] ventured to take into their hands that dreadful letter which was written

thus. Now wipe your eyes and look awhile on the contents!

"I am the Lord who commanded you to keep the Lord's day, and you have not kept it, neither repented of your sins; I caused repentance to be preached unto you and you believed not; then I sent the pagans among you, who spilt your blood on the earth, and yet you desired not; and because you did not observe the Lord's holy day, I punished you awhile with famine, but in a short time I gave you fullness of bread; and then you behaved yourselves worse than before. I again charge you that from the ninth hour [i. e., from three o'clock, P. M.,] on Saturday, until sunrise on the Monday, no man presume to do any work, but what is good, or if he do, let him repent for the same. Verily I say unto you, and swear by my seat and throne, and by the cherubim which surround it, that if you do not hearken to this my mandate, I will send no other letter unto you, but will open the heavens and rain upon you stones, wood, and scalding water by night, so that none shall be able to provide against them. I say ye shall die the death for the Lord's day; and other festivals of my saints which ye have not kept; and I will send among you beasts with the heads of lions, and the hair of women, and the tails of camels, which, being very hungry, shall devour your flesh. And you shall desire to flee to the sepulchres of the dead, and hide you for fear of those beasts. And I will take the light of the sun from your eyes, and send such darkness that not being able to see, you shall destroy each other. And I will turn my face away and not in the least pity you. I will burn your bodies and hearts of all them who do not keep the Lord's day. Hear then my words, and do not perish for neglecting this day. I swear to you by my right hand, that if you do not observe the Lord's day, and festivals of my saints, I will send pagan nations to destroy you."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. vii, sec. 6; Morer, pp. 288-290.

That such an epistle as the above was actually brought into England at the time and in the manner specified, is so amply attested as to leave no doubt. Matthew Paris was a historian of the same century in which this roll was produced. In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears the following testimony respecting his credibility:

"Among the historians, the first place is due to Matthew Paris, a writer of the highest merit, both in point of knowledge and prudence."—Eccl. Hist., cent. xiii, part ii, chap i, sec. 5.

Matthew Paris, after relating the story of the fall of this epistle from the throne of God to the altar of St. Simeon in Golgotha, and the terrible consternation which possessed those who took it up, thus continues:

"But when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had diligently examined the tenor of this epistle, it was decreed in a general deliberation that the epistle should be sent to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, so that whatever he decreed to be done, it would please all. And when at length the epistle had come to the knowledge of the lord pope, immediately he ordained heralds, who being sent through different parts of the world, preached everywhere the doctrine of this epistle, the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a devout and learned man having entered the kingdom of England, did there shine with many miracles."—Matthew Paris, p. 200, et. 1640.

This testimony shows that Eustachius was commissioned by the pope to set forth this precious document in England. And thus the shameless fraud is traced to the head of the Romish church. When we are further informed that the pope received this epistle from the hands of those who saw it fall from heaven, we have simply the story which he caused to be circulated, in order to give divine authority to the Christian Sabbath. It was Innocent III, who filled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus:

"Innocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal power and authority to the highest pitch, and we shall see him improving, with great address, every opportunity that offered to compass that end."—Hist. Popes, vol. ii, p. 595.

It was now the midnight of the dark ages, and that pontiff filled the papal throne who raised the papacy to its highest elevation. It is an instructive fact that as the first act of papal aggression was in behalf of Sunday, so also when the papacy had also reached its utmost height of power, the pope determined to furnish the world with divine authority for the observance of that day, and so published "A Holy Mandate" in behalf of Sunday, which he assured all men fell from heaven, being written by God himself. The mission of Eustachius was attested by miracles, which may be read at length in Matthew Paris, Binins, Heylyn, and others. Those who cherish the first-day Sabbath on the authority of the traditions of their fathers, may be interested to read some of the miracles which were wrought in order to establish the sacredness of the day:

"A carpenter making a wooden pin, and a woman making up her web, both after three on Saturday till the afternoon [for the pope in his letter had fixed 'the Lord's day' from three o'clock on Saturday afternoon, until sunrise on Monday] are suddenly smitten with the palsy. A certain man of Nasserion, baking a cake on Saturday night, and keeping part until the morrow, no sooner brake it for his breakfast, but it gushed out blood. A miller of Wakefield, grinding over on Saturday after three of the clock, instead of meal found his bin full of blood; his mill-wheel standing still of its own accord."—Hist. Sab., part ii, chap. vii, sec. 6.

As the king of England did not favor this mission of Eustachius, the historian adds:

"Notwithstanding all these miracles whereby God did invite the people to observe this day, the people fearing more the king's power than God's, returned unto their marketings as before they did."—Id. ib.

Such was the first attempt in England, after the apparition from St. Peter, A. D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. "It shows," as Morer quaintly observes, "how industrious men were in these times to have this great day solemnly observed."

The next year after the arrival of Eustachius in England with this roll, A. D. 1206 a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and establishment of the Lord's day in that kingdom. The roll that had fallen from heaven to supply the lack of scriptural testimony in behalf of this day was admirably adapted to the business of this council, though Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch were so ready to comply with the pope's wishes, that the packet from the court of heaven and the accompanying miracles were not needed. Yet Morer informs us that the packet was actually produced on this occasion:

"To that end it was again produced and read in a council of Scotland, held under pope Innocent, A. D. 1206, in the reign of king William, who passed it into a law that Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and that no man shall deal in such worldly business as of feast days was forbidden. As also that at the tolling of a bell, the people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons, and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted, in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III, king of Scots, that none should fish in any waters, from Saturday after evening prayer, till sun-rising on Monday, which was afterward confirmed by king James I."—Morer, pp. 290, 291.

Such was the manner of introducing the Christian Sabbath into Scotland. The sacredness of this papal Lord's day seems to have been more easily established by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work of establishing this ancient institution was everywhere carried steadily forward. Of England we read:

"In the year 1237, Henry III being king, and Edmund de Abendon, archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made requiring every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of markets on the Lord's day, and leaving the church, where they ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word of God. And this on pain of excommunication."—Id., 291.

Of France we are informed:

"The council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it restrained the people from their ordinary work on the Lord's day, and other festivals on pain of ecclesiastical censures."

A. D. 1262. "The council of Angers in France forbid millers, by water or otherwise, to grind their corn from Saturday evening till Sunday evening."—Id., p. 275.

Nor were the Spaniards backward in this work:

A. D. 1322. "This year a synod was called at Valladolid in Castile, and then was ratified what was formerly required, that none should follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any mechanical employment on the Lord's day, or other holy days, but where it was a work of necessity or charity, of which the minister of the parish was to be judge."—Id. ib.

The rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in establishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes show that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its observance:

A. D. 1358. "Istippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: We have it from the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places within our province, a very naughty, nay, damnable, custom has prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord's day. . . . Wherefore by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the Lord's day. . . . And as for such who are obstinate and speak or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to restrain them by ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful means put a stop to these extravagances."

"Nor was the civil power silent; for about that time king Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of king Henry VI, Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1444, it was decreed that fairs and markets should no more be kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord's day, or other festivals, except in time of harvest."—Id., pp. 293, 294.

On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday was persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as follows:

A. D. 1532. "The Lord's day and other festivals were instituted for this purpose, that faithful Christians abstaining from external work, might more freely and with greater piety devote themselves to God's worship."—Id. p. 275.

They did not seem to be aware of the fact, however, that when the fear of God is taught by the precepts of men, such worship is vain. Isa. xxix, 13; Matt. xv, 9. The council of Rheims which sat the next year, made this decree:

A. D. 1533. "Let the people assemble at their parish churches on the Lord's day, and other holidays, and be present at mass, sermons, and vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to plays or dances, especially during service." And the historian adds: "In the same year another synod at Tours, ordered the Lord's day and other holidays to be reverently observed under pain of excommunication."—Morer, p. 280.

A council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the divine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which has supplanted it:

A. D. 1534. "Let all Christians remember that the seventh day was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed, not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the Lord's day. A day therefore to be kept, by forbearing all worldly business, suits, contracts, carriages, &c., and by sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the contemplation of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works of charity, say prayers, and sing psalms."—Id., p. 282.

We have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a period subsequent to the reformation. That it is an ordinance of man which has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath, is most distinctly confessed by the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends for their violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity, prayers, and psalms: a course too often adopted at the present time to excuse the violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long list of Sunday laws, not from "the one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy," but from popes, emperors and councils, without adopting the sentiment of Neander: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance."