HISTORY OF THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.

THE next important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus presented by Dr. Edwards:

"Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says that the Lord's day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, 'On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.'"—Sabbath Manual, p. 114.

This testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and prominently set forth in their publications. Sir Wm. Domville, whose elaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states the following important fact relative to this quotation:

"I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenæus, and can with certainty state that no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1536), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 131, 132.

It is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of Irenæus, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight's Theology, instead of referring them to the place in the works of Irenæus where it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the theological world with this invaluable quotation. On this point Domville remarks:

"Where then did Dwight obtain this testimony, which has so many times been given as that of Irenæus? It is recorded in a biographical memoir, prefixed to his Theology, that by some disease in his eyes he was deprived of his capacity for reading and study from the early age of twenty-three. The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned was almost exclusively at second hand by the aid of others."—Id., p. 128.

Domville states another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of this quotation:

"But although not to be found in Irenæus, there are in the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling those of Dr. Dwight's quotation, as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted."—Id., p. 130.

Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenæus, who had it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the world by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who in consequence of this infirmity took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the genuine testimony of Irenæus. Loss of eye-sight, as we may charitably believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of natural eyesight, was of reading Irenæus for himself. This case admirably illustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the blind until both fall into the ditch.

It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by an edict in behalf of sunday. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196, took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation." [History of the Popes, Vol. i, p. 18.] And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Roman assumption." [History of Romanism, heading of page 32.] The churches of Asia Minor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. Then says Bower:

"Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins to an ungovernable passion, published bitter invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example, and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of Asia."—Hist. Popes, Vol. i, p. 18.

The historian informs us that "not one followed his example or advice; not one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt." He further says:

"Victor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics peaceably followed their ancient practice till the council of Nice, which out of complacency to Constantine the great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the same day, after the custom of Rome."—Id., pp. 18, 19.

The victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn testifies:

"Till the great council of Nice [A. D. 325], backed by the authority of as great an emperor [Constantine] settled it better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that great synod."—Hist. of the Sab., part ii, chap. ii, secs. 4, 5.

Constantine, by whose powerful influence the council of Nice was induced to decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that is, to fix the passover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure:

"Let us then have nothing in common with that most hostile rabble of the Jews."—Boyle's Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 62.

This festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the fourteenth of the first month, to the first Sunday following that day, was the first thing attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival; and as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, "The Lord's day found it no small matter to obtain the victory." In a brief period after the council of Nice, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon those who should celebrate the feast of the passover upon any other day than Sunday. The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their ground against this favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as the sixth century "obstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiffs."

Four years after the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring us to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, who wrote about A. D. 200. He excuses the Christians of his time for their Sunday observance, affirming that they were not worshipers of the sun, however strongly their observance of Sunday might indicate it. His language clearly shows that there were in his time Sabbath-keepers in the Christian church, of whom, however, he speaks most contemptuously. He says:

"Others with a greater show of reason, take us for worshipers of the sun. These send us to the religion of Persia, though we are far from adoring a painted sun, like them who carry about his image everywhere upon their bucklers. This suspicion took its rise from hence, because it was observed that Christians prayed with their faces toward the east. But some of you likewise out of an affectation of adoring some of the celestial bodies, wag your lips toward the rising sun; but if we, like them, celebrate Sunday as a festival and

day of rejoicing, it is for a reason vastly distant from that of worshiping the sun; for we solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it to ease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorant of."—Wm. Reeves' Translation of the Apologia of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, Vol. i, pp. 238, 239.

Milman, author of the History of Christianity, in his notes on Gibbon, speaks thus of Tertullian:

"It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclude this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious invective, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticism."—Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv, remarks appended to note 72.

The testimony of Tertullian is valuable as an acknowledgment that the Sunday festival was identical with the day on which the ancient Persians worshiped the sun; and also as showing the reason on which he grounded that observance. It was not the command of God, nor the act of Christ in changing the Sabbath, nor the example of the apostles, nor because it was in any respect a Christian institution; but, to use his own statement of reasons, "We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this their Sabbath." Opposition to those Christians who kept the Sabbath—for he distinguishes them from the Jews—is the grand reason assigned by Tertullian for observing the ancient festival-day of the heathen.

Kitto states the important fact that Tertullian is the earliest writer who uses the term Lord's day as a designation for the first day of the week. Thus he says:

"The earliest authentic instance in which the name of the Lord's day is applied, . . . is not till A. D. 200, when Tertullian speaks of it as 'die Dominico resurrectionis' [De Orat., sec. 23]; again, 'Dominicum Diem' [De Idol., 14]; and Dionysius of Corinth (probably somewhat later) as 'ἡμέραν κυριακήν' [Lord's day]."—Cycl. Bib. Lit., art., Lord's day.

Kitto speaks further of Tertullian and Dionysius as presenting the first traces of resting from labor on Sunday. Thus he says:

"But in these last cited writers we trace the commencement of a more formal observance. Thus the whole passage in Tertullian is: 'Solo die Dominico resurrectionis non ob isto tantum [genuflexione] sed enim anxietatis habitu et officio cavere debemus, differentes etiam negotio ne quem diabolo locum demus;' i. e. on the day of the Lord's resurrection alone we ought to abstain not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest we should give place to the Devil."—Id., ib.

It is this language of Tertullian that Neander cites in the margin, to sustain his modest statement already quoted in connection with the language of Mosheim, that 'perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind [that is, of the Sabbath law to Sunday] had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.'

Yet Dr. Heylyn somewhat modifies the shade of sacredness that Tertullian gives the festival of the sun. He says:

"Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian's time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. 8, sec. 13.

The origin of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in this chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a heathen festival in honor of the sun, and that in the first centuries of the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in the heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a tender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders of the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by the heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given it. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual observance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of Rome about A. D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A. D. 196, is by a singular co-incidence the first act of Papal usurpation. The first instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the earliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the writings of Tertullian at the close of the second century, and even he assigns as the grand reason for observing that day a wish to be distinguished from those who kept the ancient Sabbath. The origin of the festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it has ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order and place.

One fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great effort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in turning it into a fast while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the Eastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the Western churches, with the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part of the Western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long struggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn:

"In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone: the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 691, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day on pain of censure."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. 2, sec. 3.

Wm. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the time when this fast originated:

"The Western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning of the third century."—Serm. on the Sac. and Sab., p. 166.

Thus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is, immediately after the year 200. It is probable therefore that Tertullian's reference to Sabbath-keepers as eating on that day, was occasioned by the fact that the adversaries of the Sabbath had turned it into a fast. Neander thus states the motive of the Roman church:

"In the Western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast-day."—Neander, p. 186.

By Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman church in very explicit language:

"The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day."—Ancient Church History, part 1, div. 2, A. D. 100-312, sec. 69.

Lord King attests this fact in the following words:

"Some of the Western churches, that they might not seem to judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus writes: We used to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe the Sabbath."—Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, chap. vii, sec. 11.

Thus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render it despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.

(To be Continued.)