REFORMS, like apples, have their time to ripen. When they are ripe, the harvest must be gathered. Wishing cannot hasten that time, nor fear delay it. The Sabbath question is ripe for re-examination and restatement. It is at the front. It has come to stay. We must grapple with it. The first key to its solution is the authority of God's Word. The facts of history are the second key. Eternity is an attribute of God, and time is one measured part of eternity. Results in history are the decisions of God. In testing theories and practices, the historic argument is ultimate. It is the embodiment of Christ's words: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Theorizing can never go back of this test, nor set aside its decisions.

No department of church history has been less thoroughly worked than the history of the Sabbath and the Sunday. They both antedate Christianity and Judaism. As the question is presented to us now, the chief interest centers in the New Testament and in the Patristic period. The former is usually treated polemically, while the latter is almost an unknown region to the average Christian. It is also true that few people have more than a confused knowledge of the Sabbath question since the Puritan movement of three hundred years ago. That movement was forced to seek some support for itself in early church history. In seeking this, many quotations have been claimed from the Fathers which subsequent investigations have shown to be notoriously incorrect. These have been passed from hand to hand, apparently without examination or question. Forged writings have been treated as genuine. Unknown dates have been assumed to be definite. Important expressions, such as "Christian Sabbath" and "Dominicum servasti," have been manufactured and interpolated. In this way history has been perverted and good men have been misled. Few American writers have attempted any careful survey of this field, and the early English works on the Sabbath question and its history are out of print. Most of the books in defense of Sunday, within the last fifty years, have been hastily written to. meet the demands of some convention, or some emergency, created by the decline of the Puritan theory, and the secularization of Sunday. This has forbidden patient and efficient original research. Still stronger reasons have sat at the elbow of every writer in defense of the Puritan, or the American Sunday. The facts of the first four centuries destroy the foundation on which Puritanism rested its "Sunday Sabbath."

Because these things are so, this book has been written. It is written in the interest of the church universal, and of the preservation of the Sabbath, without which Christianity is shorn of one of its chief elements of power, and humanity is robbed of one of its chief blessings. We have given our authorities, with copious references, that who will may follow and test our work. These pages are not the product of yesterday, nor are they written for to morrow alone. We know that they must meet the prejudice of creed and the power of popular custom They must take their way between the upper an nether millstones of eternal verities. Nothing less than sifted facts can abide as the foundation for hope, or faith, or practice. Men build pleasant theories and indulge in glowing fancies concerning what they think ought to be, but the relentless hand of history gathers all that is not in accord wit eternal verity for the dust heaps of the past.

Conscious that every page must die which is no born of verity, and equally conscious that every page thus born will live in spite of creed or custom, this book goes forth, willing to await the broader knowledge, the calm judgment, and the verdicts of history in coming years.

HISTORY is an organic development. The phenomena which appear on the surface are the result of underlying principles, true or false. Nothing in history comes by chance. If human choices did not lead men to disobedience of God's laws, and to disregard for truth, there would be no discord, but rather a continuous, straight forward advancement. What men call the power of truth, the logic of events and the guiding hand of Providence, is but another way of saying that truth - God's eternal ideas concerning right and wrong is stronger than all human choices, and will ultimately prevail. It is the unfolding of God's ideas in history that gives it organic power and irresistible force. Human disobedience may check or deflect the progress of truth temporarily. Disobedience is the conflict of the lesser with the greater. It may go so far as to destroy the less, but it can never attain a permanent triumph in God's moral government. It is the dam of rushes across the swollen stream; the barricade of straw. Evil and error have limited lease of life. Truth is mighty and will prevail, is an adage which voices the deeper philosophy of history. Every page of the past confirms this truth. The invisible hand of Jehovah touches the current of evil, and it flows backward like the parting waters of the Red Sea. As the granite sea-wall says to the waves, Thus far and no farther, so, in the fullness of God's time, right and righteousness prevail. The times when God thus vindicates himself and his cause we call great epochs in history. But the greatest epoch is only the result of silent forces which are constantly at work. The currents of good often run deep, are sometimes wholly out of sight for a long time. The thoughtless and faint-hearted say, They are gone forever. Those who listen more carefully are always assured that Truth still lives.

In view of these facts, the history of a great question, like that of which the following pages treat, is of vital importance. We can never judge correctly concerning the present except in the light of the past. To-day is the product of one or all of the yesterdays. Things are neither right nor wrong because they exist. Human majorities, as such, are not right. They are likely to be thoughtless and self-reliant and wrong.

The Sabbath question has had a prominent place in the religious history of our race. The week, measured by the Sabbath as its closing day, is the oldest division of time. It is found wherever history reaches. The Sabbath question comes close to human life. Social life, business life, religious worship and culture are all blended with it and are dependent on it. It is a question that has never been kept in abeyance for any great length of time, however much it may have been ignored. It was prominent in the Jewish church. It claimed early attention in the history of Christianity. It came to the front in the Reformation. It was prominent in the earlier years of our national life. It is to-day, though much ignored by some, and treated vigorously with narcotics by others, one of the questions which still demands recognition and solution. The actual history of the Sabbath is not well understood. The earlier centuries have not been carefully explored even by religious teachers. Much has been taken for granted, where the facts are unknown. We ask a full and careful re-examination of the whole question. Final results may be ignored for a time, but they will compel recognition.

IT does not seem needful that the passages in the Bible which refer to the Sabbath and the Sunday should be reproduced here. Every reader has the Bible at band. and all it says concerning these days can be studied from that original source. It is said sometimes that "The Sabbath finds no place in the New Testament. The other commands of the Decalogue are recognized, but the fourth is not." Over against these and similar incorrect statements we offer the following facts:

The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament fifty-eight times, and always in its specific character as a sacred day for rest, worship and deeds of mercy. These references are all in the historical portions of the New Testament, the Gospels and the Acts. They are distributed as follows: Matt. 10, Mark 11, Luke 18, John 10, Acts 9.

All these references are to the Sabbath as a definite and distinct day, the last day of the week, now called with great impropriety "Saturday." Forty-eight of these references are in the Gospels. These show how Christ, the Creator and Lord of the Sabbath, observed it, and what he taught concerning it. New Testament history centers around Christ. His life and teachings created that book. Those who honor Christ more than. they do their own choices, or the theories and practices which men have invented, will settle the Sabbath question by his teachings and example. Less than this is disloyalty to him. Theories, speculations, customs, church authority and civil law, if at variance with Christ and his example, should be set aside. The honest man who is not blinded by false conceptions of what it is to obey Christ will not hesitate to make him and his practice the standard in the matter of Sabbath-keeping.

When Christ's public ministry began, the Sabbath was burdened by numberless unnatural requirements which neither the letter nor the spirit of the fourth command demanded. As a consequence it became a prominent point of attack and defense between Christ and the Pharisees. He openly ignored these abnormal growths, and discarded many things which tradition had fixed upon Sabbath-observance; hence they charged him with "Sabbath-breaking." What he did was to restore the Sabbath to its true place, and thus fit it for service and acceptance in his kingdom. When his work is understood, every point which has been or can be claimed for a "Christian Sabbath" is fully met in the Sabbath thus freed from the unjust restraints which the Judaism of that time had imposed. This work of pruning was so necessary that in it we find the reason for so many references to the Sabbath in the Gospels. As compared with the references made to other laws of the Decalogue, the references to the Sabbath, and Christ's example concerning it, are more than all the others put together. Remembering then that Christ's aim was not the destruction nor removal of the Sabbath, but rather to set it free from Judaistic misconceptions, we shall be able to comprehend the real nature of the incidents which form its history in the Gospels.

If the reader will take the New Testament and, beginning with Matt. 12:1-13, will follow through what is said regarding the Sabbath and the position which Christ and his apostles took concerning it, he cannot fail to learn that the church of the New Testament period was a Sabbath-keeping church, according to the example and teachings of a Sabbath-keeping Christ. The "Lord of the Sabbath" taught its true place and character in his kingdom.

The first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament but eight times. Six of these references are found in the Gospels, and the same day is referred to in each case. There is but one reference to Sunday in the Book of Acts, and one in the Epistles. For a full discussion of these passages, historically and theologically, see my "Biblical Teachings Concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday," published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, pp. 50-89.

MATERIAL for the history of Christianity during the century immediately succeeding the apostolic period is meager and imperfect. The earlier post-apostolic writings are fragmentary. In many instances neither the date of the treatise nor the name of the author are known. Forgeries abound. Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles meet the investigator at every step, leading the unwary and over-credulous astray. The stream of written Christian history which runs through the Gospels and the Book of Acts drops out of sight like a "lost river" for a time, and when it reappears is not a little polluted by what has been gathered in its underground wanderings. The best products of the sub-apostolic age are known as the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. A comparison of these with the New Testament shows that they fall infinitely below the apostolic standard. There is a great gulf between them. Since Sunday has no history in the New Testament, its advocates in modern times have labored strenuously to find some support for it in the earlier post-apostolic productions. We will examine these in their order, and at length, in order to correct the wrong conclusions and the perversion of facts which come from such loose writing.

This was probably written about the year 97 A.D. A few defenders of Sunday have referred to or quoted from this Epistle, seeking inferential argument in favor of their theories. The passages are as follows:

"These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For His own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the Ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priests and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (Clement to the Corinthians, chapters 40, 41. Ante-Nicene Christian Librarv, Vol. I., pp. 35, 36. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.)

The foregoing evidently refers to the temple worship. Certainly it contains nothing relative to any change of the Sabbath, abrogation of the Sabbath law, or introduction of Sunday. Neither is there any reference or hint relative to any such thing in any other part of the epistle. A writer who is thus particular concerning the ceremonies of an outgoing system could not fail to note so prominent a feature of the new system as Sunday-observance would have been.

Next in order is a long allegory, which is attributed to the Hermas, who is mentioned in Romans 16:14. This allegory makes no allusion to the Lord's-day or to the Sunday. Its date is placed by the editors of Clark's edition of 1879, during the reign of Hadrian or Antonius Pius, i.e., between 117 and 161 A. D.

Next comes the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which has been attributed by some to a disciple of St. John, but the best authorities give its probable date as about the middle of the second century. This is also silent concerning Sunday.

Fragments of writings attributed to Papias, who is said to have been martyred about 163 A.D. contain no reference to Sunday. Thus three out of five of these "Fathers," Clement, Hermas and Papias, are found to be wholly silent concerning the question at issue. The two remaining ones we shall find to be spurious productions which possess no value as authorities.

First of these two comes the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas. This has been attributed to the companion of St. Paul in his missionary labors, and dated as early as A.D. 71. The following from standard authorities will show that such claims are false. Neander speaks as follows:

"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition. But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabis who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)

Mosheim says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)

Eusebius says:

"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.

Prof. Hackett says:

"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)

Millner says:

"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)

Kitto says:

"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)

Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:

"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)

Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:

"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)

Rev. Lyman Coleman says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)

Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:

"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)

The Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge (article Barnabas' Epistle), speaking of Barnabas the companion of Paul, says:

"He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this Epistle."

In the presence of the foregoing evidence, but one conclusion is possible, viz., the Epistle of Barnabas is a vague, fanciful production of some unknown author, forged at an uncertain date in the second century. The passage quoted in favor of Sunday observance reads as follows:

"Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And he says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: When His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how he speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens." (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. I., pp. 127, 128.)

It is to be regretted that many writers in favor of Sunday have quoted only the last clause of the foregoing beginning with the words, "For which cause," etc. They have thus perverted the meaning and sought to make it appear that the "resurrection" was the main reason assigned for "observing the eighth day with gladness." Whereas, the fanciful notions concerning the creation and the millennium constituted the main reason for such notice of the eighth day. Hence, another conclusion must be added, viz.: If any persons joined with the forger of this Epistle in observing the eighth day, their action was predicated on grounds very far removed from common sense, and from the Word of God.

One production which is classed with the "Apostolic Fathers" remains to be examined - the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. This production, like that attributed to Barnabas, is a forgery, and the passage adduced in favor of Sunday is caricatured into a seeming reference only by interpolating the word day. In support of these statements, we offer the following testimony. First, the passage in full, with its contexts. This Epistle exists in two forms, a longer and a shorter; both are given here:

"If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;" how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's-day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, " whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!"

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's-day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death - whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master - how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead." (Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 1., pp. 180-182.)

Without noting the grammatical construction of the sentence, the reader will see that the passage as it reads is untruthful, since it asserts that the "most holy prophets" ceased to keep Sabbaths, and kept the Lord's-day. The discussion concerning this passage in Kitto's Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature (article Lord's-day) is so full that it is here quoted somewhat at length as follows:

"But we must here notice one other passage of earlier date than any of these, which has often been referred to as bearing on the subject of the Lord's-day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A.D. 100). The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. It has, however, been understood in a totally different sense, and as referring to a distinct subject; and such we confess appears to us to be the most obvious and natural construction of it.

Then follows an analysis of the Greek text, showing that interpolating the word "day" does violence to the Grammatical construction, and to the obvious meaning of the passage. After such an analysis the Encyclopedia adds the following translation of the passage:

"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping Sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life, (in which, as it were, our life has risen again, through him, and his death, [which some deny], through whom we have received the mystery, etc., . . . ) how shall we be able to live without him?" etc.

In this way (allowing for the involved style of the whole) the meaning seems to us simple, consistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous introduction of words understood; and this view has been followed by many, though it is a subject on which considerable controversy has existed. On this view, the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's-day; but even on the opposite supposition, it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term "Lord’s-day" (for which it is often cited) since the material word it hemera – day - is purely conjectural. It however offers an instance of that species of contrast, which the Early Fathers were so fond of drawing between the Christian and Jewish dispensations, and between the new life of the Christian and the ceremonial spirit of the law, to which the Lord's-day (if it be imagined to be referred to) is represented as opposed."

The foregoing rendering and interpretation are fully sustained by a late writer of high authority concerning Sunday, James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L. Relative to the passage under consideration he says:

"Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, is the first writer whom I shall quote. Here is a passage from his Epistle to the Magnesians, containing, as you will observe, a contrast between Judaism and Christianity, and, as an exemplification of it, an opposition between sabbatizing and living the life of the Lord …. If they, then, who were concerned in old things, arrived at a newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life, by which our life sprung up by him, and by his death, (whom certain persons deny,) . . . how can we live without him, whose disciples even the prophets were, and in spirit waited for Him as their teacher? Wherefore, He whom they justly waited for, when He came, raised them up from the dead. . . . We have been made His disciples, let us live according to Christianity. (Bampton Lectures, preached before the University of Oxford, in the year 1860, p. 41.)

Sir William Domville makes the following just criticism:

"It seems not a little strange that the Archbishop should so widely depart from the literal translation, which is this: "No longer observing Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's life, in which also our life is sprung up." For there is no phrase or word in the original which corresponds to the phrase, "the Lord's-day," or to the word "keeping." In a note referring to this word, the Archbishop says: "Or living according to;" so that he acknowledges this translation would be correct, but the consequence of his throwing it into a note is to lead the reader to suppose that, though the original may be so translated, the preferable translation is that which is given in the text, when in truth, so far from being a preferable translation it is no translation at all. (Sabbath, etc., p. 242.)

This examination of the passage has been made thus full in order to show that there is no reference to Sunday-keeping except by a fraudulent and unscholarly translation, and by interpolation. The examination has also proceeded upon the supposition that the Epistle is genuine. That it is not genuine will fully appear from the following testimony:

Dr. Killen gives the following history of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius:

"In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the hoary mantle of antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was aroused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real Epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the Epistles, so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal, and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three Epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture. (Ancient Church, sec. 2, chap. 3.)

In a note, Doctor Killen adds that "Bunsen rather reluctantly admits that the highest literary authority of the last century, the late Dr. Neander, declined to recognize even the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles."

Rev. Lyman Coleman testifies in the following words:

"Certain it is that these Epistles, if not an entire forgery, are so filled with interpolations and forgeries as to be of no historical value with reference to the primitive Christians and the apostolic churches. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 1, see. 2, p. 48.)

John Calvin says:

"Nothing can be more absurd than the impertinences which have been published under the name of Ignatius. (Institutes, Book 1, chap. 13.)

Rev. Roswell D. Hitchcock, D. D., late Professor of Church History in Union Theological Seminary, in an article on the "Origin and Growth of Episcopacy," sums up the case as follows:

"1. Killen, the Irish Presbyterian, thinks these Ignatian Epistles all spurious, but is of the opinion that the Syriac three were the first to be forged in the time of Origen [185 - 254 A. D.], soon after which they were translated into Greek, and others were added before the time of Eusebius, who is admitted to have had the seven.

2. Baur and Hilgenfeld think them all spurious, but are of the opinion that the seven of the shorter Greek recensions were the first to be forged after 150 A.D., and that the Syriac three are simply fragmentary translations from the Greek.

3. Cureton, Bunsen, Ritschel, and Lipsius contend for the Genuineness of the Syriac three. This as the matter now stands, appears to be the weakest position of all.

4. A strong array of the ablest and soundest critics, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, such is Moehler and Gieseler, Hefele and Uhlhorn, may still be found on the side of the shorter Greek recension." (American Presbyterian and Theological Review, January, 1867.)

The following conclusions seem to be just and imperative:

1. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is a forgery, made long after the death of Ignatius.

2. It makes no mention of the Sunday or Lord's-day.

3. To interpolate the word "day" in the oft quoted passage perverts the meaning, and destroys the grammatical arrangement of the sentence. Whatever opinion any one may adopt concerning the Ignatian Epistles, the fact remains that a correct rendering of the text gives no support to Sunday-observance.

Thus it appears that there is absolutely no explicit testimony in favor of Sunday, or the Lord's-day as referring to Sunday, by any of the "Apostolic Fathers".

PLINY’S LETTER TO TRAJAN, AND A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.

EARLY in the second century, Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bythinia, wrote to the Emperor Trajan (about 107 A.D.) asking advice concerning the complaints which were made to him relative to the Christians in his province. After stating the points on which he desired counsel, he says:

"In the meanwhile, the method I have observed toward those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians? If they confessed, I repeated the question twice again, adding threats at the same time; when, if they still persevered, I ordered them to be immediately punished; for I was persuaded, what ever the nature of their opinions might be, that a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case), while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An information was presented to me without any name subscribed, containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or ever had been. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and frankincense before your statue (which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods, an even reviled tile name of Christ; Whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into a compliance with any of these articles; I thought proper, therefor, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person, at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; while the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) forsaken that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, throwing out imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ.

They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that they met on a certain stated day before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some God, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. (Pliny's Letters, Book X., Epistle 97, Melmoth's Translation.,)

The claim which is made concerning this extract is that the certain "stated day" was Sunday. But when it is remembered that the Bythinian churches were probably organized by Peter at a time when the observance of the Sabbath was a common practice of the apostles, it is practically certain that the "stated day" was the seventh day. This view is supported by natural inferences and general facts relative to the observance of the seventh day, which continued in the church for some centuries after the date of Pliny's letter. Bohmer (as quoted by Holden, p. 292) takes this view. Gesner, in his notes on Pliny, concurs with this view. (See Hessey, Sunday, p. 370, and Cox, Sabbath Literattire, Vol. I., p. 297.)

Such use has been made of a certain spurious claim concerning the questions put to the early martyrs that it demands special attention at this point. Mr. Gilfillan, Mr. Gurney, and other writers of the early part of the last century have used the claim to support the idea that the "stated day" of Pliny was the Sunday, or that Sunday-keeping was a cause for martyrdom at that early period. Mr. Gilfillan assets that the enmity between the early Christians and the Jews arose from the change of the "sabbatic day." This assertion is followed by these words:

"The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, Dominicum servasti? - Have you kept the Lord's-day? Such, however, was the success of truth, and of the example of these good men, that the Lord's-day soon passed from being an object of opprobrium into a law of a great empire. And Julian himself was so impressed with the power of its arrangement of rest and instruction as to contemplate the adoption of a similar provision for reviving and propagating heathen error. (Sabbath, etc., p. 7.)

This statement has been termed justly "a famous falsehood." We are not ready to assume that Mr. Gilfillan, and others who have repeated the statement, so understood, or designed to make a mistatement, but the facts given below show that anxiety to find support for Sunday in early times, and incomplete knowledge, or both, have led them into a great error. Mr. Gilfillan gives as authority "Baron, An. Eccles., A.D. 303. Num. 35," etc., which will be examined below. Mr. Gurney shapes his statement as follows:

"But what was the stated day when these things took place? Clearly, the first day of the week; as is proved by the very question which it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the martyrs, viz., Dominicum servasti? – "Hast thou kept the Lord's-day?" To which the answer usually returned was, in substance, as follows: Christianus sum, intermittere non possum – "I am a Christian, I cannot omit it. (Brief Remarks on the History, etc., of the Sabbath, p. 36.)

In a foot-note Mr. Gurney gives his authority as follows: "Acts of Martyrs in Bishop Andrews on the Ten Commandments p. 264." Concerning this reference we have made careful examination, and found the following facts. The full title of the work to which Mr. Gurney evidently refers is as follows: "The Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large; or a Learned and Pious Exposition of the Ten Commandments." In this work, at the place cited, there is made an effort to prove that the term "Lord's-day" (Rev. 1: 10) means Sunday. In connection with that discussion the following passage appears:

"A thing so notorious, so well known even to the heathen themselves, as it was (in the Acts of the Martyrs) ever an usual question of theirs (even of course) in their examining what? Dominicum servasti? – "Hold you the Sunday" and their answer known; they all aver it. Christianus sum, intermittere non possum - "I am a Christian; I cannot intermit it, not the Lord's-day in any wise." These are examples enough.

Thus we reach the exact words referred to by Mr. Gurney. But we find also another important fact. This "Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine" was a posthumous work. The manuscript was not complete when Bishop Andrews died, and the editor made such additions as he deemed best from material left by the Bishop. The passage above is taken from a printed speech made by the Bishop against Thraske, an English Seventh-day Baptist, who was tried before the Star Chamber Court for maintaining that Christians were bound to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath, etc. The Bishop died in 1626, and his speech against Thraske was not published until 1629. It was, therefore, as well as the "Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine," a posthumous publication. It is probable that it was printed from some rough outline of his speech, found among his papers; for it is one of several tracts attributed to the Bishop, and collected in a small volume entitled, Opuscula quaedam posthuma.

On pages 131 and 132 of a work in favor of Sunday, written by William Twisse, D. D., of the English church, and published at London in 1641, about ten or twelve years after the publication of Bishop Andrews' work, is the same quotation, which Twisse says is from Andrews' speech against Thraske in the court of the Star Chamber. In the history of the trial of Thraske as given by a contemporary (Paggit Herisiography, p. 20, London, 1661), the same passage is quoted from Bishop Andrews' speech.

In this speech, the Bishop labors to prove that the seventh day was early changed for the first by Christians. In the course of that discussion, he makes the statement quoted above. The passage from the speech against Thraske and hence the reference to Dominicum servasti does not appear in the Parker Edition of Andrews’ "Works,"- Oxford 1846 - nor in the Revised Catechetical Doctrine published in 1852. Thus does the myth vanish which has been so long used as a foundation for the claim that the "stated day" of Pliny was Sunday.

But the case is made still more unsatisfactory when we search for the authority on which Bishop Andrews made his loose statement. He refers to the Acts of the Martyrs only in a general way, citing no instance wherein such a question was asked. Careful search reveals the fact that no such question is anywhere recorded. Domville states the result of his researches as follows: (For Domville's entire discussion, see Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 261-273.)

"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 it 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 afterwards, the question, Dominicum servasti.? does not once occur, nor any equivalent question, such, for instance, as Dominicum celebrasti?

It cannot be expected that I should quote in proof of my assertion all the questions put to the martyrs in all the martyrdoms (above one hundred in number) recorded in Ruinart; but I will do this, I will state all the questions that were put to the martyrs in and before Pliny's time.

Having stated these questions, Domville continues:

"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 to offer 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, Domincum servasti.? "Hold you the Lord's-day" This martyrdom happened A.D. 304. [Baronius puts it one year earlier. - A.H.L.] The sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other persons. They were taken to Carthage and brought before the proconsul Amulinus. 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 he had not his author at hand, and that, in trusting to his memory, he coined a phrase of his own.

After quoting the questions put at this trial, in which the term Dominicum is used, and the answers which were made by the martyrs, Domville adds:

"The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus and his fellow sufferers being the only one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of Bishop Andrews that "Hold you the Lord's-day? " was a 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 [the compiler of the work entitled, "Acts of the Martyrs," etc.,] 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 (Domincum vero designat sacra mysteria,) and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian in support of this interpretation. [This testimony from Ruinart is conclusive concerning the meaning of the term dominicum. In another note upon a passage in which the word occurs, he also says that some manuscripts have Dominica sacramenta] 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-Caesarea. 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. (Vol. 5, pp. 116, 117. Antwerp Ed., 1700.) 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."

In addition to the foregoing it may be added that dominicum is not an adjective of which diem is the understood substantive. In the narrative of the trial of Saturninus it is used as a neuter substantive as the following sentence shows: Quia non potest intermitti dominicum.

From the foregoing facts, the following conclusions are legitimately drawn:

1. Bishop Andrews, in his speech against Thraske before the court of the Star Chamber in 1618, made a general reference to the "Acts of the Martyrs," as authority for a loosely-made statement relative to the question Dominictim servasti? A careful examination of the best edition of that work shows that no such question was ever used; that one somewhat similar was used at a trial long after the time when Pliny wrote his statement concerning a "stated day," in which quotation the Lord's Supper and not the Lord's day is referred to.

2. Mr. Gurney, Dr. Dwight, and others have referred to Bishop Andrews' speech and to Pliny's letter in such a way as to lead their readers into a very grave error concerning the whole matter.

We now come to Mr. Gilfillan's statements which, be it remembered, have been published since Sir Domville made such a complete exposure in regard to the passage. Cardinal Baronius was a Romish Annalist, who wrote about the beginning of the seventeenth century. Bingham, in Antiquities of the Christian church, refers to an edition published at Antwerp in 1610. Thus by a change of tactics, Mr. Gilfillan attempts to evade the force of the exposure made by Sir Domville, relative to Bishop Andrews' reference to the "Acts of the Martyrs," and so to save the much loved Dominicum servasti? By noting the date, A.D. 303, the reader will see that he is obliged to admit the main item, namely, that the question was not put until the fourth century, and hence can have no bearing upon the "stated day," referred to by Pliny. But worse than this is the fact that Baronius does not support Mr. Gilfillan's claim, and so leaves him liable to very grave charges as to honesty or carefulness. The account given by Baronius shows that he copied from the "Acts of Martyrs," from which abundant testimony his been given, showing that Dominicum was used to indicate the Lord's Supper. Baronius, in the place referred to by Gilfillan, and its contexts, gives the history of the martyrdom of Saturninus and his companions, evidently the same account which Domville has so carefully sifted. Baronius gives the representative questions which were put to the prisoners, whose arrest was made because they had celebrated the Lord's Supper against the command of the Emperor. Dominicum and Collectam are used as equivalent in these questions, and always in such connections as indicate a rite performed in Christian assemblies. But the case is rendered still plainer by the fact that Baronius defines these terms when he records the account of this trial, in which they were used. He says: "By the words, Collectam, Collectionem, and Dominicum, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass." (Baronius, Tome 2, A.D. 303, No. 39, p. 884. Venetii, 1738.) In concluding the account of the martyrdom of this company, he says:

"It has been shown above, in relating these things, that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment. (Ib, Id., No. 82, p. 897.)

We should not have discussed this extract from Pliny at such length except for the necessity of exposing the mistake into which many writers have fallen in seeking to prove that the "stated day" mentioned was Sunday. The only positive knowledge that can be obtained is found in the text itself, which shows that in Bythinia the Christians met on some "stated day," weekly or otherwise, and that on the order from the governor they desisted from the practice.

We must here note the "Teaching of the Apostles." When it appeared in 1884, a few proclaimed triumphantly that the early observance of the "Lord's-day" was now settled. The facts do not support any such conclusion. After a careful study of it and its surroundings, at that time we spoke of it as follows:

"Some general facts need to be remembered as a preface to the investigation concerning the "Teaching."

(a) The few meager references to it by early writers, and the long obscurity which has covered it, show that it was never widely known, and never held a prominent place in the post-apostolic period.

(b) So far as genuineness is concerned, it is found in bad company. Its associations are against it. By genuineness we mean a compilation of real Scripture teachings made by a competent hand, previous to 120 or 160 A.D.

(c) It claims neither date nor author. "Leon, Notary and Sinner," June, 6564, i.e., 1056 A. D., is the only clue we have to any one connected with it. All conclusions must therefore be based upon internal characteristics and collateral testimony. Taking up the matter of internal evidence, we venture a theory which will form at least a working hypothesis for farther investigations. It is this:

"The "Teaching" consists of two distinct parts. The first, which is earliest and more nearly pure, consists of the first six chapters, which are wholly didactic. These represent the genuine "Teaching." The second portion, chapters 7-16, are made up of fragments from other writings, and of references to practices and notions of later and indefinite date, and not necessarily contemporaneous. The grounds on which we base this hypothesis are as follows:

1. The work has two titles. The first appears to be an abridgment of the second, and from another hand. Even the second refers not to the whole book, but to the first six chapters. This fact alone must continue to constitute a definite argument against the unity of the book, and against the genuineness of the second part. Comparison of the two portions with each other and with the New Testament will also show certain interpolations in the earlier portions, made to bring it into more apparent harmony with the latter.

2. The internal evidence is strongly in favor of this theory. The first six chapters are purely didactic. They are made up almost wholly of truths which are drawn directly from the Gospels and the Decalogue, the latter, and its summary by Christ, being very prominent. Dr. Smyth says of it as a catechism:

"How supreme its law of righteousness, and pure its standard of morals. Like all sound catechisms, this one goes back to the Decalogue. It takes the form of precept and injunction. It prohibits absolutely. There can be no evangelical training of the young with the law omitted." (Andover Review, April, 1884, p. 435.)

These six chapters are also complete within themselves. They stand related to practical Christian life, and to the rest of the chapters, like a high fertile plateau of rich pasture land, swept by the pure breezes of heaven. If these had come to us alone, with their appropriate title, no one would have thought of them as fragmentary or incomplete. They would have shone amid the Patristic writings like a single rare diamond among less precious stones.

3. The additions which follow the sixth chapter are such as a later and more corrupt age would naturally make. Undoubtedly the catechism was designed as and understood to be the antecedent to baptism, not as a "confession of faith," but as a guide to life. Apostolic and sub-apostolic Christianity consisted of a life, not a creed. To do, not to believe, was the absorbing thought. As ritualism became more prominent and the church passed into the transition period wherein apostolic Christianity was changed to Patristic, in which philosophy did much abound -under such circumstances compiling fingers would itch to add to the simple catechism the developing notions and theories concerning Christian life. Naturally, therefore, the seventh chapter opens with baptism, the event for which the catechism was the preparation. The change between the sixth and subsequent chapters is more than the change from the simple didactic to the ritual. The didactic portion is mainly Scriptural; the ritualistic is not. Inferences aside, the second part of the Teaching will not bear comparison with the New Testament on many points. Baptism, fasting, the eucharist, and forms of prayer form the themes for four chapters - 7-10; none of these are treated with reference to their higher and spiritual significance, but rather from the standpoint of a growing ritualism. The Lord's Prayer, with the Doxology in part is ordered "three times" in each day. This certainly marks a point later than the middle of the second century.

The 11^th and 12^th chapters give directions for the reception and treatment of apostles and prophets, such as indicate a period decidedly post-apostolic. Christ directed his disciples to abide where they first entered during their indefinite stay in any city. Paul labored weeks, months, and yaers in specific fields, as the work demanded. But this 11^th chapter forbids an apostle to remain more than one day unless necessity compels; in that case he may stay two days. "But if he remain three days he is a false prophet." It also orders that when he departs he shall be given only bread enough to last until he lodge again, and assures us that if he asks for money he is a false prophet. This is puerile. The same chapter has the following unmeaning sentence: "And no prophet who orders a meal in the spirit, eateth of it, unless indeed he is a false prophet." This is as senseless as some of the vagaries of Barnabas, and points to a date much later than 120 A.D., or to a degeneracy so rapid as to challenge credulity," etc. (Outlook and Sabbath QuarterIy, July, 1884, pp. 17, 18.)

A little later the opinion of Hilgenfeld appeared as follows:

"I seem to myself to have found the original "Teaching of the Apostles" in chapter 1:1 to 6:2, (that is, from the beginning to the words "But concerning food," etc.,) but here and there a little altered, and with a second title ("The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles") conformed to the example of the Apostolic Constitutions. But the matters that we read therein savor of a certain Montanism rather than oppose it. That which follows, the original "Teaching of the Apostles" (chapters 6:3 to 16:6), which is directed not to the catechumens but to the "faithful," (even to clergy, 7:2) seems to be a later addition, ultimately shaped for the use of Montanism. (The Independent, June 26, 1884.)

A few months later the following appeared, which is sufficient to settle the question in the mind of every one not blinded by prejudice or incapacitated by ignorance:

BY PROF. E. A. GROVERNOR, ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE.

I have recently enjoyed two interviews with Bishop Bryennios. The first interview lasted more than two hours, the second not so long. Both were devoted almost entirely to conversation concerning the " Teaching."

The Bishop expressed himself very freely. With interesting minuteness, he dwelt upon his discovery of the manuscript and upon its subsequent history in his connection with it.

The subject which he evidently deemed the most important, he discussed with special emphasis. This was concerning the relative value of different portions of the "Teaching." What he said concerning it will be of interest to the reader.

Everybody knows that the "Teaching," as published in the Constantinople edition of Bryennios contains sixteen short chapters. The first six comprise enforcement of duties and prohibition of sins and crimes; the last ten, commencing with the seventh, consist mainly of liturgical and ecclesiastical prescriptions and ordinances. Now the Bishop says the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" is limited entirely to those first six chapters and, inasmuch as it is derived through them from the Lord, each word therein is of binding force. But, he says, the last ten chapters are entirely distinct, and have no authority whatever, except so far as the writer happens to be correct in his injunctions. How far he was correct in these injunctions the Bishop says we cannot know. Their only weight is found in the fact that they are the expression of opinion of one person who was presumably a good man. To quote as exactly as I can the Bishop's language: "In the year 100, 120, 140,- we are not sure what year - a man says to himself, 'I will write down just what the apostles have taught and what they learn from the Lord. I will write down what they said about special duties and sins. I will write down just what they said about the two ways of virtue and vice.' So he goes to work and writes it down just as well as he can remember, and, doubtless, he has in it the aid of God's Spirit. All he has written down is from Christ; it is just what the apostles said; it is addressed only to Christians, and this is what should bear the inscription of 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.' All this occupies just six exceedingly brief chapters. But when he has done that, the writer is not satisfied. All he has done is that he has been a sort of amanuensis in writing down teachings for the practical guidance of the saints. But the heathen are being converted and pouring into the church. In the manner of receiving them vastly different customs exist. There is no manual of directions on the subject. In one place they do this; in another place they do that. The variety of procedure is becoming a scandal. Christ did not formulate a system. He gave only a faith and the apostles did hardly more. 'Now,' says the man, whom we will call the transcriber, inasmuch as nothing in the six chapters was original to him, 'I will do something more. I will write what shall be good for those coming into the church, and what shall be a sort of guide or manual to the clergy in dealing with them.' We may suppose that, after great study and investigation and reflection, or, possibly, with but little of such study, investigation, and reflection, the man makes up his mind as to what ought to be the course of procedure, or as to what is the course of procedure in the majority of cases, and then, without inspiration, he writes it down. It is possible, even, that his opinion may be in opposition to that of the vast majority of other believers. Hence the last ten chapters, as authority, have no value whatever. (den echoun oudemian axion) Possibly the tois ethnesin was then put here at the beginning of the seventh chapter, and preceded by the words: "Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles," thus making it in the original as distinct, and yet the writer honestly believing it the Teaching of the Lord because it seemed so wise and so clear to him. Possibly the inscription was simply (tois ethnesin) and, at last, with the title, ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ prefixed, all was transported to the beginning of the book. But the sum of it is, these ten chapters have no authority save as the opinion of the unknown writer. There may have been a hundred men more capable than he of expressing an opinion, only he wrote down his opinion, and others did not. The first six chapters have upon us the binding force of the word of God. The didache is, properly speaking, the first six chapters and no more."

"How would Your Holiness prove this distinction of the sixteen chapters into two distinct parts of unequal authority and obligation?" I asked.

"First," he replied, "by reading the first six chapters by themselves, and then the last ten chapters by themselves. There is all the difference between them of inspiration on the one side, and of human compilation and contrivance on the other."

Then the learned Bishop, who is profoundly versed in all the intricacies and subtleties of apostolic and ecclesiastical history, made a remark which, for its ingeniousness and ingenuousness. I must quote. "We know that many of these rules and directions had no authority save in the mind of the writer, from the fact that during the first and second centuries after Christ, the observance and customs of the church, in many respects, were different from what the writer approves and lays down in the last ten chapters. At the same time, we know that the teachings of the first six chapters are exactly the same as those of Christ and his apostles."

"It is also a fact," he said, "that, in the Epistle of Barnabas, no quotation is made from the 'Teaching' except from the first six chapters. Possibly there may be from the sixteenth chapter; but it seems rather like a coincidence than quotation. Now if the writer of that Epistle recognized all the 'Teaching' as equal, why does he quote only from the first six chapters?"

"But," said I, "is this fully in harmony with Your Holiness's discussion of the writer of the didache on certain pages of last years Constantinople edition?"

He replied: "It is at variance with nothing which I said then, and it is in accordance with, and fortified by, my constant study of the didache ever since it was published, and it is all to be set forth in the book I am now writing. There are other considerations, too, which I shall there bring out fully. Altogether it amounts to this: Six chapters, divine and obligatory; ten chapters, human, possibly good, but resting on one individual man's individual judgment of what was best." (The Independent, Oct. 15, 1884.)

We have treated of this document thus at length for the sake of many readers who may not have had the opportunity to become familiar with it, and also to show that the second portion, in which occurs the reference that is claimed in support of Sunday, is of a later date, and of less worth than the earlier. This reference is in the fourteenth chapter, and is translated by Hitchcock and Brown as follows:

"But on the Lord's-day do we assemble and break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure."

This passage, like the one from Ignatius, lacks the very important word day. The Greek is as follows:

"Kata kuriaken de Kuriou sunachthentes klasate arton kai eucharistesate prosexomologesamenoi ta paraptomata humov, hopos kathara he thusia humov ei."

It will be seen that the structure of the opening clause is more than "pleonastic;" it is awkward. If the word day be supplied, or if the adjective be used for the substantive, we should have, "On the Lord's (day) of the Lord," etc.

Whatever meaning may be given to the imperfect clause, nothing is gained for the cause of Sunday-observance. The portion of the "Teaching" in which it occurs is certainly later than the time of Justin Martyr, and likely to be contemporaneous with the Apostolic Constitutions. The words of Justin show how and why Sunday was observed as an eucharist day in the latter half of the second century. The history of "Sunday," as the resurrection festival, begins there. "Lord's-day" comes in later. It does not appear in legislation concerning Sunday, which began 321 A.D., until well toward the close of the fourth century.

THE middle of the second century marks the beginning of a new era in the Sabbath question. The first direct and indisputable reference to any form of Sunday-observance by Christians is made it this time, and simultaneously and by the same man the no-Sabbath theory is propounded. Up to this time, the Scriptures had held the better part of the church to the Sabbath as taught in the Decalogue. Polytheism and heathen philosophy ignored this idea, and openly proclaimed a type of no-lawism and absolute no-Sabbathism. It was a part of the fruitage which came from the corrupting of the church and the gospel by admixture with heathen fancies and speculations. Under the sway of these loose ideas, Sunday, already a festival among the heathen, found gradual welcome at the hands of the semi-Christianized leaders in the church, and final recognition by a still less Christianized form of civil government during the third and fourth centuries. Justin Martyr stands as a prominent representative of this no-Sabbathism, and also as an apologist for Christianity, who sought to soften the fury of the heathen persecutors by claiming a similarity between Christianity and heathenism. The entire passage concerning Sunday is as follows; only a part of it is usually quoted by writers who claim that Sunday is the Sabbath:

"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday), and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." ( The First Apology of Justin, chapter 67. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, pp. 65, 66.)

The foregoing extracts will be better understood if the reader remembers that the author was a Grecian philosopher who accepted - we dare not say was converted to Christianity, after reaching the age of manhood, and who retained many of his heathen notions and sympathies through life. The days referred to, Saturn’s and the Sun’s, are designated only by their heathen names, and the reasons which are given for meeting on Sunday are at once fanciful and unscriptural. The passage shows Justin in his true place is an Apologist, who sympathized with both parties, and sought to soften the feelings of the Emperor by indicating those points in which Christianity and heathenism agreed. The following extracts from the same author show that he could not entertain any idea of the Sun’s day as being in any sense the Sabbath, or even a Sabbath. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, the differences between Justin’s theories of Christianity and Judaism are strongly set forth, and the Sabbath is frequently referred to. In the 23d section of the Dialogue he says:

"You have no need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 12, p. 101.)

In another place he says:

"But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither was circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions; to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd. Therefore we must confess that He who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men, and we must declare Him to be benevolent, fore-knowing, needing nothing, righteous and good. But if this be not so, tell me, sir, what you think of those matters which we are investigating. And when no one responded:

"Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 23, pp. 115, 116.)

Be it here remembered that the Sabbath is often referred to in Justin’s Dialogue, and that in the passage just quoted he is answering a charge which Trypho brings against Christians, who, he declares, "differ in nothing from the heathen in their manner of living, because they neither observe festivals, nor Sabbaths, nor the rite of circumcision. (Dialogue, chap. 10.)

Justin’s reply seeks to defend himself against the charge by showing that such things were not required of men under the gospel. In this way, Justin shows that he did not predicate any observance of Sunday upon the Fourth Commandment, or upon any transfer of the "Jewish" to the "Christian" Sabbath. He does not link Sunday with the former dispensation by any such claims. In the forty-first section of the Dialogue he gives another fanciful reason in addition to those given in the Apology for giving Sunday a religious pre-eminence. This reason he expresses in the following words:

The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first." (Ante- Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, p. 139.)

Thus it appears that Justin is at once the first of the "Fathers" who makes any authentic mention of the pre-eminence of Sunday among Christians, and the first exponent of absolute no-Sabbathism. It is also pertinent to note, as Dr. Hessey has done, (Sunday, p. 43, sec. 11,) that Justin always uses sabbatizeiv "with exclusive reference to the Jewish law," and that "he carefully distinguishes Saturday [Sabbath], the day after which our Lord was crucified, from Sunday upon which he rose from the dead." In the face of these facts, it is manifestly unjust to claim Justin as an advocate of the sacredness of Sunday in any sense. It were better to let him stand in his true place as the exponent of semi-pagan no-Sabbathism.

What we do learn from Justin, inferences and suppositions aside, is this: At the middle of the second century, certain Christians held some form of religious service on Sunday. All that Justin says is compatible with the idea that the day was not regarded as a Sabbath, and his silence concerning any sabbatic observance is strong negative proof, of the absence of any such idea. His no-Sabbathism is added proof of this. It is further apparent that since be undertook to describe the things which were done on Sunday, and to give the reasons therefor, that had anything like the modern theory of a Sunday Sabbath then obtained, he must have mentioned the fact. Domville sums up the case as follows:

"This inference appears irresistible when we further consider that Justin, in this part of his Apololgy, is professedly intending to describe the mode in which Christians observed the Sunday. . . . He evidently intends to give all information requisite to an accurate knowledge of the subject he treats upon. He is even so particular as to tell the Emperor why the Sunday was observed; and he does, in fact, specify every active duty belonging to the day, the Scripture reading, the exhortation, the public prayer, the Sacrament, and the alms-giving: why then should he not also inform the Emperor of the one inactive duty of the day, the duty of abstaining from doing in it any manner of work ?

If such was the custom of Christians in Justin's time, his description of their Sunday duties was essentially defective. . . . But even were it probable he should intend to omit all mention of it in his Apology to the Emperor, it would be impossible to imagine any sufficient cause for his remaining silent on the subject in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; and this whether the Dialogue was real or imaginary, for if the latter, Justin would still, as Dr. Lardner has observed, "chose to write in character.'' The testimony of Justin, therefore, proves most clearly two facts of great importance in the Sabbath controversy; the one, that the Christians in his time observed the Sunday as a prayer day, the other that they did not observe it as a Sabbath-day. (Sabbath, Examination of the Six Texts: p. 274, seq. London, 1849.)

Such is the summary of the case at the year 150 A.D. No-Sabbathisrn, and a form of Sunday-observance were born at the same time. Trained in heathen philosophies until manhood, Justin accepted Christianity as a better philosophy than he had found before. Such a man, and those like him, could scarcely do other than build a system quite unlike apostolic Christianity. That which they did build was a paganized rather than an apostolic type.

OTHER WRITERS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NO-SABBATHISM.

THE advocates of Sunday scan the pages of history, subsequent to Justin's time, for every trace which refers to Sunday in any way. Tracing in chronological order the writers that are quoted we find

The passage quoted is said to be from a letter addressed to Soter, Bishop of Rome. Only a fragment of the letter is extant, being found in Eusebius. (Ecc. Hist., Book 4, chap. 23.) A Latin volume of Eusebius, published in 1570, gives chap. 22. The passage is usually translated liberally as follows:

"To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we read your letter, which we shall hereafter read continually, as we do that of Clemens, that we may be replenished with precepts and wholesome instructions." The passage as found in the Latin edition of Eusebius, noted above, is as follows: "Sanctam hodie Dominicam diem peregimus, in una vestram legimus epistolam, quam semper admonitionis gratia legemus, sicut et priorem nobis per Clementem scriptam." Routh (Reliquiae Sacrae, Vol. 1, p. 180) gives "transegimus" instead of "peregimus," and in the Greek text gives "diegagomen."

Such a fragment, if genuine, cannot be made the foundation of an argument or a theory. It is dated A.D. 170. Allowing that "Lord's-day" refers to Sunday, it only shows a slight growth of the idea and practice referred to by Justin in his Apology twenty or thirty years before. It does not show a Sabbatic observance; "have passed" or "gone through" the day is all that the text can be made to express; and to say "have kept," as Mr. Gilfillan does in a parenthesis, is a perversion.

Testimony in favor of Sunday is also sought from Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who wrote a book "on the Sabbath," some say; "on the Lord's day," say others. The basis on which these and similar statements rest is this: None of the books written by him are extant. Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. Book 4, chap. 25) pretends to give a list of works written by him. Routh (Reliquiae Sacrae, Vol.1, p.120) gives the title of this one as Ho Peri Kupiakes Logos. Thus we have simply a book or discourse "Concerning the Lord's ---- ." Evidently an imperfect title, with no clue concerning the important word to be supplied. There were many other themes concerning which one might write besides the Lord's day. It is not surprising that Eusebius should supply the ellipsis with the word "day." He wrote one hundred and fifty years after the time of Melito, and evidently had no authority except a mutilated catalogue, or tradition. He was a great admirer of Constantine, and an earnest supporter of his Sunday legislation. His comments upon some of the Psalms evince an unwarrantable effort to give a religious character to Sunday. With such tendencies and under such circumstances, Eusebius would naturally be tempted to claim Melito as a Sunday author. In the same chapter, Eusebius states that Melito wrote a discourse concerning "Easter," in the preface to which he says that it was written at a time when "there was a great stir at Laodicea concerning the Sabbath, which in those days, by reason of the times, was broken up." (Mota est Laodiceae magna quaestio Sabbato, quod in diebus illis pro ratione temporis, inciderat.) In this statement there is clearly a reference to the flood of no-Sabbathism, which found its first prominent advocate in Justin a quarter of a century before the time of Melito. It also shows that the distinctively Christian element in the church withstood this semi-Pagan apostasy, and hence a "great stir was made."

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, flourished during the last quarter of the second century. Positive dates concerning him and his writings are wanting. Probably the most of his writings which have come down to us were written after 180 A.D. One brief passage ascribed to him has been quoted and paraphrased by several modern writers in such a way as to indicate inexcusable carelessness, to say the least. Dr. Justin Edwards says:

"Hence Irenaeus, 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.)

Mr. Gurney and others among English writers have used similar language. Gilfillan is somewhat more guarded in his use of Irenaeus, though not less deceptive as to his real teachings and the facts relative to the foregoing quotation. The important fact to be considered is this: The writings of Irenaeus contain no such passage. In support of this statement we offer the following testimony from the pen of Sir William Domville:

"Mr. Gurney, in speaking of the Christians of the second century, says: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 167, expressly asserts that the Lord's-day was their Sabbath." "On the Lord's-day, every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God." In a note, Mr. Gurney adds, as his authority, "Quoted by Dwight, Theology, Vol. 4, p. 26."

Who is Dwight? And why should Mr. Gurney in this case, and, as I believe, in this case only, quote one of the Fathers at second hand? For Mr. Gurney, it is evident from his "Brief Remarks," is well versed in the original writings of the Fathers; and if so, he ought not to rely on any person but himself for faithful quotations from them.

Now I find, by a biographical memoir prefixed to Dwight's Theology, that the author, Dr. Dwight. was a minister of the gospel in America, and President of a college there, and that he was born in 1752, and died in 1817. He had the misfortune to be afflicted with a disorder in his eyes from the early age of twenty-three; "a calamity," says his biographer, "by which he was deprived of the capacity for reading and study. . . . During the greater part of forty years, he was not able to read fifteen minutes in the twenty-four hours. . . . The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned, [by which the editor must mean his age of twenty-three] was almost exclusively at second hand by the aid of others." (pp. 84,85.) Having been driven by necessity to pursue his many avocations without the use of his eyes his memory naturally strong, acquired a power of retention unusual and surprising. It was not the power of recollecting words,

or dates, or numbers of any kind, it was the power of remembering facts and thoughts, especially his own thoughts. (p. 86.) . . . His work consists of a series of sermons in five volumes, published after his death from the manuscript of an amanuensis, to whom he had dictated them."

The quotation from Irenaeus occurs in one of these sermons (Vol. 4, p. 28, ed. 1819.) The original passage in Irenaeus is not given by Dr. Dwight in the edition which I have seen; we have only his English version of it, nor is the place where it is to be found in the works of Irenaeus pointed out. (Sabbath, Examination of the Six Texts, p. 127, et., seq.)

We have quoted from Domville thus because of his recognized authority as an historian. (Robert Cox, Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, supports Domville on this point.) We have also verified his statements by comparing them with the American edition of Dr. Dwight's Theology. It may be well also to remark here that the original sources of information concerning the writings of Irenaeus are very meager, and hence the greater difficulty which one afflicted as Dr. Dwight was would labor under in quoting from him. This will appear in the following statement from Lardner:

"There is nothing now remaining of Irenaeus besides his five books against heresies, and fragments of some other pieces; and those five books, which were written by him in Greek, are extant only in an ancient Latin version, excepting some fragments preserved by Eusebius, and other Greek writers who have quoted them." (Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. 2, pp. 292, 293. London, 1847.)

Careful research shows that these writings of Irenaeus contain no such passage as the one referred to by Dr. Dwight, and quoted with such confidence by Mr. Gurney, Dr. Edwards, and others. In support of this statement, we quote again from Domville:

"But although not found in Irenaeus, 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 closely resembling those in Dr. Dwight's quotation, as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted. . . . Unwilling to rely merely upon the identity of the passage in Ignatius, with the quotations made as from Irenaeus by Drs. Dwight and Paley, I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenaeus, 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, 1563) and Grabe (Oxford, 1702) and in neither do I find the passage in question. (Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 130-132; also Cox. Sab. Lit., Vol. 1, supplement, p. 329.)

We have carefully verified the statement made above by Sir William Domville, and do not hesitate to repeat that Irenaeus contains no such passage as the one attributed to him.

Nor is the passage from the interpolated Epistle of Ignatius given in full; why we do not know, unless it be that when the whole passage is given it overthrows the claim which is made concerning a part of it when standing alone. That our readers may see the whole, we insert the passage, which is as follows:

"Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness: for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For, say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's-day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, etc." (Chapter 9.) (Those wishing to examine this passage will find that it is excluded from Wakes' edition of the Fathers. It is given in the "Longer" form of the Epistle, in Ante-Nicene Library - Apost. Fathers, p. 181.

Thus it is shown that the oft-quoted passage from Irenaeus must be placed upon the list of things which are not, and its use by those who have thus incorrectly predicated an argument upon it must be called, putting it mildly, a serious mistake. A single passage from the more authentic writings of Irenaeus and the only one in which he discusses the Sabbath question at length will show the reader his theory concerning the matter of Sabbath-keeping:

"It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those who believe in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when he healed upon the Sabbath-day. For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea, it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to him on the Sabbath-days. For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, from all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbor's benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For he did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering death that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance. And again, the law did not forbid those who were hungry on the Sabbath-days to take food lying ready at hand: it did, however, forbid them to reap and to gather into the barn." (Against Heresies, Library of the Fathers, B. 4, chap. 8; Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 5, pp. 397, 398.)

In another place Irenaeus declares the binding nature of the Decalogue in these words:

"They (the Jews) had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed warning them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning he had implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the Decalogue (which if any one does not observe, he has no salvation) did then demand nothing more of them. (Against Heresies, B. 4, chap. 15. Anti-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 5, p. 419.

THE following, from the pen of Neander, will fairly introduce the next writer to be examined:

"Quintus Septimus Tertullianus was born in the later years of the second century, probably at Carthage, and was the son of a centurion in the service of the Proconsul at Carthage. He was at first an advocate or rhetorician, and arrived at manhood before he was converted to Christianity; and be then obtained, if the account given by Jerome is correct, the office of a Presbyter. . . . He was a man of ardent mind, warm disposition, and deeply serious character, accustomed to give himself up with all his soul and strength to the object of his love, and haughtily to reject all which was uncongenial to that object. He had a fund of great and multifarious knowledge, but it was confusedly heaped up in his mind without scientific arrangement. His depth of thought was not united with logical clearness and judgment; a warm ungoverned imagination that dwelt in sensuous images was his ruling power." (Church History, First Three Centuries, p. 425.)

Tertullian wrote extensively concerning almost all points of Christian doctrine. The following extracts will show what his opinions were relative to the Sunday:

"It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is being demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is being demonstrated to have been temporary.

For the Jews say, that from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works which He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the people: "Remember the day of the Sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do therein, except what pertaineth to life." Whence [we Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a Sabbath from all "servile work" always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what Sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a Sabbath eternal and a Sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, "Your Sabbaths my soul hateth;" and in another place he says, "My Sabbaths ye have profaned." Whence we discern that the temporal Sabbath is human, and the eternal Sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: "And there shall be," He says, "month after month, and day after day, and Sabbath after Sabbath, and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;" which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when "all flesh" - that is, every nation – "came to adore in Jerusalem" God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet; "Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee." Thus, therefore, before this temporal Sabbath, there was withal an eternal Sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown. In short, let them teach us [as we have already premised] that Adam observed the Sabbath; or that Abel, when offering tc, God a holv victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the Sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the Sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense Sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the Sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the Sabbath.

But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporal, which would one day cease. In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the Sabbath - that is, of the seventh day - that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua, the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city of Jericho by war, stated that he had received from God a precept to order the people that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day's circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall. Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of those seven days there intervened a Sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarially include within them a Sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it doubtful that they ‘wrought servile work,’ when in obedience to God's precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravery in fighting on the Sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the Sabbaths. Nor should I think it was any other law which they [thus] vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching "the day of the Sabbaths."

Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law." (Tertullian, "An Answer to the Jews," chapter 4. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 18, pp. 211-213.)

The foregoing shows that Tertullian was a warm advocate of the no-Sabbath theory. His views reveal a fuller development of that no-lawism which appeared fifty years before, in the writings of Justin. Tertullian's ardent nature accepted and proclaimed the full fruitage of this theory, as is shown by the following from another work:

"The Holy Spirit upbraids the Jews with their holydays. "Your Sabbaths and new moons, and ceremonies," says he, "my soul hateth." By us to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons and festivals formally beloved by God, the Saturnalia and New Year's and Midwinter's festivals and Matronalia are frequented - presents come and go - New Year's gifts - games join their noise -banquets join their din. Oh, better fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself. Not the Lord's-day, not Pentecost, even if they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens. If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day. Call out the individual solemnities of the nations, and set them out in a row, they will not be able to make up a Pentecost. (Tertullian on Idolatry, chapter 14. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, pp. 162, 163.)

Here we have the native character of the Sunday truly set forth. "If thou must needs have some indulgence to the fiesh, thou hast it every eighth day." Such was the unavoidable fruitage of this semi-pagan festivalism, a fruitage which poisoned the church as fast as it ripened.

Certain other passages from Tertullian are much sought after by writers in favor of Sunday; among them is the following, only a part of which is usually given:

"Even in pleading tradition, written authority you say, must de demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the President, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then, when we are taken up [as new-born children] we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the Presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist. which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at mealtimes, and enjoined to be taken by all [alike]. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's-day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross]." (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 13. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, p. 336.)

Again Tertullian says:

"In the matter of kneeling, also, prayer is subject to diversity of observance, through the act of some few who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord wilt give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else indulge their opinion without offense to others. We, however, (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. But who would hesitate every day to prostrate himself before God, at least in the first prayer with which we enter on the daylight. At fasts, moreover, and Stations, no prayer should be made without kneeling, and the remaining customary marks of humility; for [then] we are not only praying, but deprecating [wrath], and making satisfaction to God our Lord. Touching times of prayer nothing at all his been prescribed, except clearly "to pray at every time and place."" (Tertullian On Prayer, chapter 23. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, p. 199.)

In order to understand the foregoing, the reader will need to remember that "kneeling" was deemed an expression of sorrow not suited to the joyful festivals, but rather befitting to the sorrowful fasts. The suggestion relative to "deferring even our business" is made to impress the idea that nothing should be allowed to interrupt the joys of the day. The expression is far from denoting a sabbatic rest, especially since the whole "season of Pentecost" was to be spent in this manner, with the same immunity from kneeling and from care.

Bishop Kaye sums up the testimony of Tertullian concerning the question before us in the following statements:

"From incidental notices scattered over Tertullian's works, we collect that Sunday, or the Lord's-day, was regarded by the primitive Christians as a day of rejoicing and that to fast upon it was unlawful. The word Sabbatum is always used to designate, not the first, but the seventh day of the week, which appears in Tertullian's time to have been also kept as a day of rejoicing. . . . The custom of observing every Saturday as a fast, which became general throughout the Western church, does not appear to have existed in Tertullian's time. That men who like our author, on all occasions contended that the ritual and ceremonial law of Moses had ceased, should observe the seventh day of the week as a festival, is, perhaps, to be ascribed to a desire of conciliating the Jewish converts. (Eccl. Hist. of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, p. 388. London, 1845.)

The foregoing suggestion of Bishop Kaye concerning the consistency of Tertullian's positions and statements leads us to say in passing that consistency was not Tertullian's strong point. He often contradicts himself, asserting in one treatise that which he denies in another. The first quotation which have presented to the reader is full of no-Sabbathism. In other places he asserts the perpetuity of the Sabbath, at least in a spiritual sense. Note the following:

"Similarly on other points also, you reproach him with fickleness and instability for contradictions in his commandments, such as that he forbade work to be done on Sabbath-days, and yet at the siege of Jericho ordered the ark to be carried round the walls during eight days; in other words, of course, actually on the Sabbath. You do not, however, consider the law of the Sabbath; they are human works, not divine, which it prohibits. For it says, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." What work? Of course your own. The conclusion is, that from the Sabbath-day he removes those works which he had before enjoined for the six days, that is your own works; in other words, human works of daily life. Now, the carrying around of the ark is evidently not an ordinary daily duty, nor yet a human one; but a rare and a sacred work, and, as being then ordered by the direct precept of God, a divine one. And I might fully explain what this signified, were it not a lengthy process to open out the forms of all the Creator's proofs, which You would, moreover, probably refuse to allow. It is more to the point, if you be confuted on plain matters by the simplicity of truth rather than curious reasoning. Thus, in the present instance, there is a clear distinction respecting the Sabbath's prohibition of human labors, not divine ones. Accordingly, the man who went and gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was punished with death. For it was his own work which he did; and this the law forbade. They, however, who on the Sabbath carried the ark around Jericho, did it with impunity. For it was not their own work, but God's which they executed, and that, too, from his express commandment. (Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 21. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 7, pp. 100, 101.)

The late J. N. Andrews aptly describes the position and character of Tertullian in the following words:

"This writer contradicts himself in the most extraordinary manner concerning the Sabbath and the law of God. He asserts that the Sabbath was abolished by Christ, and elsewhere emphatically declares that he did not abolish it. He says that Joshua violated the Sabbath, and then expressly declares that he did not violate it. He says that Christ broke the Sabbath, and then shows that he never did this. He represents the eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states just the reverse. He asserts that the law is abolished, and in other places affirms its perpetual obligation. He speaks of the Lord's-day as the eighth day, and is the second of the early writers who makes an application of this term to Sunday, if we allow Clement to have really spoken of it. But though he thus uses the term like Clement he also like him teaches a perpetual Lord's-day, or, like Justin Martyr, a perpetual Sabbath in the observance of every day. And with the observance of Sunday as the Lord's-day he brings in "offerings for the dead" and the perpetual use of the sign of the cross. But he expressly affirms that these things rest, not upon the authority of the Scriptures, but wholly, upon that of tradition and custom. And though he speaks of the Sabbath as abrogated by Christ, he expressly contradicts this by asserting that Christ "did not at all rescind the Sabbath," and that he imparted an additional sanctity to that day which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father. This strange mingling of light and darkness plainly indicates the age in which this author lived. He was not so far removed from the time of the apostles but that many clear rays of divine truth shone upon him; and he was far enough advanced in the age of apostasy to have its dense darkness materially affect him. He stood on the line between expiring day and advancing night. Sometimes the law of God was unspeakably sacred; at other times tradition was of higher authority than the law. Sometimes divine institutions were alone precious in his estimation, at others he was better satisfied with those which were sustained only by custom and tradition. (Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 63, 64.)

Mr. Andrews evidently refers to book 4, chap. 12 of "Against Marcion," in which Tertullian, with many strange twistings and turnings, discusses the question as to whether Christ broke or annulled the Sabbath. As the passage makes no reference to Sunday, our pages do not yield it space. It will be found in Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 7, pp. 215-220.

The lesson which is taught in the writings of Tertullian, and which is especially pertinent to our present inquiry is this. Under the influence of no-Sabbathism, at the close of the second century, the observance of the Sabbath was declining, and the Sun's day had become a festival for "indolence to the flesh."

comes next in the order of our examination. He died about the beginning of the third century. The quotations from this author are generally made from fragmentary writings called Stromata, Miscellaneous Discourses. By ingenious paraphrasing and by interpolating here and there a word, careless and prejudiced authors have attempted to draw evidence from Clement in favor of a transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. (M.A.A. Phelp's "Perpetuity of the Sabbath," Boston, 1841; and Mr. James' "Four Sermons," London, 1830, are prominent examples of misuse of Clement's words.) An eminent critic and commentator upon the writings of Clement confutes this claim in the following words:

"I deem it scarcely necessary to observe that Clement never applies the name Sabbath to the first day of the week, which he calls the Lord's-day." (Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, by John, Bishop of Lincolon, p. 413. London, 1835.)

We select a passage or two from the mystical references which Clement makes to the Sabbath and Sabbath-keeping to illustrate his theories. Of the Fourth Commandment he says:

"And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that he gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. But we who bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest - abstraction from ills – preparing for the Primal Day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth, a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impassible; and this is rest.

Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which - that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence - teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity. And they say that the embryo is perfected exactly in the sixth month, that is in one hundred and eighty days in addition to the two and a half as Polybus, the physician, relates in his book "On the Eighth Month," and Aristotle, the philosopher, in his book: "On Nature." Hence the Pythagoreans, as I think, reckon six the perfect number, from the creation of the world, according to the prophet, and call it Meseuthys and Marriage, from its being the middle of the even numbers, that is of ten and two. For it is manifestly at an equal distance from both." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 6, chapter 16. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 386.)

His theory concerning the observance of days and times is clearly set forth in the following:

"Now we are commanded to reverence and to honor the same one, being persuaded that he is Word, Saviour and Leader, and by him, the Father, not on special days, as some others, but doing this continually in our whole life, and in every way. Certainly the elect race justified by the precept says, "Seven times a day have I praised thee." Whence not in a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals and on appointed days, but during his whole life, the Gnostic in every place, even if he be alone by himself, and wherever be has any of those who have exercised the like faith, honors God, that is, acknowledges his gratitude for the knowledge of the way to live.

And if the presence of a good man, through the respect and reverence which he inspires, always improves him with whom he associates, with much more reason does not he who always holds uninterrupted converse with God by knowledge, life and thanksgiving, grow at every step superior to himself in all respects - in conduct, in words, in disposition? Such an one is persuaded that God is ever beside him, and does not suppose that he is confined in certain limited places; so that under the idea that at times he is without him, he may indulge in excesses night and day.

Holding festival, then in our whole life, persuaded that God is altogether on every side present, we cultivate our fields, praising; we sail the sea, hymning; in all the rest of our conversation we conduct ourselves according to rule. The Gnostic, then, is very closely allied to God, being at once grave and cheerful in all things, grave on account of the bent of his soul toward the Divinity, and cheerful on account of his consideration of the blessings of humanity which God has given us." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 7, chapter 7. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 431.)

In another place Clement sets forth his idea of days in which it appears that he discards the observance of any specific day, and teaches that the observance of both the Sabbath and the Sunday is accomplished by living as the true Gnostic ought to live. Speaking of the Gnostic, the name Clement applies to a Christian, he says:

"He knows also the enigmas of the fasting of those days – I mean the Fourth and the Preparation. For the one has its name from Hermes, and the other from Aphrodite. He fasts in his life, in respect of covetousness and voluptuousness, from which all the vices grow. For we have already often shown above the three varieties of fornication, according to the apostle - love of pleasure, love of money, idolatry. He fasts, then, according to the law, abstaining from bad deeds, and according to the perfection of the Gospel, from evil thoughts. Temptations are applied to him, not for his purification, but, as we have said, for the good of his neighbors, if, making trial of toils and pains, he has despised and passed them by.

The same holds of pleasure. For it is the highest achievement for one who has had trial of it, afterwards to abstain. For what great thing is it, if a man restrains himself in what he knows not? He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord's-day, when be abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. Further also, when he has received the comprehension of scientific speculation, he deems that he sees the Lord, directing his eyes toward things invisible, although he seems to look on what he does not wish to look on; chastising the faculty of vision, when be perceives himself pleasurably affected by the application of his eyes; since he wishes to see and hear that alone which concerns him." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 7, chapter 12. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 461.)

Thus the reader finds Clement teaching the same no-Sabbathism, and making the same analogies and contrasts between the old and new dispensations, and between sin and holiness, which abound in the representative writings of his time. We have already quoted from Clement a passage in which, as Bishop Kaye remarks, Clement is trying to bring out the properties and virtues of the numbers 6, 7, and 8, the hidden meanings of which numbers he frequently speaks of. Some writers have paraphrased and interpolated that passage trying to make it appear that he is drawing a contrast between the seventh and eighth day. In connection with what we have quoted, Clement's discussion concerning the numbers 7 and 8 becomes too gross to be fit for this page. Further quotations from him are not necessary to show that be belongs to the extreme school of no-Sabbathists, and that his teachings were destructive of all true Sabbath-observance.

Origen was born A.D. 185, died A.D. 253. He was a pupil of Clement of Alexandria, the effects of whose teachings are clearly seen in his ideas concerning the question under consideration. Neander says that "the influence which Clement had exerted on his theological development is undeniably shown most conspicuously. We find in him the predominant ideas of the latter systematically developed." The passage which is most frequently quoted from Origen by writers in favor of Sunday is from his Twenty-third Homily on Numbers. Concerning the authenticity of this Homily, Robert Cox speaks as follows:

"That the Sabbath was kept by the Jewish members of the church is not only probable in itself, but would be certain from a passage in Origen's Twenty-third Homily on Numbers, if we could confidently assume that Homily to be a genuine record of one of his discourses. Not only have Origen's writings been more than usually corrupted, but his Homilies having been taken down from his mouth by reporters, and there being no certainty that he ever revised them, our confidence in the accuracy of any particular passage cannot be very great. Of the Twenty-third Homily, moreover, only a Latin translation is extant. (Sab. Lit. Vol. 1, p. 348.)

The passage as usually translated is as follows:

"Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On the Sabbath-day all worldly labors ought to be abstained from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for the future, placing the judgment to come before your eyes, not looking to things present and visible but to those which are future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath. (Tome ii., p. 358, seq.)

The special phrase "Christian Sabbath" as it is rendered is applied to Sunday. The remarks of Dr. Hessey concerning it are subjoined as the first evidence against it. He says:

"In quoting as Origen's opinion, in the text, "As for the Sabbath it has passed away as a matter of obligation [as every thing else purely Jewish has passed away,] though its exemplary and typical lessons are evident still," I had in mind his Twenty-third Homily on Numbers. (Tome ii., p. 358, seq.) I did not cite it in the first and second editions, because I conceived it impossible that any one could so far mistake its meaning as to imagine that Origen's words Sabbati Christiani were to be taken as equivalent to what has sometimes been termed the Christian Sabbath, viz., the Lord's-day. But as this mistake has occurred, I now give a sort of Analysis of the Homily. (Bampton Lectures on Sunday, Note 125, p. 287. London, 1866.)

Mr. Hessey goes on to show that Origen in this Homily is seeking to explain nine different Jewish festivals (festivitates) as being symbols of the Christian life, according to the style of allegorical interpretation, which was then prevalent. The Sabbath (Festivitas Sabbati) is the second on the list, and is made a type of holy living under the Gospel. In the words of Dr. Hessey:

"It is perfectly evident that Origen is here drawing a transcendental picture of the life of a Christian, which he sets forth under the allegory of the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath. He who lives in the manner which is described, realizes the Sabbatismus mentioned in the Hebrews, and by thus embracing the exemplary meaning of the Jewish Sabbath, Christianizes it, or draws a Christian moral from it. So Sabbati Christiani does not mean "Christian Sabbath," or Lord's-day, a phrase not in use until the twelfth century, but the Jewish Sabbath with a Christian moral or meaning deduced from it. No one who has read the whole of the Homily can attach any other meaning to the passage. I may add that if Origen is not symbolizing the Sabbath, but advocating its literal continuance in the Lord's-day, he must be supposed to be advocating the literal continuance of the other Festivitates also. . . . In all this there is not the remotest allusion to the Sabbath being either identical with, or continued in the Lord's-day. The passage is intended to exhibit the form in which the "Sabbatismus" which remaineth for the people of God may be realized here, and Origen goes on to intimate, will be more perfectly realized hereafter." (Lectures on Sunday, pp. 288, 289. London, 1866.)

We were at first inclined to dissent from the foregoing exegesis by Dr. Hessey, but after carefully examining the whole chapter as found in the Original, (Origensis Opera Omnia, etc., Liber second, p. 358, Paris, 1733,) we are certain that such is the meaning, and that Origen is contrasting a life-rest in well-doing, with the weekly Sabbath rest. In full keeping with this view are his words in another place, where he is trying to evade the charge that Christians were not consistent, since by observing festivals they ignored the teachings of Paul in Gal.4: 10. He says:

"If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord's-day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord's, and he is always keeping the Lord's-day. He also who is unceasingly preparing himself for the true life, and abstaining from the pleasures of this life which lead astray so many - who is not indulging the lust of the flesh, but "keeping under his body, and bringing it into subjection," such a one is always keeping Preparation-day. Again he who considers that "Christ, our passover, as sacrificed for us," and that it is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the pascha means a "passover," and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words and deeds to pass over from the things of this life to God, and is hastening toward the city of God. And, finally, he who can truly say, "We are risen with Christ," and "He hath exalted us, and made us to sit with him in heavenly places in Christ," is always living in the season of Pentecost; and most of all, when going up to the upper chamber, like the apostles of Jesus, he gives himself to supplication and prayer, that be may become worthy of receiving "the mighty wind rushing from heaven," which is powerful to destroy sin and its fruits among men, and worthy of having some share of the tongue of fire which God sends. (Origen against Celsus, Book 8, chapter 22. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 23, p. 509.)

There were many phases of the no-Sabbath theory which appear in Origen's writings. In his Commentary on John, number 24, he sets forth a speculative theory that Christ was born at the end of the "Sabbatic Period," announcing which he says:

"Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence, also of his resurrection. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, p. 342.)

In the same Commentaries (10th Book, Section 11) Origen represents all the festivals as belonging to God rather than to sinful men and as not being binding upon Christians, but that they only in a general way prefigured "The heavenly festivals of which those on earth are typical."

Thus does Origen surpass his predecessors, opposing even the idea of any specific time for public worship. He teaches a mixture of no-Sabbathism and of higher spiritual Sabbathism, which ignores specific time as sacred, and makes all time sacred in a certain degree. Judging by the then present state of the church and the subsequent results, Origen's teachings helped to swell the tide of practical no-Sabbathism.

Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage. He died A. D. 258. His views concerning the Sunday were patterned after those of Tertullian. Neander states that "the study of the writings of Tertullian had plainly a peculiar influence on the doctrinal development of Cyprian. Jerome relates, after a tradition supposed to come from the secretary of Cyprian, that he daily read some part of Tertullian's writings, and was accustomed to call him by no other name than that of Master." The passage usually quoted in favor of the Sunday is from his Epistles. He is considering the proper time for the baptism of infants, and says:

"For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's-day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us. (Cyprian, Epistle 58, section 4. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 8, p. 198.)

Such vague, unmeaning mysticism needs no comment. Instead of showing that these writers deemed Sunday to be either a Sabbath, or the Sabbath, it rather shows how much the works of these leading men of the third century are marred by their efforts to find a hidden meaning in all ceremonies, numbers, and days.

The foregoing are all of the important witnesses in favor of the Sunday for the first three centuries. Collating their testimony, the following conclusions are unavoidable:

1. No traces of the observance of the Sunday are found until about the middle of the second century. Those appear first in Justin Martyr's First Apology. The leading reason assigned by him for its observance is founded on a mystical interpretation of certain passages supposed to refer to the millennium. The supposed resurrection of Christ on that day is mentioned incidentally as a secondary reason. About the close of the second century, the idea of commemorating the resurrection by the observance of the Sunday increases, and the term "Lord's-day" begins to be applied to it.

2. During the third century, no-lawism and the no-Sabbath theory gain the ascendency in the theories of the leaders. The representative writers of that century teach that there is no sacred time under the gospel dispensation. That no days are holy, and no observance of specific times religiously binding. That the true idea of the Sabbath consists in rest from sin. The fancies of Cyprian concerning circumcision as a type of the eighth day appear toward the close of the third century.

3. The observance of the Sunday which then prevailed was not sabbatic. In the second century there is no trace of the sabbatic idea connected with it. It is a day, some part of which is used for the purpose of public religious instruction. In the third century the celebration of the Lord's Supper on Sunday seems to have become quite general. This was also celebrated regularly on the Sabbath. The interdiction of business and kneeling on that day which appears during the last half of the third century, was made because business cares interrupted the festal enjoyment of the day, and not because any true idea as of a Sabbath was entertained. This is shown from the language of those passages in which such interdiction appears, and in the fact that these same writers plead strenuously for the Sabbath as a life-rest from sin, and not as a weekly rest from labor. Dr. Hessey, in speaking of the Sunday at this period, says:

"It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but was carefully distinguished from it as an institution under the law of liberty, observed in a different way and with different feelings, and exempt from the severity of the provisions which were supposed to characterize the Sabbath. (Lectures on Sunday, p. 49. London, 1866.)

Robert Cox, speaking of the close of the third century, gives the following:

"But although Christian theology had not at this time assumed the systematic form which it afterward attained, there is no ground for saying that the Fathers, or "the Church," represented by them, had formed no theory, Sabbatarian or dominical of the Lord's-day. Often did the question occur to them, Why do we honor the first day of the week and assemble for worship upon it? And to this question not one of them who lived before the reign of Constantine has either answered, with Mr. Gilfillan, "Because the Fourth Commandment binds the Christian Church as it did the Jews, and the Sabbath-day was changed by Christ or his apostles from Saturday to Sunday," or replied with Dr. Hessey, "Because the apostles, who had a divine commission, appointed the Lord's-day to be observed as a Christian festival." On the contrary, they give sundry other reasons of their own, fanciful in most cases, and ridiculous in some. The best of them is that on the first day the Saviour had risen from the dead; and the others chiefly are, that on the first day God changed darkness and matter, and made the world; that on a Sunday Jesus Christ appeared to and instructed his disciples; that the command to circumcise children on the eighth day was a type of the true circumcision, by which we were circumcised from error and wickedness through our Lord, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week; and that manna was first given to the Israelites on a Sunday. From which the inevitable inference is, that they neither had found in Scripture any commandment - primeval, Mosaic or Christian - appointing the Lord's-day to be honored or observed, nor knew from tradition any such commandment delivered by Jesus or his apostles. (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 353.

BEFORE considering the next era in the Sabbath question, which was ushered in through civil legislation, it is well to notice certain other days to which some religious regard was paid previous to the fourth century.

WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY.

The fourth and the sixth days of the week, Wednesday and Friday were made prominent among the public days of the church during the third century. Joseph Bingham speaks of them as follows:

"However, it was not long after Justin Martyr's time, before we are sure the church observed the custom of meeting solemnly for divine worship on Wednesdays and Fridays which days are commonly called stationary days, because they continued their assemblies on these days to a great length, till three o'clock in the afternoon. . . . Tertullian assures us, that on these days they always celebrated the communion, from whence we may infer, that the same service was performed on these days as on the Lord's-day, unless, perhaps, the sermon was wanting. Some there were, he says, who objected against receiving the communion on these days, because they were scrupulously afraid they should break their fast by eating and drinking the bread and wine in the Eucharist; and therefore they chose rather to absent themselves from the oblation prayers, then break their fast, as they imagined, by receiving the Eucharist. Whom he undeceives by telling them that to receive the Eucharist on such days would be no infringement of their fast, but bind them closer to God; their station would be so much the more solemn for their standing at the altar of God; they might receive the body of the Lord and preserve their fast too, and so both would be safe, whilst they both participated of the sacrifice and discharged their other obligation. Since, therefore, they received the Eucharist on these days, we may conclude they had all the prayers of the communion office, and what other offices were wont to go before them, as the psalmody and reading of the Scriptures, and prayers for the catechumens and penitents, which, together with the sermons, were the whole service for the Lord's-day. But, because even all this could not take up near so much time, as must needs be spent in these stations, it seems most probable, that in two particulars, they much enlarged their service on these days, that is, in their psalmody, and private prayers and confession of their sins. The Psalms, as we shall see hereafter, were sometimes lengthened to an indefinite number, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or more, as the occasion of a vigil or a fast required, and between every psalm they had liberty to meditate and fall to their private prayers; and by these two exercises, so lengthened and repeated, it is easy to conceive how the longest station might be employed. . . . St. Basil agrees with Tertullian, in making these days not only fasts, but communion days; for, reckoning up how many days in the week they received the communion, he makes Wednesday and Friday to be two of the number. Yet, still it is hard to conceive what business they could have to detain them so long in the church; since their collects and public prayers were but few in comparison, and therefore it seems rnost probable that a competent share of this time was spent in psalmody, and as I find a learned person (Stillingfleet, Orig., Britan, p. 224,) inclined to think, in private devotion, which always had a share in their service, and was generally intermixed with their singing of psalms, as shall be showed in their proper places." (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 13, chap. 9. See also Book 14, chap. 1, and Book 15, chap. 1, see. 1.)

A careful study of the foregoing will show that religious worship was more fully attended to on the Wednesday and Friday than on the Sunday, and an extended comparison between the "Fasts" and the "Festivals" of the second and third centuries, demonstrates that the former contributed more to the religious life of those times than the latter did. This was especially true in the Western Church. It is certain, from Tertullian and others, that the Sunday was the great weekly festival of "Indulgence for the flesh." As such, it was more popular, but less conducive to spiritual growth and Christian development. There is further testimony, which, though it carries us over into the next century, serves to corroborate what has already been said concerning Wednesday and Friday. Eusebius, after speaking of the laws which Constantine made relative to Sunday, adds:

"He also ordered that they should reverence those days which immediately precede the Sabbath, because, as it seems to me, of the memorable acts of our Saviour upon those days." [Richardson's translation of the passage uses the singular number "day."] (De Vita Consantini, Liber 4, chap. 18.)

Sozomen, who wrote about 450 A. D., speaking of Constantine, says:

"He also enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's-day which the Jews call the first day of the week and which the Pagans dedicate to the sun, as likewise the day before the seventh, and commanded that no judicial or other business should be transacted on those days, but that God should be served with prayers and supplications. He honored the Lord's-day because on it Christ arose from the dead, and the day above mentioned because on it he was crucified. He regarded the cross with peculiar reverence, on account both of the power which it conveyed to him in the battles against his enemies, and also of the divine manner in which the symbol had appeared to him. (Ecc. Hist., Book 1, chap. 8.)

Heylyn, having quoted Eusebius and Sozomen as above, adds:

"For I do not conceive that they met every day in these times to receive the Sacraments. Of Wednesday and Friday it is plain they did (not to say anything of Saturday until the next section). S. Basil (Epist. 289) names them all together. "It is," saith he, "a profitable and pious thing, every day to communicate and to participate of the blessed body and blood of Christ our Saviour, he having told us in plain terms, that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life. We, notwithstanding, do communicate but four times weekly, on the Lord's-day, the Wednesday, the Friday, and the Saturday, unless on any other days the memory of some martyr be perhaps observed. Epiphanius goeth a little further and deriveth the Wednesday's and the Friday's service even from the Apostles, ranking them in the same antiquity and grounding them upon the same authority that he doth the Sunday. Only it seems the difference was, that whereas formerly it had been the custom not to administer the Sacrament on these two days (being both of them fasting days, and so accounted long before) until toward evening; it had been changed of late, and they did celebrate in the mornings, as on the Lord's-day was accustomed. Whether the meetings on these days were of such antiquity as Epiphanius saith they were, I will not meddle. Certain it is, that they were very ancient in the church of God, as may appear by that of Origen and Tertullian before mentioned." (Hist. Sab. Part 2, chap. 3, sec. 4.)

The words of Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea from 370-379 A.D., referred to by Heylyn, are these:

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's-day, on Wednesday, on Friday and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter 93, the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, p. 179.)

Coleman says:

"It appears, however, from his (Origen's) observations, that at Alexandria, Wednesdays and Fridays were then observed as fast days, on the ground that our Lord was betrayed on a Wednesday and crucified on a Friday. The custom of the church at the end of the fourth century may be collected from the following passage of Epiphanius: "In the whole Christian church, the following fast days throughout the year are regularly observed. On Wednesdays and Fridays we fast until the ninth hour, (i.e., three o'clock in the afternoon,) except during the interval of fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide, in which it is usual neither to kneel nor to fast at all."" (Ancient Christianity, etc., pp. 552, 553.)

Neander says:

"And further, two other days in the week, Friday and Wednesday, particularly the former, were consecrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, and of the circumstances preparatory to them, congregations were held on them, and a fast till three o'clock in the afternoon. But nothing was positively appointed concerning them; in respect to joining in these solemnities every one consulted his own convenience or inclinations. Such fasts, joined with prayer, were considered as the watches of the "Millites Christi," on their part as Christians (who compared their calling to a warfare - the Militia Christi, and they were "stationes" - and the days on which they took place were called dies stationum. (Hist. Church, First Three Cen., p. 186.)

Similar testimony might be continued were it necessary. But that already adduced is sufficient to establish the conclusion that the weekly "fasts," Wednesday and Friday, and the Sabbath were each devoted more to worship and spiritual culture than the Sunday was. The foregoing testimony also shows that when men assert that Sunday was the only day for public religious worship and rest after the resurrection of Christ, they are either ignorant or careless or dishonest. Sunday was more popular than either Wednesday or Friday, or the Sabbath, because it was more festal, "a day of indulgence for the flesh." Indeed, the Sunday at the close of the third century stood related to the lives of the people much as it now stands in those European lands where no-Sabbathism has long held sway and borne its legitimate fruit.

Before passing to the next chapter, it will be well to recapitulate the facts already gathered concerning the rise of no-Sabbathism and Sunday. This is important lest the reader be led into the mistaken idea that the stream of Apostolic Christianity came down the centuries unpolluted, and developed no-Sabbathism and the Sunday festival as Christian institutions. The facts show that they were the product of Pagan influences. We have seen that there is no definite and authentic mention of Sunday until the middle of the second century, by Justin Martyr, and also that he is the first to promulgate a broad unscriptural no-Sabbathism. We have seen that the first mention of Sunday by him is in an "apology" to a Pagan Emperor whom he is seeking to placate toward Christians. These facts cannot appear in their true light unless we know the general state of the church west of Palestine at this time.

It is well known that in the Apostolic Age there was no distinct organization nor specific separation of those who accepted Christ from the Jewish church. They were still held as members, or at least as a party in that church. The first converts were Jews, and a sharp struggle took place before the gospel could be carried to the Gentiles, or Gentile converts admitted to the fellowship of the believers in Christ. Even as late as the time of the earlier persecutions, the followers of Christ were considered as a sect of the Jews. There was no definite line of distinction, organically, between the Christian and the Jewish churches until the opening of the second century. We offer the following testimony from high modern authority:

"With the beginning of the second century there came a great change in the situation of the Christians. The separation of Christianity from Judaism was completed so as to be recognized even by heathen eyes. The destruction of Jerusalem put an end to the outward existence of the Jewish nationality. The temple fell, the sacrifices ceased. . . . Spread abroad over the earth, without a local center, or the bond which had existed hitherto in the temple service, Judaism henceforth was united only by the common law, and by the common doctrine contained in the newly collected Talmud. Thus it became completely separated from Christianity. Talmudic Judaism severed all the connections which had hitherto bound it to Christianity. Henceforth three times every day in the synagogues was invoked the awful curse on the renegades, the Christians. It came to be a rare exception for a Jew to go over to Christianity, while the heathen thronged into the church in ever increasing numbers. The remainder of the Jewish Christians dwindled away or disappeared entirely in the churches of heathen Christians, or turned heretics and were cut off from the church. The church now found the field for its work and growth almost exclusively in the heathen world, and became composed entirely of Gentile Christians. It was, therefore, no longer possible to confound the Christians with the Jews. (Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, by Dr. Gerhard Uhlhorn, Hanover, Germany, pp. 253. 254. New York, 1879.)

These facts referred to by Dr. Uhlhorn have a much deeper bearing on the question of Sunday-observance than may appear at first. There is no mention of any form of Sunday-observance in the church until nearly or quite fifty years after the time when the church was thus crowded with what he calls the heathen Christians. Even Pliny's letter, so often quoted for the sake of its "stated day," was written after that time; and Justin's Apology was not written until these "heathen Christians" had held possession of the Western church for more than a generation. It was this influx of Pagan converts which brought in Sunday, their "venerable day" and gradually though slowly displaced the Sabbath. The changes which followed during the second and third centuries strengthened this heathen element in the church, and revived sun worship at Rome. Religious syncretism prevailed, and the Egyptian and Oriental gods were much honored. Speaking of this, Uhlhorn says:

"Even the Persian Mithras, the last in the series of the gods who constantly migrated to Rome from farther and farther east, now had numerous worshipers. He was a god of light, a sun-god; as god of the setting sun, he was also god of the nether world; also as the invincible god, (the invincible companion, as he was often called,) he became the patron of warriors, and as such thoroughly fitted for those times in which the whole world was filled with war. His worship was always held in a cave. In Rome the cave penetrated deep into the Capitoline Hill. Emperors were numbered among his adorers, and everywhere where Roman armies came (on the Rhine for instance) there images and caves of Mithras have been found. This religious syncretism reached its culmination when Elagabalus, a Syrian priest of the sun, becoming Emperor, had the sun god, after whom he was named, brought from Emesa to Rome, in the form of a conical black stone. In Rome a costly temple was built, and great sacrifices were offered to him. (Conflict, etc., pp. 314, 315.)

This was A. D. 218-222. It shows how, by the growth of sun worship, Sunday was naturally exalted in the Roman Empire, and necessarily in the church which was being steadily crowded by heathen converts, many of whom, like Justin Martyr, accepted Christianity as a superior philosophy in keeping with the prevailing tendency to religious syncretism. This same Elagabalus made room for a chapel for Christianity in his temple for all the gods, and offered "Christ a place in the Roman Pantheon, by the side of Jupiter, Isis, and Mithras." (Uhlhorn, p. 334.) During the last half of the third century the influx of the Pagan converts was still greater, and although Christianity was thus steadily preparing for the political victory under Constantine during the first quarter of the next century, yet that was gained at great cost to the purity of the church. The truths of Christianity could not be destroyed wholly, but the church became so corrupted by the Pagan influences that it was no longer the counterpart of the apostolic model. So the third century closes with the Western branch of the Christian church filled with "Pagan Christians." Its literature abounds with undisguised and unscriptural no-Sabbath theories. The Sunday has become a popular weekly festival, which forms a sort of common ground for all, by uniting the Pagan elements of popular sun worship with the idea of a resurrection festival, at the time when festivals of all kinds formed a characteristic feature of the age. Up to this time not a word appears in any of the literature to indicate the transference of the Sabbath to the Sunday, or the making of Sunday a Sabbath according to the Fourth Commandment. On the contrary, we have found so noted a man as Tertullian seeking to draw Christians away from other Pagan festivals by reminding them that they had, in the Sunday, a day of "indulgence for the flesh." Well does Uhlhorn call the leading men of these times "Pagan Christians."

Before entering upon the fourth century, we stop to note the history of the Sabbath from the close of the New Testament period to that century.

POST-APOSTOLIC HISTORY OF THE SABBATH TO THE FOURTH CENTURY.

IN former chapters we have seen that the current of Sabbath history runs full and clear through the Gospels and the book of Acts. Those post-apostolic writings which are assigned the earliest place show no trace of any practice or teaching opposed to the doctrine and practice of Christ and his apostles on this point. The first mention of any form of Sunday-observance, or of no-Sabbathism, appears simultaneously, and in the same man, Justin, about the middle of the second century. These theories, so antagonistic to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, did not and could not appear until the heathen element gained control of the church.

Since the Sabbath was a prominent feature in Judaism, the bitter prejudice which grew up between the heathen and the Jewish elements in the church bore heavily upon it; and when the heathen element gained control of the church, it set about the development of theories and practices which would efface, if possible, this so-called feature of Judaism from the church. The fact that Justin and his successors pressed their no-Sabbath philosophy shows that the Sabbath was yet vigorous in its hold upon the church, even after the Jewish element had been driven out. The strongest weapon with which no-Sabbathism fought the Sabbath during the last half of the second century, and the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, was that the observance of the Sabbath was Judaistic. It is clear that if the Sabbath had died during the new Testament period, as some claim, it could not have been resurrected and restored to such vigor by the Pagan element in the church as to make it necessary for that same element to introduce its no-Sabbath philosophy as a weapon against the Sabbath. The urgency with which no-Sabbathism was pressed from the time of Justin forward shows that the Sabbath had a hold even on Gentile Christians, which could not be broken except by continued appeal to man's natural desires for a weekly festival of "indulgence to the flesh," as Tertullian calls Sunday. Viewed in the light of the philosophy of history, the fact that the Sabbath was so persistently opposed, and at length legislated against, in that portion of the church which had been for several generations under the control of the Gentile Christians, is more than an answer to the assertion that the Sabbath ceased to be observed during the apostolic period.

Another important fact must be remembered here. The authors of no-Sabbathism which began with Justin were men of Pagan rather than Apostolic culture. The doctrine was a residuum of Pagan philosophy. There was a modicum of Christian truth in that part of the theory which some propounded that the true Christian made every day a Sabbath. But that statement is rather a description of certain results in high spiritual culture which can never be attained except through the agency of the Sabbath in lifting men to that high standard. Another element of truth was that the Sabbath should not be kept by idleness, as the Jews were charged with keeping it. But the fundamental misconception lay in teaching that the law was abrogated, that men were free from restraint. These elements of truth gilded the theory to eyes which looked with bitter prejudice on all things associated with Judaism, while the fundamental, practical lawlessness of the theory was regarded as its great merit by the prevailing Paganism. Men whose gods were only enlarged editions of themselves, reveling on Olympus, and delighting in sensuous indulgences, were not ready to embrace the new religion until the rigidness of the Fourth Commandment had been so softened that the Sabbath could be put aside, and a weekly festival put along side of it, and at length in its place. But the facts show that in spite of this abrogation of the Sabbath in the theories of the philosophers, the influence of Apostolic Christianity was so strong that the people continued to keep the Sabbath long after the philosopher had condemned it. Keep in mind the fact that neither the Sunday festival nor the doctrine of no-Sabbathism appear in history until a half century after the time when Uhlhorn says the Western wing of the church was ruptured from the Jewish element, and filled with Pagan converts.

But evidence is not wanting to show that the no-Sabbathism of Justin and his successors was not universally accepted, and that it was opposed by some whose theories were far more apostolic than Justin's philosophic vagaries were. Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons, France, during the latter part of the second century, wrote his noted work Against Heresies about 185 A.D., about twenty years after the death of Justin. He treats the idea that Christ abolished the Sabbath as a heresy, as it was, from the apostolic standpoint. These are his words:

"For the Lord vindicated Abraham's posterity by loosing them from bondage and calling them to salvation, as be did in the case of the woman whom be healed, saying openly to those who had not faith like Abraham, "ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath-days loose his ox or his ass, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath-days?" It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those who believed in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when he healed upon the Sabbath-day. For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths: [on the contrary,] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to him on the Sabbath-days. For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is from all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbor's benefit. And, therefore, the Lord reproveth those who unjustly blamed him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For he did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance." (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4, chapter 8, Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 5, p. 397.

We have also certain "Remains" of one Archelaus, a Bishop who also wrote against Heresies. His Disputation with Manes dates probably from 280 A.D. In this he speaks as follows: (Sec. 42.)

"Again as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly (plane). For he was himself also Lord of the Sabbath. And this, the law's relation to the Sabbath, was like the servant who his charge of the bridegroom's couch, and who prepares the same with all carefulness, and does not suffer it to be disturbed or touched by any stranger, but keeps it intact against the time of the bridegroom's arrival; so that when be is come, the bed may be used as it pleases himself, or as it is granted to those to use it whom he has bidden enter along with him. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 20, p. 373.)

Tertullian is more noted as a voluminous writer than as a consistent one. He sometimes advocates no-Sabbathism undisguisedly; but at other times he taught a more Scriptural doctrine. The exact date of his writings against Marcion is unknown, although the first book is fixed at 208 A.D. The fourth book came at a later period. Bishop Kaye supposes his death to have occurred about 220 A.D. We may safely conclude that the fourth book against Marcion appeared during the first quarter of the third century. Chapter 12 of that book is "Concerning Christ's authority over the Sabbath," etc. His conclusions are as follows:

"Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath. He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in the present instance cured the withered hand, in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it"; although Marcion has gagged his mouth by this word. For even in the case before us he fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition. [Moreover.] He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning, had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own beneficent action. For he furnished to this day divine safeguards - a course which his adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha, on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, you see, O Pharisee, and you, too, O Marcion, how that it was [proper employment] for the Creator's Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example, the Gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example he fulfills the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also, "the feeble knees," in the sick of the palsy. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 7, pp. 219, 220.)

If Tertullian, in the above, contradicts his own words in other places, the ultimate test is not between his inconsistencies, but between his theories and the facts of the Bible. Judged by this standard, the foregoing is essentially correct. Incidental proof that the Sabbath, in its proper character, and under its proper name, continued through the centuries, while no-Sabbathism was developing, is found in the fact that Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, who was a mathematician of repute, prepared a Chronology of Easter, evidently to aid in the settlement of that much-discussed question. The date of that work is placed in the latter part of the third century. This "Easter table" uses the terms Sabbath and Lord's-day in their regular order, showing how the names and the days were then held. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 14, p. 423.)

The foregoing extracts show that no-Sabbathism did not come in unchallenged, but that it was opposed as a heresy, and that the truth was defended on good and Scriptural grounds. There is no reason to believe that Sunday gained any pre-eminence over the Sabbath, even though it did appeal to the lower elements of men's nature by its festal character, until after the time of Constantine, when it was exalted through civil legislation.

No one claims that the "Longer" form of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is genuine. Its date is unknown; but we deem it to belong to the last half of the fourth century, or to the fifth. But we are willing, for sake of the argument, to grant it an Ante-Nicene place, that is, before 325 A.D. Whenever it was written, it shows that at that time the writer taught a just and Scriptural view of Sabbath-observance, and asked for Sunday only a festal character. It was to him the "Queen" of the days because it was a feast as opposed to the Sabbath, the Friday, and the Wednesday, which were held to be sorrowful fasts. In chapter 9 - Long Form - speaking of Christ, the writer says:

"The prophets were his servants, and foresaw him by the Spirit, and waited for him as their Teacher, and expected him as their Lord and Saviour, saving, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's-day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 3, p. 181.)

The foregoing from authors who wrote previous to the fourth century is fully sustained by the statements of both earlier and later historians.

Socrates, whose work was brought down to 439 A.D., in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 5, chap. 22) tells of the various practices respecting the celebration of Easter, baptism, fasting, marriage, public assemblies and other rites and ceremonies. The references to the Sabbath in this chapter as related to public assemblies and the observance of Easter show that it still held a prominent and in many respects its proper place in the Christian church. He says:

"Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts. Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the mysteries." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 132.)

In another place Socrates, speaking of the conflict between the Orthodox Christians and the Arians as to their services and public assembles, says:

"The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often, therefore, as the festal days occurred - I mean Saturday [Sabbath] and Lord's-day - in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy. This they did during the greater part of the night; and again in the morning, chanting the same songs which they called responsive, they paraded through the midst of the city, and so passed out of the gates to go to their places of assembly. (Ecc. History, Book 6, chap. 8. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 144.)

Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, writing probably ten or fifteen years later (about A.D. 460), has the following:

"Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the same lections read on the same occasions in all churches." (Ecc. History, Book 7, chap. 19. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 390.)

The reader will readily see why the Sabbath was not observed at Rome and Alexandria. Sozomen wrote nearly one hundred and fifty years after the passage of the first "Sunday Law" by Constantine, and the subsequent enactments against the Sabbath.

Thus men living in the fifth century, and having access to all the existing material, bear testimony to the fact that it was the almost universal custom of the church at that time to observe the Sabbath. Corresponding with the foregoing is the testimony of modern writers.

Lyman Coleman says:

"The observance of the Lord's-day, as the first day of the week, was at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the Jewish Sabbath were kept for some time; finally, the latter passed wholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, 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. . . . Both were observed in the Christian church down to the fifth century, with this difference, that in the Eastern church both days were regarded as joyful occasions; but in the Western, the Jewish Sabbath was kept as a fast. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sec. 2.)

Heylyn, after giving the words of Ambrose, that he fasted when at Rome on the Sabbath, and when away from Rome did not, adds:

"Nay, which is more, St. Augustine tells us, that many times in Africa, one and the self church, at least the several churches in the self-same province had some that dined upon the Sabbath, and some that fasted. And 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 the parts of the Western world. I say of 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, Anno, 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day, upon pain of censure." (Hist. of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 3.)

King, discussing the passage from Ignatius, of which we have spoken, on page 16 ff, says:

"So that their not Sabbatizing did not exclude their keeping of the Lord's-day, nor the Christian, but only the Judaical observance of the Sabbath, or seventh day; for the Eastern churches, in compliance with the Jewish converts, who were numerous in those parts, performed on the seventh day the same public religious services that they did on the first day, observing both the one and the other, as a festival. Whence Origen enumerates Saturday as one of the four feasts solemnized in his time, though, on the contrary, some of the Western churches, that they might not seem to Judaize, fasted on Saturday. So that, besides the Lord's-day, Saturday was an usual season whereon many churches solomnized their religious services. ("Primitive Church," first published 1691, pp. 126, 127.)

An old work on the "Morality of the Fourth Commandment," by William Twisse, D. D., has the following:

"Yet, for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord's-day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth, and Rivert also. (P. 9, London, 1641.)

"A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," by Edward Brerewood, Professor in Gresham College, London, has the following:

"And especially because it is certain (and little do you know of the ancient condition of the church if you know it not) that 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." (P. 77, London, 1630.)

The learned Joseph Bingham, says:

"We also find in ancient writers frequent mention made of religious assemblies on the Saturday, or seventh day of the week, which was the Jewish Sabbath. It is not easy to tell either the original of this practice, or the reasons of it, because the writers of the first ages are altogether silent about it. In the Latin churches [excepting Milan] it was kept as a fast; but in all the Greek churches, as a festival; I consider it here only as a day of public divine service, on which, as the authors who mention it assure us, all the same offices were performed as were used to be on the Lord's-day. For Athanasius, who is one of the first that mentions it, says: They met on the Sabbath, not that they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. And Timotheus, one of his successors in the See of Alexandria, says, the communion was administered on this day, as on the Lord's-day. Which were the only days in the week that the Communion was received by the Christians of his time at Alexandria. Socrates is a little more particular about the service; for he says: In their assemblies on this day they celebrated the communion; only the churches of Egypt and Thebais differed in this from the rest of the world, and even from their neighbors at Alexandria, that they had the communion at evening service. In another place, speaking of the churches of Constantinople, in the time of Chrysostom, he reckons Saturday and Lord's-day, the two great weekly festivals, on which they always held church assemblies. And Cassian takes notice of the Egyptian churches that among them the service of the Lord's-day and the Sabbath, was always the same; for they had the lessons then read out of the New Testament only, one out of the Gospels; and the other out of the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; whereas, on other days they had them partly out of the Old Testament, and partly out of the New. In another place be observes that in the monasteries of Egypt and Thebais, they had no public assemblies on other days, besides morning and evening, except upon Saturday and the Lord's-day, when they met at, three o'clock, that is, nine in the morning, to celebrate the Communion. (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 13, chap. 9, see. 3.)

William Cave, D. D., in a work entitled "Primitive Christianity," testifies as follows:

"Next to the Lord's-day, the Sabbath, or Saturday, for so the word Sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers when speaking of it as it relates to Christians, was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts, honored with all the public solemnities of religion. For which we are to know, that the Gospel in those parts mainly prevailing amongst the Jews, they being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the Sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself (as the memorial of his rest from the work of creation) settled by their great master Moses and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth that it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. . . . Hence they usually had most parts of divine service performed upon that day; they met together for public prayers, for reading the Scriptures, celebration of the Sacraments, and such like duties. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius, and Clemens, his Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria tells us that they assemble on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath; and Socrates speaking of the usual times of their public meeting, calls the Sabbath and the Lord's-day, the weekly festivals on which the congregation was wont to meet in the church for the performance of divine services. Therefore the council of Laodicea amongst other things decreed (Can.16), that upon Saturdays the gospels and other scriptures should be read. . . . Upon this day also, as well as upon Sunday, all fasts were severely prohibited (an infallible argument they counted it a festival day) one Saturday in the year only excepted, viz.: that before Easter day, which was always observed as a solemn fast; things so commonly known as to need no proof. . . . Thus stood the case in the Eastern church; in those in the West we find it somewhat different. Amongst them it was not observed as a religious festival, but kept as a constant fast. The reason whereof (as it is given by Pope Innocent, in an epistle to the Bishop of Eugubium, where he treats of this very case) seems most probable. "If (says he) we commemorate Christ's resurrection, not only at Easter, but every Lord's-day, and fast upon Friday because it was the day of his passion, we ought not to pass by Saturday, which is the middle time between the days of grief and joy; the apostles themselves spending those two days, (viz.) Friday and the Sabbath, in great sorrow and heaviness; and he thinks no doubt ought to be made, but that the apostles fasted upon those two days; whence the church had a tradition, that the sacraments were not to be administered on those days, and therefore concludes that every Saturday, or Sabbath, ought to be kept a fast. To the same purpose the council of Illiberis ordained that a Saturday festival was an error that ought to be reformed, and that men ought to fast on every Sabbath. But, though this seems to have been the general practice, yet it did not obtain in all places of the West alike. In Italy itself, it was otherwise at Milan, where Saturday was a festival; and it is said in the life of Saint Ambrose, who was bishop of that See, that he constantly dined as well upon Saturday as the Lord's-day, and used also upon that day to preach to the people. (P. 117-119, Oxford, 1846.)

Dr. Charles Hase says:

"The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day in direct opposition to those who regarded it is a Sabbath. (History of the Christian Church, p. 67, paragraph 69, New York, 1855.)

Rev. James Cragie Robertson states that:

"In memory of our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion the fourth and sixth days of each week were kept as fasts, by abstaining from food until the hour at which he gave up the Ghost, the ninth hour, or 3 P.M. In the manner of observing the seventh day the Eastern church differed from the Western. The Orientals, influenced by the neighborhood of the Jews, and by the ideas of Jewish converts, regarded it as a continuation of the Mosaic Sabbath, and celebrated it almost in the same manner as the Lord's-day; while their brethren in the West - although not until after the time of Tertullian, extended to it the fast of the preceding day. (History of the Church, p. 158, London. 1854.)

Rev. Philip Schaff bears the following testimony:

"The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians gradually ceased. Yet the Eastern church to this day marks the seventh day of the week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by omitting fasting, and by standing in prayer; while the Latin church, in direct opposition to Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The controversy on this point began as early as the end of the second century. Wednesday, and especially Friday, were devoted to the weekly commemoration of the sufferings and death of the Lord, and observed as days of penance, or watch days, and half fasting, (which lasted till three o'clock in the afternoon.) (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 205. New York 1883.)

Neander recognizes the observance of the Sabbath by the church in general during the first three centuries:

"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. This difference in customs would of course be striking where members of the Oriental church spent their Sabbath-day in the Western church." (History of the Christian religion and church, during the first three centuries, p. 186, Rose's translation. Nearly the same language is used in his General History, Vol. 1, P. 298, Torrey's translation.)

Gieseler bears the following testimony:

"While the Christians of Palestine, who kept the whole Jewish law, celebrated of course all the Jewish festivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and, in remembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour's life, the Passover though without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday, as the day of our Saviour's resurrection, was devoted to religious worship. (Church History, Apostolic Age to A. D. 70, sec. 29.)

In the prolegomena to the "Institutes of John Cassian," which were written about 420 A.D., we find an incidental reference to the practice of the Monks of that time which shows the observance of the Sabbath up to the end of the first quarter of the fifth century even in the Western church. These are the words:

"He was an aged priest who had lived for years the life of an Anchorite, only leaving his cell for the purpose of going to the church, which was five miles off, on Saturday and Sunday, and returning with a large bucket of water on his shoulders to last him for the week. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 11, p. 187.)

Gregory the Great gives us a glimpse of the position which the Sabbath and Sunday occupied at Rome when he was Pope. He was ordained Sept. 3, 590 A.D., and held the office about fifteen years. The Epistle quoted below dates from the year 602-3 A. D. The first Epistle of Book 13 is addressed "To the Roman Citizens" as follows:

"Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his most beloved sons the Roman citizens. It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath-day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath-day is well as the Lord's-day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's-day to be kept in reverence; and, because be compels the people to Judaize that be may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.

For this which is said by the prophet, ye shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath-day (Jer. 17:24), could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered; he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him. If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing. (Gal. 5: 2.)

We therefore accept spiritually, and hold spiritually this which is written about the Sabbath. For the Sabbath means rest. But we have the true Sabbath in our Redeemer Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. And who so acknowledges the light of faith in Him, if he draws the sins of concupiscence through his eyes into his soul, he introduces burdens through the gates on the Sabbath-day. We introduce, then, no burden through the gates on the Sabbath-day if we draw no weights of sin through the bodily senses to the soul. For we read that the same our Lord and Redeemer did many works on the Sabbath-day, so that he reproved the Jews, saying, Which of you doth not loose his ox or his ass on the Sabbath-day, and lead him away to watering. (Luke 13:15?) If, then, the very Truth in person commanded that the Sabbath should not be kept according to the letter, whoso keeps the rest of the Sabbath according to the letter of the law, whom else does he contradict but the Truth himself?

Another thing also has been brought to my knowledge; namely that it has been preached to you by perverse men that no one ought to wash on the Lords-day. And indeed if anyone craves to wash for luxury and pleasure, neither on any other day do we allow this to be done. But if it is for bodily need, neither on the Lord's-day do we forbid it. For it is written, No man ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it. (Ephe. 5: 29.) And again it is written, Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. (Romans 13:14.) He, then, who forbids provision for the flesh in the lusts thereof certainly allows it in the needs thereof. For, if it is sin to wash the body on the Lord's-day, neither ought the face to be washed on that day. But if this is allowed for a part of the body, why is it denied for the whole body when need requires? On the Lord's-day, however, there should be a cessation of earthly labor, and attention given in every way to prayers so that if anything is done negligently during the six days, it may be expiated by supplications on the day of the Lord's resurrection. (Epistles, Book 13, Epistle 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 13, p. 92.)

Thus appears an unbroken chain of evidence, showing that the Sabbath was generally observed by the Christian church for centuries after Christ. Its decline was more rapid in the Western or Romanized branch of the church, where it was made a sorrowful fast, and where no-Sabbathism was pushed to the front. The Eastern church, less corrupted by Romish influences, retained the Sabbath more nearly after the New Testament conception. Let it be borne in mind also that the writers quoted in this chapter wrote after the rupture between the Jewish and the Pagan elements in the church, which began to occur at the opening of the second century. The evidence here presented shows that even in the West the Sabbath continued to hold its place as late as the seventh century, although condemned by the Catholic church and legislated against. With such facts within the reach of every student of the Sabbath question, it is difficult to understand how men can repeat the assertion so frequently made, that the Sabbath was not observed by Christians after the resurrection of Christ. Inexcusable ignorance, or worse, is the only explanation in such a case.

THE fourth century opens a new era in the history of the church and of the Sabbath question. In the West, through a union of church and state, the disastrous work of civil legislation concerning religion begins. Constantine the Great is the representative man during the first quarter of the century. At the death of his father, in the year 306, he became an associate ruler in the Roman Empire, and gained full power in the year 323. He died at Constantinople A.D. 337. Constantine first began to favor Christianity as an element of social and political power. He shrewdly seized upon it as the most vigorous element in the decaying Empire. He neither appreciated nor loved the truth for its own sake. A modern historian speaks of him in these words:

He reasoned, as Eusebius reports from his own mouth, in the following manner: "My father revered the Christian God, and uniformly prospered, while the emperors who worshiped the heathen gods died a miserable death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy life and reign, I will imitate the example of my father and join myself to the cause of the Christians who Lire. growing daily, while the heathen are diminishing." This low utilitarian consideration weighed heavily in the mind of an ambitious captain, who looked forward to the highest seat of power within the gift of his age. (Philip Schaff Church History, Vol. 3, p. 19.)

Dr. Schaff says again:

"He was distinguished by that genuine political wisdom, which, putting itself at the head of the age, clearly saw that idolatry had outlived itself in the Roman Empire, and that Christianity alone could breathe new vigor into it, and furnish it moral support. . . .

But with the political, he united also a religious motive, not clear and deep, indeed, yet honest and strongly infused with the superstitious disposition to judge of a religion by its outward success, and to ascribe a magical virtue to signs and ceremonies. . . . Constantine adopted Christianity first as a superstition, and put it by the side of his heathen superstition, till, finally, in his conviction, the Christian vanquished the Pagan, though without itself developing into a pure and enlightened faith.

At first, Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of the Neo-Platonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods as mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to whom, in the year 308, he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so late as the year 321, he enjoined regular consultation of the soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage; even later, he placed his new residence, Byzantium, under the protection of the god of the Martyrs, and the heathen goddess of Fortune, and down to the end of his life, he retained the title and the dignity of a Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. . . . With his every victory over his Pagan rivals, Galerius, Maxentius, and Licinius, his personal leaning to Christianity, and his confidence in the magic power of the sign of the cross increased; yet he did not formally renounce heathenism, and did not receive baptism until, in 337, he was laid upon the bed of death. . . . He was far from being so pure and so venerable as Eusebius, blinded by his favor to the church, depicts him in his bombastic and almost dishonestly eulogistic biography, with the evident intention of setting him up as model for all future Christian princes. It must with all regret be conceded, that his progress, in the knowledge of Christianity was not a progress in the practice of its virtues. His love of display and his prodigality, his suspiciousness and his despotism, increased with his power.

The very brightest period of his reign is stained with gross crimes, which even the spirit of the age, and the policy of an absolute monarch, can not excuse. After having reached, upon the bloody path of war, the goal of his ambition, the sole possession of the Empire; yea, in the very year in which he summoned the great council of Nicaea, he ordered the execution of his conquered rival and brother-in-law, Licinius, in breach of a solemn promise of mercy. (324.) Not satisfied with this, he caused, soon afterward, from political suspicion, the death of the young Licinius, his nephew, a boy of hardly eleven years. But the worst of all is the murder of his eldest son, Crispus, in 326, who had incurred suspicion of political conspiracy, and of adulterous and incestuous purposes toward his step-mother, Fausta, but is generally regarded as innocent. ….

At all events, Christianity did not produce in Constantine a thorough moral transformation. He was concerned more to advance the outward social position of the Christian religion, than to further its inward mission. He was praised and censured in turn by the Christians and Pagans, the Orthodox and the Arians, as they successively experienced his favor or dislike. . . . When, at last, on his death bed be submitted to baptism, with the remark, "Now let us cast away all duplicity," he honestly admitted the conflict of two antagonistic principles which swayed his private character and public life. (Church History, Vol. 3, pp. 13-18.)

Uhlhorn says of him:

"At the beginning of A.D. 312, he seemed, to say the least, cool and non-committal. He had issued the edict of Galerius, and the orders concerning its execution which, as we have seen, were but little favorable to Christianity. He was no doubt even then a Monotheist; but the one God whom he worshiped was rather the sun god, the "Unconquered Sun" than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But at the beginning of A.D. 313 he issued the edict of Milan, which was extraordinarily favorable to the Christians, and took the first decisive steps towards raising Christianity to the position of a dominant religion." (Conflict Between Heathenism and Christianity, p. 427.)

Knowing thus the character and antecedents of the man, the reader is better prepared to judge concerning the motives which led to the passage of his "Sunday Edict," the first act of legislation which directly affected the Sabbath question. The edict runs as follows:

"Let all judges, and all city people, and all tradesmen, rest upon the venerable day of the Sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields; since it frequently happens, that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain, or the planting of vines; hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost." (Cod. Justin, III. Tit. 12, L.3.)

This was issued on the seventh of March, A.D. 321. In June of the same year it was modified so as to allow the manumission of slaves on the Sunday. The reader will notice that this edict makes no reference to the day as a Sabbath, as the Lord's-day, or as in any way connected with Christianity. Neither is it an edict addressed to Christians. Nor is the idea of any moral obligation or Christian duty found in it. It is merely the edict of a heathen emperor, addressed to all his subjects, Christian and heathen, who dwelt in cities, and were tradesmen, or officers of justice, to refrain from their business on the "venerable day" of the god whom he most adored, and to whom he loved in his pride to be compared. There are three distinct lines of argument which prove that this edict was a Pagan rather than a Christian document.

1. The language used. It speaks of the day only as the "venerable day of the Sun," a title purely heathen. It does not even hint at any connection between the day and Christianity, or the practices of Christians.

2. Similar laws concerning many other heathen festivals were common. Joseph Bingham bears the following testimony when speaking of the edict under consideration:

"This was the same respect as the old Roman laws had paid to their feriae, or festivals, in times of idolatry and superstition. Now, as the old Roman laws exempted the festivals of the heathen from all juridical business, and suspended all processes and pleadings, except in the fore-mentioned cases, so Constantine ordered that the same honor and respect should be paid to the Lord's-day, that it should be a day of perfect vacation from all prosecutions, and pleadings, and business of the law, except where any case of great necessity or charity required a juridical process and public transaction. (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 20, chap. 2, sec. 2.)

Bingham states here clearly the fact that such prohibitions were made by the Roman laws in favor of their festivals, but adds, incorrectly, that Constantine made the same in favor of the Lord's-day; for we have seen that it was not the Lord's-day, but the "venerable day of the Sun," which the edict mentions; and it is impossible to suppose that a law made by a Christian prince in favor of a Christian institution should not in any way mention that institution, or hint that the law was designed to apply to it.

Millman corroborates this idea as follows:

"The earlier laws of Constantine, though in their effect favorable to Christianity, claimed some deference, as it were, to the ancient religion, in the ambiguity of their language, and the cautious terms in which they interfered with Paganism. 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 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.)

In chapter four of the same book Millman says:

"The rescript, indeed, for the religious observance of the Sunday, which enjoined the suspension of all public business and private labor, except that of agriculture, was enacted, according to the apparent terms of the decree, for the whole Roman Empire. Yet, unless we had direct proof that the decree set forth the Christian reason for the sanctity of the day, it maybe doubted whether the act would not be received by the greater part of the empire as merely adding one more festival to the fasti of the empire, as proceeding entirely from the will of the emperor, or even grounded on his authority as Supreme pontiff, by which he had the plenary power of appointing holy days. In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the Pagan world, especially that part which had admitted any tendency toward the Oriental theology.

Stronger still is the testimony of an English Barrister, Edward V. Neale. These are his words:

"That the division of days into juridici, et feriati, judicial and nonjudicial did not arise out of the modes of thought peculiar to the Christian world must be known to every classical scholar. Before the age of Augustus, the number of days upon which, out of reverence to the gods to whom they were consecrated, no trials could take place at Rome, had become a resource upon which a wealthy criminal could speculate as a means of evading justice; and Suetonius enumerates among the praiseworthy acts of that emperor, the cutting off from the number, thirty days, in order that crime might not go unpunished nor business be impeded. (Feasts and Fasts, p. 6.)

After enumerating certain kinds of business which were allowed under these general laws, Mr. Neale adds, "Such was the state of the laws with respect to judicial proceedings while the empire was still heathen." Concerning the suspension of labor, we learn from the same author that:

"The practice of abstaining from various sorts of labor upon days consecrated by religious observance, like that of suspending at such seasons judicial proceedings, was familiar to the Roman world before the introduction of Christian ideas. Virgil enumerates the rural labors, which might on festal days be carried on, without entrenching upon the prohibitions of religion and right; and the enumeration shows that many works were considered as forbidden. Thus it appears that it was permitted to clean out the channels of an old water course, but not to make a new one; to wash the herd or flock, if such washing was needful for their health, but not otherwise; to guard the crop from injury by setting snares for birds, or fencing in the grain; and to burn unproductive thorns. (Feasts and Fasts, p. 86, et. seq.)

These facts show how the heathen training and belief of Constantine gave birth to the Sunday edict. That he was a heathen is also attested by the fact that the edict of the 7th of March, 321, in favor of Sunday, was followed by another, published the next day, which was so purely heathen that no doubt can be entertained as to the character of the man who was the author of both edicts. (See Rose's Ind. of Dates, p. 380, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc.) The edict of March 8th commanded that in case of public calamity, like the striking of the imperial palace or public buildings by lightning, the heathen ceremonies for propitiating the gods were to be performed, and the meaning of the calamity should be sought from the haruspices. The haruspices were soothsayers, who gave their answers from watching the movements of the entrails of slain beasts, and the smoke from burning certain portions. This was a proceeding purely heathen, and no Christian prince could have made such a law. There is an evident connection between the two edicts, as we shall see when we remember that Apollo, who was honored as the god of the sun, was the patron deity of these soothsayers. He was also the patron deity of Constantine, and the one to whom he, in his pride, loved to be compared. Thus the Sunday edict, from its associations as well as its language, is shown to be the emanation of a heathen, and not a Christian, religion. Remember, too, that at least nine years later than this Constantine placed his new residence at Byzantium under the protection of the heathen goddess of Fortune; that he never gave up the title of high priest of the heathen religion; that he did not formally embrace Christianity, and submit to baptism until be lay upon his death bed, sixteen years later; and you cannot fail to see that whatever he did to favor Christianity, and whatever claims he made to conversion were the outgrowth of a shrewd policy rather than of a converted heart. And when the impartial historian can say, of him, "The very brightest period of his reign is stained with crimes, which even the spirit of the age and the policy of an absolute monarch cannot excuse," (Schaff) we cannot well claim him as a Christian prince.

If he made any general laws against heathenism, they were never executed; for it was not suppressed in the empire by law until A.D. 390 - seventy-nine years after his Sunday edict, and fifty-three years after his death. (See Gibbon, Vol. 3, chap. 28, Decline and Fall of Roman Empire.) The few abuses against which he enacted laws were those which had been condemned before by the laws of the heathen rulers who had preceded him, such as the obscene midnight orgies, etc. Millman speaks as follows on this point:

"If it be difficult to determine the extent to which Constantine proceeded in the establishment of Christianity, it is even more perplexing to estimate how far he exerted the imperial authority in the abolition of Paganism. . . . The Pagan writers, who are not scrupulous in their charges against the memory of Constantine, and dwell with bitter resentment on all his overt acts of hostility to the ancient religion, do not accuse him of these direct encroachments on Paganism. Neither Julian nor Zosimus lay this to his charge. Libanius distinctly asserts that the temples were left open and undisturbed during his reign, and that Paganism remained unchanged. Though Constantine advanced many Christians to offices of trust, and no doubt many who were ambitious of such offices conformed to the religion of the emperor, probably most of the high dignities of the state were held by the Pagans. . . . In the capitol there can be but little doubt that sacrifices were offered in the name of the senate and the people of Rome till a much later period. (Historical Commentaries, Book 4, chap. 4.)

The whole matter is tersely told by a late English writer, who, speaking of the time of the Sunday edict, says:

"At a later period, carried away by the current of opinion, he declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity then, or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law of the land, and the edict of A.D. 321, being unrevoked, was enforced as a Christian ordinance. (Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, p. 4.)

The following words of the learned Niebuhr, in his lectures on Roman history, as quoted by Stanley, are to the same effect:

"Many judge of Constantine by too severe a standard, because they regard him as a Christian; but I cannot look upon him in that light. The religion which he had in his head, must have been a strange jumble indeed. He was a superstitious man, and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd and superstitious opinions. When certain Oriental writers call him equal to the apostles, they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word. (History of the Eastern church, p. 292.)

It is a curious and little-known fact that markets were expressly appointed by Constantine to be held on Sunday. This we learn from an inscription on a slavonian bath rebuilt by him, published in Gruter’s Inscriptiones-antiquae totius Orbis Romani, CLXIV. 2. It is there recorded of the emperor that "provisione pietatis suae nundinas dies solis perpeti anno constituit," "by a pious provision he appointed markets to be held on Sunday throughout the year." His pious object doubtless was to promote the attendance of the country people at churches in towns. "Thus," says Charles Julius Hare, "Constantine was the author of the practice of holding markets on Sunday, which, in many parts of Europe, prevailed above a thousand years after, though Charlemagne issued a special law (cap. CXL.) against it." (Philological Museum, i., 30.) In "Scotland, this practice was first forbidden on holy days by an Act of James IV., in 1503, and on Sundays in particular by one of James VI., in 1579." (Robert Cox, Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 359.)

Before dismissing the Constantinian period, it is pertinent to notice Eusebius, the church historian. and the " dishonestly eulogistic " biographer of Constantine. He was a great partisan, and sought by all means to induce men to favor and honor his patron, the emperor. As a commentator on the Scriptures, his characteristic tendency to make unwarrantable statements is clearly seen. Prof. Moses Stuart made especial effort to reproduce the ideas of Constantine and to show that he taught the "puritan" theory of a transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. The important passages in support of this claim are from Eusebius's Commentary on the 92d Psalm. The Commentary abounds in unsupported statements, of which the following is the keynote:

"And all things, whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's-day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light; and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Therefore it is delivered to us that we should meet together on this day, and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm."

This and similar passages are construed to mean that Christ gave authority for such a transfer of the Sabbath. But the reader will note that Eusebius says, "We have transferred," etc. The question is fairly summed up in the following, from Cox:

"But supposing Eusebius to have meant that our Lord, by an express command, put Sunday in the place of Saturday, invested it with all the authority which the Sabbath had possessed, and laid upon his followers the duty of observing it as the Jews were required to observe the Sabbath -supposing Eusebius to say all this, of what value are his opinions to us? The Scripture is our rule, as it was also his; and if the command is recorded there, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced therefrom, surely we can profit bit little from knowing that a bishop in the fourth century found or deduced it, as every intelligent Christian may on the supposition do. If, on the contrary, it is not in the Bible, or to be well and necessarily deduced from anything recorded therein, are we bound, or even at liberty, to believe an assertion made for the first time by a writer in the fourth century - a writer, too, that was obviously under a strong temptation to recommend, in every possible way, the Sunday Sabbath of Constantine to the Christians of his time? When Eusebius declares that the Sabbath began with Moses, neither his "thorough researches into the usages and antiquities of the Christian church," nor the "enlightenment and vigor of his mind." have the smallest effect in inducing Mr. Stuart, or any other Sabbatarian, to disbelieve in a universal primeval Sabbath law and its recognition by the early Gentile Christians. Are not all men equally entitled to reject his supposed interpretation of Scripture as to the transference of the Sabbath to the first day of the week; and also to believe that when he finds in certain Psalms -allusions to and prophecies of the Eucharist, and the morning assemblies of Christians on the Lord's-day, he displays a purile fancy, rather than that soundness of judgment which an interpreter of Scripture stands greatly in need of? (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 364.)

The foregoing testimony relative to the Sunday under Constantine shows that it gained supremacy through his Pagan legislation, and not through Christian influence, nor by the authority of the Word of God. The adulterous union between Christianity and heathenism, thus consummated through civil legislation, brought forth the Papacy. Sunday became one of its representative features. One word describes the course of the church from the time of Constantine along the succeeding centuries until history, full of shame and sadness, hides it under the pall of the dark ages; that word is DOWNWARD. The leading features of that down-going will be given in the next chapter.

Before dismissing the question of Constantine's legislation, it is pertinent to add that the theory of civil legislation in religious matters is wholly opposed to the spirit of the Christianity of Christ and the Apostles. Christ taught very clearly: "My kingdom is not of this world." Paganism made the emperor Pontifex Maximus in matters of religion. Constantine held this title as great high priest of the Pagan State Church to the day of his death. When, therefore, he determined to adopt Christianity as a state religion, he naturally assumed, according to his Pagan theories, that he was the head of the church, and was at liberty to legislate as he would. The Sunday was sacred to his Patron Deity, the conquering and unconquered Sun. It was therefore a stroke of political sagacity, quite in keeping with Constantine's character, to issue the edict he did, Pagan in its terms and spirit, and yet applicable to all parties in his empire. This legislation was the beginning of weakness and ruin in the history of the church and its relations to the civil power.

IN tracing the history of Sunday subsequent to the time of Constantine, we first note the theories which were put forth by representative ecclesiastical writers; and second, the civil laws which were modified or enacted from time to time.

Athanasius, who died 373 A. D., left very little which bears upon the Sabbath question. In letter 54th, to Serapion Concerning the Death of Arius, the following passage occurs:

"As we have caused him to be invited by the Emperor in opposition to your wishes, so tomorrow though it be contrary to your desire, Arius shall have communion with us in this church. It was the Sabbath when they said this." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 4, p. 565.)

This use of the word Sabbath indicates that the Sabbath still held its place as a day of worship. In the same volume, p. 523, in Letter Six for Easter, 334 A. D., Athanasius says that the fast of 40 days began on the 25th of February and continued until the 31st of March, but that it was suspended on the Sabbaths and Sundays during that period.

Bishop of Jerusalem, who died 386, A. D., has the following exhortation in his Catechetical Lectures:

"But shun thou every diabolical operation, and believe not the apostate Serpent, whose transformation from a good nature was of his own free choice; who can overpersuade the willing, but can compel no one. Also give heed neither to observations of the stars nor auguries, nor omens, nor to the fabulous divinations of the Greeks. Witchcraft and enchantment, and the wicked practices of necromancy, admit not even to a hearing. From every kind of intemperance stand aloof, 1iving thyself neither to gluttony nor licentiousness, rising superior to all covetousness and usury. Neither venture thyself at heathen assemblies for public spectacles, nor ever use amulets in sickness; shun also all the vulgarity of tavern-haunting. Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism; for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean. But especially abhor all the assemblies of wicked heretics; and in every way make thine own soul safe, by fastings, prayers, almsgivings, and reading the oracles of God; that having lived the rest of thy life in the flesh in soberness and Godly doctrine, thou mayest enjoy the one salvation which flows from baptism; and thus enrolled in the armies of heaven by God and the Father, mayest also be deemed worthy of the heavenly crown, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (Lecture 41, section 37, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 7, p. 28.)

The reader will note that Cyril associates Sabbath-keeping with the various Pagan errors into which those whom he was teaching were liable to be led. This indicates how, rapid was the growth of no-Sabbathism and how intense the opposition to Sabbath-keeping was at that time, because of the prejudice against the Jews. In the same strain he speaks again as follows:

"This Holy Spirit, who in unison with Father and Son has established the New Covenant in the Church Catholic, has set us free from the burdens of the law grievous to be borne, those I mean, concerning things common and unclean, and meats, and Sabbaths, new moons, and circumcision, and sprinkling, and sacrifices which were given for a season, and had a shadow of the good things to come, but which, when the truth had come, were rightly withdrawn. (Lecture 17, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 7, p. 131.)

The most important testimony which marks the beginning of the fifth century is from Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, who died 402, A.D. In treating of the distinction between what he calls natural and positive laws, he says this:

"How was it then when he said, "Thou shalt not kill," that he did not add, "because murder is a wicked thing." The reason was, that conscience had taught this beforehand; and He speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when He speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, He not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, He gave commandment respecting the Sabbath; "On the seventh day thou shalt do no work. He subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? "Because on the seventh day God rested from all His works which He had begun to make." And again, "Because thou wert a servant in the land of Egypt." For what purpose then I ask did He add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one; and for this reason it was abolished afterwards. (Homily Twelve, "Concerning the Statutes," See. 9, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 9, p. 421.)

In another place - Homily on Matthew, - after reviewing the history of the acts of Christ in healing the sick on the Sabbath, and the act of the disciples in plucking the ears of corn, he notes the arguments by which the accusing Jews were silenced, and draws the following conclusions:

"Did Christ then, it will be said, repeal a thing so highly profitable? Far from it; nay. He greatly enhanced it. For it was time for them to be trained in all things by the higher rules, and it was unnecessary that His hands should be bound, who was freed from wickedness, winged for all good works; or that men should hereby learn that God made all things; or that they should so be made gentle, who are called to imitate God's own love to mankind (for He saith, "Be ye merciful as your Heavenly Father"); or that they should make one day a festival, who are commanded to keep a feast all their life long; ("For let us keep the feast," it is said, "not with old leaven, neither with leaven of malice and wickedness; but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"); as neither need they stand by an ark and a golden altar, who have the very Lord of all for their inmate, and in all things hold communion with him; by prayer, and by oblation, and by Scriptures, and by almsgiving, and by having Him within them. Lo, now, why is any Sabbath required by Him who is always keeping the feast, whose conversation is in heaven? (Homily 39, See. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 10, p. 257.)

This quotation from Chrysostum shows that his opinion was that no specific day should be observed as the Sabbath, and that those who lived upright lives in other things fulfilled the requirements formerly associated with Sabbath-keeping.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who died in 430 A.D., was one of the most voluminous writers and influential men of his time; his influence has also reached to this time in a degree greater than that of any other writer of that period. He taught the same doctrine of no-Sabbathism which appears in the writers previous to his time. The following are representative extracts from his writings. In his commentary on Psalm 92 he says:

"This Psalm is entitled, a Psalm to be sung on the Sabbath-day. Lo, this day is the Sabbath, which the Jews at this period observe by a kind of bodily rest, languid and luxurious. They abstain from labors, and give themselves up to trifles; and though God ordained the Sabbath, they spend it in actions which God forbids. Our rest is from evil works, theirs from good; for it is better to plow than to dance. They abstain from good, but not from trifling works. God proclaims to us a Sabbath. What sort of a Sabbath? First consider, where it is. It is in the heart, within us; for many are idle with their limbs, while they are disturbed in conscience. . . . That very joy in the tranquillity of our hope, is our Sabbath. This is the subject of praise and of song in this Psalm, how a Christian man is in the Sabbath of his own heart, that is, in the quiet, tranquillity, and serenity of his conscience undisturbed; hence he tells us here, whence men are wont to be disturbed, and he teaches thee to keep Sabbath in thine own heart. (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 8, p. 453.)

On Psalm l50 he says:

"Firstly, the number fifteen, whereof it is a multiple; this number fifteen, I say, signifieth the agreement of the two Testaments. For in the former is observed the Sabbath, which signifieth rest; in the latter the Lord's-day, which signifieth resurrection. The Sabbath is the seventh day, but the Lord's-day, coming after the seventh, must needs be the eighth, and is also to be reckoned the first. For it is called the first day of the week, and so from all is reckoned the second, third, fourth, and so on to the seventh day of the week, which is the Sabbath. But from Lord's-day to Lord's-day is eight days, wherein is declared the revelation of the New Testament, which in the Old was as it were veiled under earthly promises. (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 8 p. 681.)

In other places Augustine writes as follows. Speaking of the Jews, he says:

"Observe the Sabbath-day" is enjoined on us more than on them, because it is commanded to be spiritually observed. For the Jews observe the Sabbath in a servile manner, using it for luxuriousness and drunkenness. How much better would their women be employed in spinning wool than in dancing on that day in the balconies? God forbid, brethren, that we should call that an observance of the Sabbath. The Christian observes the Sabbath spiritually, abstaining from servile work. For what is it to abstain from servile work? From sin. And how do we prove it? Ask the Lord. "Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin." "Therefore is the spiritual observance of the Sabbath enjoined upon us." (Augustine on the Gospel of John, Tractate 3. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 7, p. 24.)

For they taking the observance of the Sabbath in a carnal sense, fancied that God had, as it were, slept after the labor of framing the world even to this day; and that therefore He had sanctified that day; from which He began to rest as from labor. Now to our fathers of old there was ordained a sacrament of the Sabbath, which we Christians observe spiritually, in abstaining from every servile work, that is from every sin (for the Lord saith, "Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin"), and in having rest in our heart, that is, spiritual tranquillity. (On Gospel of John, Tractate 20. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 7, p. 132.)

Speaking of the complaint which the Pharisees made because Christ healed a blind man upon the Sabbath, Augustine says:

"They brought to the Pharisees him who had been blind. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked how he had received his sight. Arid be said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees," not all, but some; for some were already anointed. What then said those who neither saw nor were anointed? "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath." He it was rather who kept it who was without sin. For this is the spiritual Sabbath, to have no sin. In fact, brethren, it is of this that God admonishes us, when be commends the Sabbath to our notice "Thou shalt do no servile work". These are God's words when commending the Sabbath, "Thou shalt do no servile work." Now ask the former lessons, what is meant by servile-work; and listen to the Lord: "Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin." But these men, neither seeing, as I said, nor anointed, kept the Sabbath carnally, and profaned it spiritually. (On John, Tractate 44. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 7, p. 247.)

The foregoing are the representative references to the Sabbath in the writings of Augustine. A passage has been quoted from the treatise entitled De Tempore, which is sometimes ascribed to Augustine; but the evidences against the authenticity of the work are such as to preclude the conclusion that it came from the pen of Augustine. The passage is to the effect that "The holy doctors of the church decreed to transfer the glory of the Jewish rest to the Lord's-day." This sentiment corresponds to the Pharisaical churchism which prevailed during the latter part of the Middle Ages. Concerning the sermon from which this passage is taken, Doctor Pusey, as quoted by Hessey, remarks: "It is later than the eighth century since it incorporates a passage from Alcuin." (Hessey: Lect. on Sunday, Note 202; and Cox: Sab. Lit., Vol. 1, p. 123.) Robert Cox supports, by abundant testimony, the idea that the sermon is falsely ascribed to Augustine.

By these representative quotations, the reader will see that the Sunday had no true sabbatic character in the theories of the church at the close of the fifth century. The Pan-Sabbath theory of rest from sin did not reach the lives of the people. Indeed, it could not, for the means by which men come into those relations with God which develop the higher spiritual life were taken away from the people by no-Sabbathism. The absence of all sacred time is, in effect, separation from God. Men like Augustine seem to have apprehended the true idea of the Sabbath in some degree, but to have been blind to the fact that the Sabbath idea cannot be preserved without the Sabbath-day. Thus Sabbathless, and hence separated from God, the church continued to drift away into self-created darkness. Meanwhile commemorative days grew in numbers and importance. Many of them, like the Sunday, were transferred from Paganism, while the Pagan idea of "hero worship gave birth to many which were before unknown.

Of this sort were the feriae stivae, or thirty days of harvest, and the feriae autumnales, or thirty days of vintage. Three days under the common name of calends of January, one day in memory of the founding of Rome, and another in memory of the founding of Constantinople, and four days in memory of the birth and inauguration of the Emperors, were exempt from judicial pleadings in the courts. All these, together, with the fifteen days of Easter, and all Sundays throughout the year, were exempted by a law of Theodosius and Valentinian, Junior, about the year 390; and afterward (560) there were added to these, by Justinian, the days of the passion of the apostles: and all public shows and games upon any of them were prohibited. Most of these were of long-standing among the Romans, and were retained after the introduction of Christianity. Consult Bingham, Antiquities, Book 20, chap. 1.

Heylyn thus sums up the testimony at this point:

"For the imperial constitutions of this present age, (latter part of the fourth century,) they strike, all of them, on one and the self same string with that of Constantine before remembered, save that the Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, who were all partners in the empire, set out an edict to prohibit all public shows upon the Sunday. . . . The other edicts which concern the business now in hand, were only additions and explanations unto that of Constantine, one in relation to the matter, and the other in reference to the time. First, in relation to the matter; whereas all judges were forbidden by the law of Constantine from sitting on that day in open court, there was now added a clause touching arbitrators, that none should arbitrate any litigious cause, or take cognizance of any pecuniary business, on the Sunday, a penalty being inflicted upon them that transgressed herein. This, published by the same three Emperors, Honorius and Euodius being that year consuls, which was in anno 384, as the former was, afterward Valentinian and Valens, Emperors, were pleased to add, that they would have no Christians upon that day brought before the officers of the exchequer. In reference to the time, it was thought good by Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, all three Emperors together to make some other festivals capable of the same exemptions. For, whereas, formally, all the time of harvest and of autumn had been exempted from pleadings, and the calends of January ("New Year's") also, these added thereunto the days on which the two great cities of Rome and Constantinople had been built, the seven days before Easter day, and the seven that followed, together with every Sunday in its course; yea, and the birthdays of themselves, with those in which each of them had begun his empire. So that, in this regard, the sacred day had no more privilege than the civil, but were all alike, the Emperor's-day as much respected as the Lord's. (History, Sabbath, Part 2, chap. 3, see. 10.)

In this equality, concerning matters of business, the Sunday and numerous other festivals continued to stand, until more than eighty years after. In 469 A.D., the Emperor Leo made a statute prohibiting the obscene shows in the theaters, and the combats with wild beasts, upon the Sunday, more, however, because of the extreme obscenity of the shows and their interruption of the public services than of any sacredness of the day. (See Heylyn, Hist. Sab., Part 2, chap. 4, sec. 2; also Bingham, Book 20, chap. 5, sec. 4.) Even these prohibitions were not confined to the Sunday, for in the language of Bingham:

"He not only restrained the people from celebrating their games on the Lord's-day, but on all other solemn festivals, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, obliging both Jews and Gentiles, over all the world, to show respect to those days, by putting a distinction between days of supplication and days of pleasure, and this became the standing law of the Roman Empire."

Again Heylyn says:

"Thus do we see on what grounds the Lord's-day stands; on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings, that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which tacitly approved the same, and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day, so the rest from labor, and the restraint from business upon that, received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate, as long as he retained that power, which to him belonged, as after from the canons and decrees of councils, and the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them. . . . The Lord's-day had no such (divine) command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to God's people to pitch on this or any other for the public use. And, being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercise, yet, for three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor, nor from worldly business, required upon it. And when it seemed good to Christian princes, the nursing father's of God's church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet, at first, they were not general, but only thus, that certain men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary and daily works to attend God's service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors because most necessary to the Commonwealth. And in the following times when the princes and prelates, in their several places, endeavored to restrain them from that also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day, it was not brought about without much struggling and opposition of the people, more than a thousand years being passed after Christ's ascension, before the Lord's-day had attained that state in which now it standeth. (History Sabbath, Part 2, chap. 3, sec. 12.)

Doctor Hessey, after referring to the legislation of Constantine, adds:

"About sixty years later, the transaction of business (negotiorum intentio) was forbidden by Theodosius the great, A.D. 386, who, in the words of canon Robertson, also abolished the spectacles in which the heathen had found their consolation when the day had been set apart from other secular uses by Constantine. Theodosius the younger, A.D. 425, in legislating on the subject, stated that the honors due to the Emperor were less important than the observance of the Lord's-day, and of certain other sacred seasons which he specifies. Leo and Anthemius, A.D. 469, held yet stronger language. If the Emperor's birthday fell on that day, the acknowledgment of it which was accompanied by games was to be put off. It does not however appear that the Christians, now greatly increased in number, so much objected to the Emperors that all relaxation on the Lord's-day was unlawful, as that these games, being idolatrous, indecent, and cruel, and so unfit for a Christian to attend on any day, were especially unfit to engage his thoughts or attract his attention on the Lord's-day. In particular, the weaker brethren were likely to be led away by them. . . . A few notices as to legal proceeding, may conclude this portion of our subject. Constantine qualified his general prohibition of law-business on the Lord's-day, by soon afterwards permitting the acts of conferring liberty and legal rights, (manumissio, for instance, or giving freedom to the slave, and emancipation or setting the son free from the paternal power.) This law was followed, under Valentinian and Valens, A. D. 368, by one prohibiting the exacting on that day, from any Christian, the payment of any debt. . . . Theodosius the Great, (Cod. Theod. ii. 8, 2.) confirmed all this, but made his prohibition include not merely the Dies Solis qui repetito in se calculo revolvunter, but such a number of other days as to constitute one hundred and twenty-four judicial holidays in the course of the year. (Lectures on Sunday, pp. 83, 84.)

For a full view of the legislation referred to by Hessey, and the complete text of the laws, see my History of Sunday Legislation. Published by D. Appleton & Co., New York. - A. H. L.

Thus it is seen that the Sunday was by no means the most important festival of those times in a civil point of view.

1. The civil legislation in favor of Sunday down to the close of the fifth century differed but little, if at all, from the civil legislation relative to a large number of other festivals.

2. The ecclesiastical action both advisory and legislative sought to discourage "Judaism," and to introduce that false liberty which has ever been the legitimate attendant of no-Sabbathism. At best, the Sunday had little or no pre-eminence over days made sacred to saints, emperors, martyrs and cities. It did not approach the modern idea of the "Christian Sabbath." Doctor Hessey groups these facts in the following words:

"But with all this, in no clearly genuine passage that I can discover in any writer of these two centuries, or in any public document ecclesiastical or civil, is the fourth commandment referred to as the ground of the obligation to observe the Lord's-day. In no passage, too, is there anything like a reference to the Creation words, as the ground of the obligation to observe it, with the exception perhaps of that one passage in Chrysostum in which the command for the seventh day is made, ainigmatodos (Gk.) to shadow forth the command for the first. In no passage is there anything like the confusion between "the seventh day" and "one day in seven," of which we have heard so much in England since A.D. 1595. In no passage is there any hint of the transfer of the Sabbath to the Lord's-day, or the planting of the Lord's-day on the ruins of the Sabbath, those fictions of modern times. If the Sabbath appears, it appears as a perfectly distinct day. And what is still more to our purpose, looking at the matter as a practical one, though law proceedings are forbidden, and labors for gain (at any rate in towns) are forbidden, and amusements unseemly for a Christian on any day are forbidden, no symptom is as yet discoverable of compulsory restrictions of, or conscientious abstinence from such recreations and necessary duties, (other than trades and professions) as are permissible on other days, so long is they do not interfere with divine worship, and the things connected with it, and appropriate to the Lord's-day. . . . In fact, we may at least say, that though to a certain extent formalized, and to a certain extent divested of its unique claims to the Christian's regard, the Lord's-day at the end of the fifth century is not transformed into anything like the Sabbath as the Jews had it. (Lectures on Sunday. pp. 85-87.)

Thus the facts of history demolish, step by step, the modern fictions of Puritanism relative to the early observance of Sunday.

IT is sometimes said that the church, through its councils, set the Sabbath aside and put the Sunday in its place. What "the councils" were is fairly set forth in the following:

"It is not till after the middle of the second century that we find the example of Jerusalem followed, and councils called to solve questions that threatened the unity and well-being of the Christian church and community. The earliest councils historically attested are those convened in Asia Minor against the Montanists; though it is by no means unlikely that at a much earlier period the Christian Greeks gave scope, in ecclesiastical affairs, to their instinct for organization, for taking common action in regard to matters affecting the public good. Near the end of the second century again, varying views as to the celebration of Easter led to councils in Palestine, at Rome, in Pontus, Gaul, Mesopotamia, and at Ephesus. These councils were all specially called to consider particular questions. But before the middle of the third century, it seems that in Asia Minor at least the councils or synods had become a standing institution, and met yearly. About the same time we find councils in the Latin church of North Africa. Before the end of this century there were councils meeting regularly in almost every province in Christendom, from Spain and Gaul to Arabia and Mesopotamia; and by extension and further organization, there was soon formed a system of mutually correspondent synods that gave to the church the aspect of a federative republic. (Ency. Brit., Vol. VI., p. 453, 9th ed.)

One would naturally expect to find much concerning Sunday in the records of these councils, if the day was adopted by the apostles or by the earlier church, instead of the Sabbath. We have made careful examination of their history previous to the middle of the fifth century, and give below every reference to Sunday or its observance. It will be seen that the "Easter" question is the prominent cause for the few references which are made. The period covered by these investigations includes the first two Ecumenical, or general councils, and not less than eighty local and provincial ones. They cover the time to 429 A.D. There seem to have been no rules concerning Sunday-observance. The references to it are of an incidental character rather than of a systematic consideration. The Synod of Elvira, Spain, 305 or 306 A.D., Canon 21, decrees that if one be staying in a city, and shall be absent from church on three Sundays, he shall be deprived of the communion for a little time. We have given the earliest date for this council, although there are strong reasons in favor of a later one, and the exact date is not known. (History Church Councils, Hefele, Vol. 1, p. 145. Edinburg, 1872.)

The 11th Canon of the Council of Sardica (343 - 347 A.D.) makes reference to the above action as follows:

"Remember that our fathers have already directed that a layman, who is staying in a town, and does not appear at divine servile [celebrasset conventum] for three Sundays, shall be excommunicated, and if this is ordered with regard to the laity, no bishop can be allowed to absent himself for a longer time from his church, or leave the people entrusted to him, except from necessity, or for some urgent business." (Canon 11, Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 145.)

The penalty of excommunication was added to many other acts besides staying from service for three weeks. In the collection of canons attributed to the Fourth Synod of Carthage (Hefele, Vol. 2, pp. 413, 417) which collection was evidently compiled during the sixth century, we find the following decrees:

"24. Whoever leaves the church during the sermon of the priest shall be excommunicated.

88. He who neglects divine service on festivals, and goes instead to the theatre shall be excommunicated.

In the Fifth Carthagenian Synod, canon 5^th (Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 423) declares:

"On Sundays and feast days no plays may be performed."

It will thus be seen that the act of "excommunication" was not ordered because Sunday stood above the other festivals in sacredness, but rather that this was a common punishment. Indeed it is attached to an almost endless catalogue of acts and omissions.

At the Council of Nice, the first Ecumenical council, 325 A.D., there was much discussion concerning the time of holding the Easter festival. In that discussion Sunday is referred to several times as the time for the specific Easter celebration. But the references throw no light upon the character of the Sunday, per se. The 20th canon of that council is as follows:

"As some kneel on the Lord's-day, and on the days of Pentecost, the holy Synod has decided that, for the observance of a general rule, all shall offer their prayers to God standing. (Hefele, Vol. 1, p. 434.)

The Synod of Laodicea - 343-381 A.D. - furnishes a decree which is quoted by many:

"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbatum is always used for the Sabbath and is translated Saturday in the English edition of Hefele], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's-day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing they shall be shut out from Christ. (Canon 29, Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 316.)

The 16th canon of the same council says that this restriction could have applied to only a part of the Sabbath, for it shows that it was a day of public religious service like Sunday. It is as follows:

"On Saturday [Sabbath] the Gospels and other portions of the Scriptures shall be read aloud. (Ib. Id. p. 310.)

Hefele says of canon 16:

Neander remarks that this canon is open to two interpretations. It may mean that on Saturday, as on Sunday, the Holy Scriptures shall be read aloud in the church, and therefore, solemn public service shall be held; and canon 49, is in favor of this interpretation. It was also the custom in many provinces of the ancient church to observe Saturday as the feast of the creation.

Canon 49 reads as follows:

"During Lent, the bread shall not be offered, except on Saturday [Sabbath] and Sunday."

Canon 51 says:

"The nativities of Martyrs, are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's-days." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14, p. 156.)

The Council in Trullo, known also as the Quinisext Council, held in 692 A.D., gives directions concerning the liturgy in canon 52 as follows:

"On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord's-day and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14.)

The same council - canon 55, took up the longstanding difference in the practice concerning fasting between Constantinople and Rome. The Canon is as follows:

"Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy Synod that also in the church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stand fast which says: "If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) be is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off." Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14, p 391.

The next canon, 56, condemns the eating of "eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord's-days Of the holy Lent."

The foregoing extracts constitute the testimony of the councils, local and general, down to the close of the seventh century. They show: (a) That little attention was paid to the Sunday question by the councils, aside from its relation to the contest relative to the time of observing Easter. (b) These extracts also show that the Sunday had no pre-eminence in point of sacredness over the Sabbath, or over other festivals. Indeed the order not to rest on the Sabbath indicates that the custom of abstaining from labor on that day still continued in force, and that cessation from labor on Sunday was not yet an established custom. These facts relative to what is said by the councils show that after the time of Constantine the civil law was the stronghold of the Sunday. Its gradual elevation into the place of the Sabbath resulted from the seeds of Paganism from which legislation began.

WE have abundant testimony that the Sabbath survived for centuries in spite of the new-born opposition which arose with the civil legislation of Constantine and his successors. This, too, in the Western, Romanized church; saying nothing here of the dissenters, who, at a later period, withdrew from the Romanized branch, nor of the Eastern wing of the church, in which the Sabbath yet remains in a modified form. Certain writings once accepted as genuine, but now known to be spurious, have an historic value by showing what ideas and practices obtained as late as the seventh century. Prominent among these are the

The question of their date, authorship, etc., is stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica as follows:

"According to some authors, they are first quoted in the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, in 394 A.D., and in those of the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in 431 and 451 A.D. Some have said that they are mentioned in the Decretum de libris recipiendis, issued by Pope Gelasius, (492 - 496 A.D.) while others have pointed out that the name occurs in those manuscripts only which have the decree of Hormisdas, (514 - 523). Perhaps the soundest decision is, that the collection is not mentioned in history until about the end of the 5^th century; it is undoubted that it was in existence before the beginning of the sixth, for the Latin translation of the first fifty canons dates from the year 500 A.D. (Vol. 2, p. 170, American Reprint, 9^th edition.)

Dr. Hessey speaks of the Constitutions as follows:

"I have delayed until now the consideration of the remarkable document called the "Apostolic Constitutions." It is impossible, for many reasons to suppose that it was written by Clemens Romanus. And its whole tone, and its preceptive manner, and the state of things to which it alludes, make the notion of its being even an Ante-Nicene collection very questionable. It is probably to be relegated to the latter part of the fourth or the earlier part of the fifth century. (Lectures on Sunday, p. 76.)

In his note, 203, Hessev quotes Lardner in favor of the date as given by him.

In Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 17, page 4, of Introductory Notice of Constitutions, we find this:

"Modern critics are equally at sea in determining the date of the collections of canons given at the end of the eighth book. Most believe that some of them belong to the Apostolic Age, while others are of a comparatively late date."

The safest conclusion seems to be this. The Constitutions describe a state of things which came about gradually between the third and sixth centuries, and are of value as collateral historic evidence; as such, the references to the Sabbath question are given below. Book I., which is "Concerning the Laity," does not refer to the question. Book II. treats of "Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons." In this are the following references to the question under consideration. Chapter 36 treats of the Ten Commandments as follows:

"Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the Ten Commandments of God - to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength, to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or demons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 65, 66, of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Nothing is said in this chapter about any observance of Sunday. In accepting the idea that Christians should not go to law before unbelievers, there is reference to a custom by which the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons heard and decided questions of difference between brethren. Several chapters are occupied in giving directions concerning such adjudications. The 47th chapter indicates that such courts were held on the Sabbath and on the Sunday. The instructions are as follows:

"Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the week, that if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right, and to reduce those to peace who have the contests one with another, against the Lord's-day." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, p. 75), of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Chapter 59 gives directions concerning public assemblies in the following words:

"When thou instructest the people, Oh Bishop, command and exhort them to come constantly to church morning and evening every day, and by no means to forsake it on any account, but to assemble together continually. . . . Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of his own members, neither divide his body nor disperse his members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the Word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house, in the morning singing the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's-day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing, in memory of him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 18, pp. 87, 88, of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book III., " Concerning Widows; " and Book IV., "Concerning Orphans," are silent on the Sabbath question. Book V., See. 18, is "On Feast Days and Fast Days;" chapter 18 is as follows:

"Do you, therefore, fast on the days of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week until the preparation, and the Sabbath, six days, making use of only bread, and salt and herbs and water for your drink; but do you abstain on these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and not of feasting. Do ye who are able fast the day of the preparation and the Sabbath-day entirely, tasting nothing till the cock-crowing of the night but if any one is not able to join them both togetber, at least let him observe the Sabbath-day; for the Lord says somewhere, speaking of himself: "When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, in those days shall they fast." In these days, therefore, he was taken away from us by the Jews, falsely so named, and fastened to the cross, and was numbered among the transgressors. . . . Chap. 20. - We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestown upon the needy; every Sabbath-day excepting one, and every Lord's-day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's-day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn. (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 138, 143 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book VI., treats of "Heresies," etc., and contains nothing pertinent to the Sabbath question. Book VII., chapter 23, discusses the time for fasting in nearly the same language already quoted from Book V. It is as follows:

"But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the preparation, because on the fourth day the condemnation went out against the Lord. Judas then promising to betray him for money; and you must fast on the day of the preparation, because on that day the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the Sabbath and the Lord's-day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honorable by nature and dignity than his own creatures." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, p. 186 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Chapter 36 gives a form of prayer in which Sabbath and Lord's-day appear as follows:

"Oh Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof. because that on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon thy laws. Thou hast also appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we might come into the remembrance of that wisdom which was created by thee; how he submitted to be made of a woman on our account. He appeared in life, and demonstrated himself in his baptism; how he that appeared is both God and man. He suffered for us by thy permission, and died, and rose again by thy power; on which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's-day, and rejoice on account of him who has conquered death, and has brought life and immortality to light. . . . Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety for their knowledge of thy power, and the prohibition of evils, having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for rejoicing upon the seventh period. . . . On this account he permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which the Lord's-day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the Provider, the Lawgiver, the cause of the resurrection, the First-born of the whole creation, God the Word, and man, who was born of Mary alone, without a man, who lived holily, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died and rose again from the dead. So that the Lord's-day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord, thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee, which on account of its greatness has obscured all other blessings. (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 196, 197 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book VIII., chapter 33, presents a law said to have been made by the apostles, Peter and Paul, in the following words:

"I Peter and Paul do make the following Constitutions, Let the slaves work five days, but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's-day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's-day of the resurrection. Let slaves rest from their work all the great week, and that which follows it - for the one in memory of the passion, and the other of the resurrection; and there is need they should be instructed who it is that suffered and rose again, and who it is permitted him to suffer, and raised him again. Let them have rest from their work on the ascension, because it was the conclusion of the dispensation by Christ. Let them rest at Pentecost because of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which was given to those that believed in Christ. Let them rest on the festival of his birth, because on it the unexpected favor was granted to men, that Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, should be born of the virgin Mary, for the salvation of the world. Let them rest on the festival of the Epiphany, because on it a manifestation took place of the divinity of Christ, for the Father bore testimony to him at the baptism, and the Paraclete, in the form of a dove, pointed out to the bystanders him to whom testimony was borne. Let them rest on the days of the Apostles; for they were appointed your teachers [to bring you] to Christ, and made you worthy of the Spirit. Let them rest on the day of the first martyr, Stephen, and of the other holy martyrs who preferred Christ to their own life." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 246, 247 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

When we are told that Paul and Peter wrote or taught such things as the above, we can easily judge as to the genuineness of the "Constitutions." But the above is of worth as indicating the mass of holidays, which had grown up at the beginning of the Dark Ages. Book VIII. closes with

There are eighty-five of these. They treat mainly of the duties of the clergy. The 64th canon says:

"If any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord's-day, or on the Sabbath-day, excepting one only, let him be deprived; but if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 265 266, of Apostolic Constitution.)

The 69th canon says:

"If any bishop or presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the fast of forty days, or the fourth day of the week, and the day of the preparation, let him be deprived, except he be hindered by weakness of body. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended." (Ante-Nicene Lib. Vol. 17, p. 266, of Apostolic Constitutions.)

A group of Syrian documents attributed to the first three centuries presents several characteristics in common with the Constitutions. Neither the date nor the authors are known. One of them contains the correspondence between king Agbar and Christ, which is so manifestly spurious as to provoke rejection rather than criticism. The document which deals with the Sabbath and the Sunday is equally patent as a forgery. Its tone is of the fifth century, rather than the third. The document claims to be made up of rules laid down by the Apostles while under the influence of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit. After a brief preface concerning the matter, it opens in these words

"And by the same gift of the Spirit which was given to them on that day, they appointed Ordinances and Laws, such as were in accordance with the gospel of their preaching and with the true and faithful doctrine of their preaching:-

1. The apostles therefore appointed: Pray ye toward the East, "because as the lightning which lighteneth from the east and is seen even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be, [which was said] that by this we might know and understand that he will appear from the east suddenly."

2. The apostles further appointed: On the first [day] of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation; because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he rose upon the world, and on the first day of the week, he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven.

3. The apostles further appointed: On the fourth day of the week let there be service; because on that [day] our Lord made the disclosure to them about his trial and his suffering, and his crucifixion, and his death, and his resurrection; and the disciples were on account of this in sorrow.

4. The apostles further appointed: On the eve [of the Sabbath] at the ninth hour, let there be service, because that which had been spoken on the fourth day of the week about the suffering of the Saviour was brought to pass on the eve [of the Sabbath] the worlds and [all] creatures trembling, and the luminaries in the heavens being darkened.

* * * * * * * * *

6. The apostles further appointed: Celebrate the day of the Epiphany of our Saviour, which is the chief of the festivals of the church, on the sixth day of the latter Canun in the long number of the Greeks. (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 20, pp. 38, 39, of the Syriac Documents.)

In this way the Document proceeds with twenty seven ordinances on all sorts of subjects. With such tendencies in the church, such a mixture of Pagan and Christian notions, with such dishonesty in forging in the name of Christ and his apostles, with the church and state united, and hence the church much corrupted, the world was ripe for the Dark Ages that were hurrying on. But these facts show that the Sabbath was still observed as a day of public service and worship down to the middle of the fifth century. In view of these facts no one can be excused for saying that the Sabbath was not observed by Christians even after the western church had become Romanized. No prominent feature of genuine apostolic practices was continued in the Apostatizing church longer than did Sabbath-observance.

CHURCH-APPOINTED festivals and holy days had become so numerous at the opening of the sixth century, that some new influence was demanded to give them importance, and to enforce their observance. This end was sought by claiming an analogy between the God-appointed days under the Jewish dispensation, and the church-appointed days under the gospel. It was assumed that the Roman Catholic church had power to appoint and enforce in the matter of holy days, as God had done under the Mosaic system. Sunday, in common with the other festivals, shared in these influences; and thus a more rigid observance of it began to prevail. There was no claim that the Sunday had taken the place of the Sabbath by any change or transfer of the fourth Commandment; it was only by analogy that this more rigid observance was introduced. As the darkness of the Middle Ages increased, ecclesiastical formalism grew more rigid and lifeless, and the prevailing ignorance and superstition became more galling and cruel. Dr. Hessey groups the facts together in the following words:

"But a more serious change is at hand. In the centuries ranging from the sixth to the fifteenth, we find civil rulers and councils and ecclesiastical writers by degrees altering their tone. Holy days are multiplied more and more. Then, as the church has established so many that it is impossible to observe them all, and as her authority, from being exercised so often and in a manner so difficult to be complied with, begins to be thought lightly of, holy days must be distinguished, and some sanction which shall vividly reach the conscience must be found for days of special obligation. The Old Testament has been already referred to for the analogy of many of her festivals. The step from analogy to identification is not a startling or a violent one. Thus a gradual identification of the Lord's-day with the Sabbath sets in. This naturally leads to the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment once thought of, vexatious restrictions follow, thwarting men in their necessary employments or enjoyments by an application of its terms either strictly literal or most ingeniously refined. Councils condescend to notice whether oxen may or may not be yoked on the Lord's-day," and not unfrequently contradict each other. The Second Council of Macon, A.D. 585, enjoins, "that no one should allow himself on the Lord's-day, under plea of necessity, to put a yoke on the necks of his cattle; but all be occupied with mind and body in the hymns and the praise of God. For this is the day of perpetual rest; this is shadowed out to us by the seventh day in the law and the prophets." It then goes on to threaten punishments for profanation of the holy day, either by pleading causes or by other works. Offenders will displease God, and besides will draw upon themselves the "implacable anger of the clergy." Lawyers will lose their privilege of pleading causes. Clerks or monks will be shut out for six months from the society of their brethren; "Rusticus aut servus gravioribus fustium ictibus verberabitur." Still, even in this Council, there is a recognition of the true origin of the Lord's-day, "Keep the Lord's-day, whereon we were born anew, and freed from all sins."

Things go on much in this way. Clothaire, King of France, issues an edict prohibiting all servile labors on the Lord's-day, assigning as a reason, "Quia lex prohibet, et sacra seriptura in omnibus contradicit." …. In the East, the exemption granted to agricultural labors by Constantine, which had been embodied in the code of Justinian, was repealed by the Emperor Leo Philosophus, A.D. 910, who animadverted in somewhat severe terms on the law of his great predecessor. . . .

A few more instances, taken almost at random, may conclude this part of our subject. At the end of the eighth century, we find Alcuin asserting, that "the, observation of the former Sabbath had been transferred very fitly to the Lord's-day, by the custom and consent of Christian people." In England again, A.D. 1201, in the time of king John, Eustace, Abbot of Flay, preaches the observance of the Lord's-day with a strictness eminently Judaical, and descending to the most ordinary occupations. He professes to confirm his doctrine by a letter, purporting to be from our Saviour, and miraculously found on the altar of St. Simeon at Golgotha. Various apocryphal judgments overtook persons transgressing in the slightest degree, the commands set forth in this document. It had said that from the ninth hour of the Sabbath (Saturday) to sunrise on Monday, no work was to be done: and it is curious to find that the instances of punishment seem to cluster about the profanation of the latter hours of Saturday. At length, the church, almost as a rule, though still asserting that the Lord's-day, and all other holy days, were of ecclesiastical institution, (not indeed in the high sense of that word, for they are not de Jure Divino, but de Jure Humano Canonico), had erected a complete Judaic superstructure upon an ecclesiastical foundation. . . . The most perfect development, however, of this Ecclesiastical Sabbatarianism is displayed by Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, in the fourteenth century, in his Commentary on the twelfth chapter of Exodus.

….. If a musician, (says Tostatus), wait upon a gentleman to recreate his mind with music, and they are agreed upon certain wages, or he be only hired for a present time, he sins in case he play or sing to him on Holy Days, (including the Lord's-day), but not, if his reward be doubtful or depend only on the bounty of the parties who enjoy his music." "A cook that on the Holy Days, is hired to make a feast or to dress a dinner, commits a mortal sin; but not, if he be hired by the month or year." "Meat may be dressed upon the Lord's-day or the other Holy Days, but to wash dishes on those days, is unlawful - that must be deferred to another day." "A man that travels on Holy Days to any special shrine or saint, commits no sin, but he commits sin if he returns home on those days." "Artificers which work on these days for their own profit only, are in mortal sin, unless the work be very small, (quia modicum non facit solemnitaten dissolvi), because a small thing dishonoreth not the festival." But I forbear to proceed with this catalogue of puerilities. (Hessey, Lectures on Sunday, Lect. 3, p. 87-92 seq.)

Heylyn treats very fully of that which Dr. Hessey has thus outlined. In part second of his "History of the Sabbath," we learn that the Council of Macon, under Gunthran, king of Burgundy, A.D. 588, although very strict in its prohibitions, says:

"Not that the Lord exacts it of us, that we should celebrate this day in a corporeal abstinence, or rest from labor, who only looks that we do yield obedience to his holy will, by which, contemning earthly things, he may conduct us to the heavens of his infinite mercy. . . . yet notwithstanding these restraints from work and labor, the church did never so resolve it that any work was in itself unlawful on the Lord's-day, though to advance God's public service, it was thought good, that men should be restrained from some kinds of work, that so they might better attend their prayers, and follow their devotions." (Part 2, chap. 4, sec. 7.)

Speaking of the close of the sixth century, Heylyn adds:

"Yet all this while, we find not any one who did observe it as Sabbath, or which taught others so to do; not any who affirmed that any manner of work was unlawful on it, further than as it was prohibited by the Prince or Prelate; that so the people might assemble with their greater comfort: not any one who preached or published, that any pastime, sport, or recreation of an honest name, such as were lawful on the other days, were not fit for this. (Part 2, chap. 4, see. 12.)

Concerning the forbidding of agriculture, Heylyn says:

"I note it only for the close, that it was near nine hundred years from our Saviour's birth, if not quite so much, before restraint from husbandry had been first thought of in the East; and probably being thus restrained, did find no more obedience there than it had done before in the Western part. (Part 2, chap. 5, sec. 7.)

Heylyn goes on to show that much of the rigidity concerning Sunday-observance existed only in theories and laws. In confirmation of which he cites the following:

"Nor were there reservations and exceptions only in point of business and nothing found in point of practice; but there are many passages, especially of the greatest persons and most public actions left upon record to let us know what liberty they assumed unto themselves, as well on this day as on the rest. And in such only shall I instance, and as being most exemplary, and therefore most conducing to my present purpose. And first we read of a great battle fought on Palm Sunday, Anno 718, between Charles Martel, Grand Master of the household of the King of France, and Hilpericus the King himself; wherein the victory fell to Charles. And yet we read not there of any great necessity, nay of none at all, but that they might on both sides have deferred the battle had they conceived it any sin to fight on that day. Upon the Sunday before Lent, Anno 835, Ludovick the Emperor surnamed Pius, or the godly, together with his prelates and others, which had been present with him at the assembly held at Theonville,, went on his journey unto Metz; nor do we find that it did derogate at all from his name and piety. Upon the Sunday after Whitsuntide, Anno 844, Ludwic, son unto Lotharius the Emperor, made his solemn entrance into Rome, the Roman citizens attending him with their flags and ensigns; the pope and clergy staying his coming in St. Peter's Church, there to entertain him. Upon a Sunday, Anno 1014, Henry the Emperor, environed with twelve of the Roman Senators, came to St. Peter's Church, and there was crowned, together with his wife, by the Pope then being. On Easter day, Anno 1027, Conrade the Emperor was solemnly inaugurated by Pope John; Canutus King of England, and Rodalph King of the Burgundians, being then both present; and the next Sunday after began his journey towards Germany. . . . On Passion Sunday Anno 1148 Lewis the King of France, afterwards canonized for a saint, made his first entry into Jerusalem with all his army; and yet we read not anywhere that it was laid in bar against him, to put by his Sainting; as possibly it might be now, were it yet to do. What should I speak of councils on this day assembled, as that of Charles, Anno 1146, for the recovery of the Holy Land; of Tours on Trinity Sunday, as we call it now, Anno 1164, against Octavian the Pseudo Pope; that of Ferraera, upon Passion Sunday, Anno 1177 against Frederick the Emperor; or that of Paris, Anno 1226, summoned by Stephen then Bishop there, on the fourth Sunday in Lent, for the condemning of certain dangerous and erroneous positions at that time on foot, I have the rather instanced in these particulars, partly because they happened about these times, when Prince and Prelate were most intent in laying more and more restraints upon their people, for the more honor of this day, and partly because, being all of them public actions, and such as moved not forward but by divers wheels, they did require a greater number of people to attend them." (Hist. of Sab., part 2, chap. 5, see. 9.)

All these things accord with the spirit of an age in which religion was a form, and men were strict only in theory. In another place, Heylyn corroborates the statements that Sunday was referenced no more than many other holy days were, and upon the same ground, church appointment. An example or two will suffice:

"Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anno 858, thus reckoneth up the festivals of especial note; viz., seven days before Easter, and seven days after Christmas, the feasts of the apostles, and the Lord's-day, and, then, he adds that on those days they neither suffer public shows nor courts of justice. Emanuel Comnenus next, Emperor of Constantinople, Anno 1174: "We do ordain," saith he, "that these days following be exempt from labor;" viz., the nativity of the Virgin Mary holy-rood day (and so he reckoneth all the rest in those parts observed), together with all Sundays in the year; and that in them there be no access to the seat of judgment. …. Now, lest the feast of Whitsuntide might not have some respect as well as Easter, it was determined in the council held at Engelheim, Anno 948, that Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Whitsunweek, should no less solemnly be observed than the Lord's-day was. (Part 2, chap. 5, sec. 11.)

Morer, speaking of the question in the sixth century, says:

"Under Clodoveus king of France, met the bishops in the first Council of Orleans (A.D. 507), where they obliged themselves and their successors, to be always at the church on the Lord's-day, Except in case of Sickness or some great Infirmity. And because they, with some other of the clergy those days, took cognizance of judicial matters, therefore by a Council at Arragon, about the year 518, in the reign of Theodoric king of the Goths, it was decreed, that "No bishop or other person in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil controversy on the Lord's-day." (Dialogues on the Lord's-day, pp. 263, 264.)

The third Council of Orleans was held A. D. 538; Hengstenberg, speaking of its action, says:

"The third Council of Orleans says, In its twenty-ninth canon: "The opinion is spreading among the people, that it is wrong to ride, or drive, or cook food, or do anything to the house or the person, on the Sunday. But since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian, that shall be lawful in the future which has been so to the present time. On the other hand, agricultural labor ought to be laid aside, in order that the people may not be prevented from attending church." (Hengstenberg On the Lord's-day, p. 58.)

This recognizes the well-known fact that the permission granted to agricultural labor by the first law of Constantine continued for many centuries. About the middle of the seventh century further action was found necessary, which is related by Morer as follows:

"At Chalons a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there was a Provincial Synod, which confirmed what had been done by the third Council of Orleans, about the observation of the Lord's-day, namely, that "none should plow or reap, or do anything belonging to husbandry, on pain of the censures of the church, which was the more minded, because backed with the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended herein, who, if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free, had three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part of their patrimony, and if still obstinate, were made slaves for the future." And in the first year of Eringius, about the time of Pope Agatho, there sat the twelfth council of Toledo, in Spain, A.D. 681; where the Jews were forbidden to keep their own festivals, but so far at least observe the Lord's-day, as to do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express their contempt of Christ or his worship." (Dialogues on the Lord's-day, p. 267.)

Sunday appears first on the statute-books of England, about the close of the seventh century. In the year 692, Ina, king of the West Saxons, ordered that,

"If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master's order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings; but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either beaten with stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman, if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom, or pay sixty shillings; if he be a priest, double." (Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's-day, p. 283.)

About 747 A.D., Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively what was to be done on Sunday, and what the laws designed by prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this canon:

"Let nothing else saith he be done on the Lord's-day, but to attend on God in hymns, and psalms, and spiritual songs. Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for seven days. On all festivals and Sundays, let the minister preach to the people the gospel of Christ. (Morer, Dialogues, p. 284.)

But mere decrees of councils and emperors did not suffice. Men heard more than they heeded. Recourse was, therefore, had to the universal weapons of ignorant and bigoted men; and the argument of "Divine Providence" was brought to bear with evident effect. The same is used to-day by many who would feel greatly wronged if they were charged with ignorance and bigotry.

At a provincial council held in Paris, A.D. 829, the prelates complained that people disregarded the canons relative to Sunday and asserted that this was the reason why God had sent some very remarkable and terrible judgments upon men:

"For (say they) many of us by our own knowledge, and some by hearsay know, that several countrymen, following their husbandry on this day, have been killed with lightning, others being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably perished - Whereby it is apparent, how high the displeasure of God was upon their neglect of this day. And at last they conclude that, in the first place, the priests and ministers, then kings and princes, and all faithful people be beseeched to use their utmost endeavors, and care that the day be restored to its honor, and for the credit of Christianity, more devoutly observed for the time to come." (Morer, Dialogues, etc., p. 271.)

Local councils and decrees proved insufficient, even when supported by such appeals to fear; and at length, in A.D. 853, a synod was held at Rome, under Pope Leo IV., which took the following action:

"It was ordered more exactly, than in former times, that no man should henceforth, dare to make any markets on the Lord's-day; no, not for things that were to eat, neither to do any kind of work which 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, who, though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence. (Morer, Dialogues, etc., p. 272; Consult also Heylyn, Hist. Sab., part 2, chap. 5, sec. 7.)

On the establishment of the Saxon Heptarchy in England, Alfred the Great (A.D. 876) took care to protect Sunday. Morer says:

"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, because it was the day whereon our Saviour Christ overcame the devil. . . . And whereas before the single punishment for sacrilege committed on any other day, was, to restore the value of the thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, be added that if any person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord's-day, he should be doubly punished." (Dialogues etc., pp. 284, 285.)

Once begun, the work of excessive legislation found ready acceptance. These laws were added to, in one form or another, under Athelstan A.D. 928; and again, in 943, under the order of Otho, archbishop of Canterbury. In A.D. 967, Edgar "commanded that the festival should be kept from three o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday until the dawn of day on Monday." And under Ethelred, A.D. 1009, the demand for strict observance was renewed. In Norway the same tendency prevailed. Heylyn (Hist. of Sab., part 2, chap. 5, sec. 2,) relates the story of pious king Olaus, in the year 1028, who, in absent-mindedness, having whittled a stick on Sunday, and being told that be had thereby trespassed upon the sanctity of Sunday, gathered the chips and set fire to them in his hand that he might punish himself for breaking God's commandment. The full text of all the Saxon and English legislation is found in my "History of Sunday Legislation."

But the crowning story of impious nonsense remains to be noticed. In the year A.D. 1200, one Eustace came from Normandy to preach in England, who also performed many miracles. He inveighed against the desecration of Sunday, but was evidently met by the reply that there was no commandment from God for its observance. Returning to the continent, he remained for a time; and in 1201 came back to England, armed with a document which was most befitting to his purposes. It is worth the room it tales as a curiosity, although it offers a sad commentary upon the honesty of the times which could produce such a forgery, and upon the credulity of the people who could accept it. The following account of the transaction is from a contemporary author:

"In the same year (1201), Eustace, Abbot of Flay, returned to England, and preaching therein the Word of the Lord from city to city, and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a market of goods on sale upon the Lord's-day. For he said that the commandment underwritten, as to the observance of the Lord's-day, had come down from heaven: THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD'S-DAY, which came from heaven to Jerusalem, and was round upon the altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle, which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon; and after looking upon which three days and three nights, some men fell upon the earth, imploring the mercy of God. And after the third hour the patriarch arose, and Acharius the Archbishop, and they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from God; and when they had taken the same, they found this writing therein:

"I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day of the Lord, and ye have not kept it; and have not repented of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' Whereas, I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the Pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord's-day holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more, it is my will that no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work, except that which is good.

"And if any person shall do so, he shall, with penance, make amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this command, verily, I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my seat and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle; but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy all wicked men.

"This do I say unto you: for the Lord's holy day, you shall die the death, and for the other festivals of my saints which you have not kept, I will send unto you beasts that have the heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels; and they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh, and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send darkness upon you, that, not seeing, you may slay one another, and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and of all those who do not keep as holy the day of the Lord.

"Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance for your sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and Gomorrah, shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and wine in abundance; and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you show no mercy. The Pagans show mercy, but you show none at all. The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water.

"I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not kept; I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not observed. For you I was born into the world, and my festive day ye know not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord's-day of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that if do not observe the Lord's-day, and the festivals of my saints, I will send unto you the Pagan nations that they may slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others, and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your women. I will curse those who, on the Lord's-day, have wrought evil." (Roger de Hoveden, Annals, Vol. 2. pp. 526-528, Bohn's Edition.)

This farce was carried out by pretended miracles, which attended disobedience to this "heavenly" mandate. These seem to cluster around the later hours of the Sabbath rather than the hours of Sunday. These are recounted as follows:

"On Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the ninth hour of the day, was, contrary to the wholesome advice of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the ninth hour on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of the web, persisted in so doing, fell to the ground, struck with paralysis, and lost her voice.

At Rafferton also, a vill belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a loaf and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the morning; but when he broke it on the Lord's-day, blood started forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore witness, and his testimony is true.

At Wakefield also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the vessel, placed beneath, was nearly filled with blood, and the mill wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, "Spare us, oh Lord, spare thy people."

Also in Lincolnshire, a woman had prepared some dough, and, taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she placed it in the oven, which was then a very great heat; but when she took it out she found it raw, on which she again put it into the oven, which was very hot, and both on the next day and on Monday, when she supposed that she should find the loaves baked, she found raw dough.

In the same country also, when a certain woman had prepared her dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to her, "It is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it aside until Monday;" on which the woman, obeying her husband, did as he commanded; and so, having covered over the dough with a linen cloth, on coming the next day to look at the dough, to see whether it had not, in rising, through the yeast that was in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked, without any fire of the material of this world. This was a charge wrought by the right hand of him on high." (Hoveden, Vol. 2, pp. 529, 530.)

One more specimen of this blasphemous nonsense must suffice. It is from another contemporary work:

"About this time, a certain woman of the county of Norfolk, despite the warnings of this man of God [i.e., Eustace], went one day to wash clothes after three o'clock on Saturday and while she was busily at work, a man of venerable appearance, unknown to her approached her, and reproachingly inquired the reason of her rashness in thus daring, after the prohibition of the man of God, to wash clothes after three o'clock; and thus by unlawful work, profane the holy Sabbath-day. He, moreover, added that unless she at once desisted from her work she would, without doubt, incur the anger of God, and the vengeance of heaven. But she, in answer to his rebuke, pleaded urgent poverty, and said that she had till then dragged on a wretched life by toil of that kind; and that if she should desist from her accustomed labor, she doubted her ability to procure the means of subsistence. After a while the man vanished suddenly from her presence, and she renewed her labor of washing the clothes, and drying them in the sun, with more energy than before. But for all this, the vengeance of God was not wanting: for, on the spot, a kind of small pig, of a black color, suddenly adhered to the woman's left breast, and could not by any effort be torn away; but, by continual sucking, drew blood, and, in a short time, almost consumed all the bodily strength of the woman. At length, being reduced to the greatest necessity, she was compelled, for a long time, to beg her bread from door to door, until in the sight of many who wondered at the vengeance of God, she terminated her wretched life by a miserable death." (Roger de Hoveden, Chronicles, or Flowers of History; formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 188-192. London, 1849.)

In such foolish forgeries did the Sunday Sabbathisrn of the Dark Ages culminate. Two or three years later, in 1203, this same "Roll from heaven was produced at a council held in Scotland under Pope Innocent III., and King William, in order to further the sacred observance of Saints' days and Sundays in that kingdom. It is difficult to believe that such a state of things could have existed among our ancestors a few centuries ago. But the facts are so well vouched for by the contemporary historians above quoted, and by representative writers on the Sunday question at the present time, that there is no chance to doubt them. In addition to the authorities already quoted, the curious reader, who wishes to pursue the case further, will find the "Roll" and the pretended judgments referred to by the following writers: Binnus, "Councils," Vol 3, pp. 1448, 1449; Sir David Dalrymple, "Historical Memorials," pp. 7, 8, Edition 1769; Heylyn, History of the Sabbath"; Hessey, "On Sunday"; Gilfillan, "Sunday"; Cox, "Sabbath Literature"; J.N. Andrews, "History of the Sabbath"; and other modern writers. The same "Roll," in a slightly modified form, figures in the history of the Sabbath question among the Armenians.

Many, pages more might be filled with similar decrees and laws, which found expression between the close of the fifth century and the Reformation. But the case does not demand it. We, therefore, sum up the case. From the opening of the sixth century forward there was increasing formality and much Phariseeism in the matter of holy days. Their appointment and the manner of their observance was placed on no other ground than church authority, the "custom and consent" of Christian people. The Old Testament was appealed to, not as direct authority, but on analogical grounds. The reasons given for the observance of the Sunday are vague and varied. Sometimes, the Sabbath was said to foreshadow the Sunday; sometimes, circumcision was made to do a like duty. By some, the reason for its appointment was found in the fact that it was the first day of creation; by others that it was the day of the Saviour's resurrection. This last is the general reason; but some or all of the others are usually associated with it, to strengthen it. There is more or less talk, in a loose way, concerning the example of the apostles and the early church. But this argument is used with equal freedom in support of the many other holy days, and of practices which are wholly without such authority.

The Sunday had no prominence over other church festivals, except that which came naturally from the fact that it occurred oftener. Its observance, in keeping with the general character of the religion of the times, consisted in an outward formalism, without pure spiritual life. Stringent restrictions were promulgated, which the people did not observe. There was no power in this pseudo-Sabbathism to elevate men, to draw them toward God, or to nourish true spiritual life. Those centuries of increasing darkness all present the same sad spectacle of a sinking church trying to lift itself, and sinking deeper at every struggle.

PAPACY never succeeded in driving the Sabbath wholly from its dominions. As the Romanized church gradually expelled the Sabbath from the Orthodox body, those who were loyal to the law of God and the practices of the apostolic church stood firm, regardless of excommunication and persecution. Dissenters who kept the Sabbath existed under different names and forms of organization from the time of the first Pope to the Reformation. They were either the descendants of those who fled from the heathen persecutions previous to the time of Constantine, or else those who, when he began to rule the church and force false practices upon it, refused submission and sought seclusion and freedom to obey God in the wilderness in and around the Alps. In their earlier history they were known as Nazarenes, Cerinthians and Hypsistarii, and later as Vaudois, Cathari, Toulousians, Albigenses, Petrobrusians, Passagii, and Waldenses. We shall speak of them in general under this latter name. They believed the Romish church to be the "Anti-Christ" spoken of in the New Testament. Their doctrines were comparatively pure and Scriptural, and their lives were holy, in contrast with the ecclesiastical corruption which surrounded them. The reigning church hated and followed them with its persecutions. In consequence of this unscrupulous opposition, it is difficult to learn all the facts concerning them, since only perverted accounts have come to us through the hands of their enemies. Before the age of printing, their books were few; and from time to time these were destroyed by their persecutors, so that we have only fragments from their own writers. At the beginning of the twelfth century they had grown in strength and numbers to such an extent as to call forth earnest opposition and bloody persecution from the Papal power. Their enemies have made many unreasonable and false charges concerning their doctrines and practices, but all agree that they rejected the doctrine of "Church Authority," and appealed to the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice. They condemn the usurpations, the innovations, the pomp and formality, the worldliness and immorality of the Romish hierarchy. Even their bitter enemies have not denied that which all accord to them, viz., moral excellence and holiness of life far in advance of their times and surroundings.

There are three lines of argument which show that these dissenters were Sabbath-keepers.

1. Apriori argument, founded upon the following facts. They accepted the Bible as their only standard. They were familiar with the Old Testament, and held it in great esteem. They acknowledged no custom or doctrine is binding upon Christians which was not established before the ascension of Christ. Such a people must have rejected those feasts which the church had appointed, and must have observed the Sabbath. But there is direct testimony showing their antiquity, their high moral character and piety, and their special character as Sabbath-keepers. The following from the pen of Mr. Benedict, the Baptist historian, shows that it is almost a miracle that any information concerning them has come down to this time:

"As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we know of them is from the accounts of their enemies, which were always uttered in a style of censure and complaint; and without which we should not have known that millions of them ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate every vestige of opposition to her decrees and doctrines, everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray. In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in the fifteenth century, all books were made with a pen; the copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much more difficult than it would be now, and if a few of them escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would be soon worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved in the public libraries of the Catholics from the ravages of time, and the hands of barbarians with which all parts of Europe were at different times overwhelmed. (History of the Baptists, p. 50. New York, 1848.)

Dean Waddington bears testimony as follows:

"Rainer Sacho, a Dominican, says of the Waldenses: "There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three reasons: first, it is the most ancient; some say it is as old as Sylvester, others, as the apostles themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated; there is no country where it has not gained some footing. Third, while other sects are profane, and blasphemous, this retains the utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe nothing concerning God which is not good."" (Church History, chap. 22, sec. 1.)

This same writer, Sacho, admits that they flourished at least five hundred years before the time of Peter Waldo. Their great antiquity is also allowed by Gretzer, a Jesuit, who wrote against them. Cratitz, in his "History of the United Brethren," speaks of this class of Christians in the following words:

"These ancient Christians date their origin from the beginning of the fourth century, when one Leo, at the great revolution in Religion under Constantine the Great, opposed the innovations of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. Nay, Rieger goes further still, taking them for the remains of the people of the valleys, who, when the Apostle Paul, as is said, made a journey over the Alps into Spain, were converted to Christ. (Latrobe's Trans., p. 16. London, 1780.)

Jortin bears the following testimony:

"In the seventh century, Christianity was preached in China by the Nestorians and the Valdenses who abhorred the papal usurpations, and are supposed to have settled themselves in the valleys of the Piedmont." (Eccl. Hist., Vol. 2, sec. 38.)

President Edwards says:

"Some of the popish writers themselves own that that people never submitted to the Church of Rome. One of the popish writers speaking of the Waldenses, says: The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest in the world. It is supposed that this people first betook themselves to this desert, secret place among the mountains to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions, which were before Constantine the Great, and thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent. Rev. 12:6-14. And the people being settled there, their posterity continued there from age to age afterward; and being, as it were, by natural walls as well as God's grace separated from the rest of the world, never partook of the overflowing corruption. . . . Theodore Belvedere, a popish monk, says that the heresy had always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible the translators say that they (the Valdenses) have always had the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the apostles, having preserved, in fair manuscripts the entire Bible in their native tongue from generation to generation. (History of Redemption, pp. 293, 294.)

Thus history furnishes full and explicit testimony concerning the antiquity of these un-Romanized Christians, showing that their separation began very early, and that they never submitted to the Papal power, nor accepted its false teachings. Their numbers is a matter of no less interest than their antiquity. Jones bears the following testimony:

"Even in the twelfth century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne in Flanders, the south of France, Savoy, and Milan. They were increased, says Egbert, to great multitudes throughout all countries, and although they seem not to have attracted attention in any remarkable degree previous to this period, yet, as it is obvious they could not have sprung up in a day, it is not an unfair inference that they must have long existed as a people wholly distinct from the Catholic church, though, amidst the political squabbles of the clergy, it was their good fortune to be almost entirely overlooked. …. Toward the middle of the twelfth century, a small society of tbe Puritans, as they were called by some, or Waldenses, as they are termed by others, or Paulicians as they are denominated by our old monkish historian, William of Newburg, made their appearance in England. This latter writer speaking of them says: "They came originally from Gascoyne, where, being as numerous is the sand of the sea, they sorely infested France, Italy, Spain and England. (Hist. of the Waldenses, Vol. 1, chap. 4, see. 3, pp. 509, 510. London, 1816.)

Benedict says:

"In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches, or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania, Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Valeponetine, Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia, Livonia, Saramatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton, and Piedmont. (Hist. of the Baptists, p. 31.)

It is not claimed that there was perfect agreement in sentiment on all points among these different sects in all the different localities. That they agreed on the fundamental point of rejecting the Romish Hierarchy, and appealing to the Bible as the only standard of faith and practice, is undeniable. The following testimonies will show what they were in these respects. Allix speaks as follows:

"They can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of Scripture. . . . They say that the doctrine of Christ and his apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions than on the keeping of the law of God. "Why do you transgress the law of God by your traditions?" They condemn all approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the reconciliation of penitents, and the adoration of the cross on Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter and all other festivals of Christ and the Saints, because of their being multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as good as another, and work upon holy days where they can do it without being taken notice of. . . . They declare themselves to be the apostles' successors, to have apostolic authority, and the keys of binding and loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the Whore of Babylon, and that all who obey her are damned, especially the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope Sylvester. . . . They hold that none of the ordinances of the church that have been introduced since Christ's ascension ought to be observed, being of no worth; the feasts, fasts, orders, blessings, officers of the church and the like, they utterly reject." (Ecc. Hist. of the Ancient Piedmont Church, pp. 209. 216, 217. London, 1690.)

This is said of them in Bohemia. As late as the time of Erasmus these Bohemians continued to keep the Sabbath with great strictness, as will be seen by the following.

An old German historian, John Sleidan, speaking of a sect in Bohemia called "Picards," says:

"They admit of nothing but the Bible. They choose their own priests and bishops; deny no man marriage, perform no offices for the dead, and have but very few holy days and ceremonies. (Historv of the Reformation, etc., p. 53. London, 1689.)

These are the same people to whom Erasmus refers, representing them as extremely strict in observing the Sabbath. Robert Cox, (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, pp. 201,202) quotes from Erasmus, and comments as follows:

"With reference to the origin of this sect [Seventh-day Baptists], I find a passage in Erasmus, that at the early period of the Reformation when he wrote, there were Sabbatarians in Bohemia, who not only kept the seventh day, but were said to be so scrupulous in resting on it, that if anything went into their eyes they would not remove it till the morrow. He says: Nunc audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Judaeorum genus Sabbatarios appellant, qui tanta superstitone servant Sabbatum, ut si quid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere; quasi non sufficiat eis pro Sabbato Eies Dominicus qui Apostolis etiam erat sacer, aut quasi Christas non satis expresserit quantum tribuendum sit Sabbatti." (De Amabili Ecclesiae Concordia, Op. tom., V, p. 506; Lugd. Bat., 1704.)

Hospinian of Zurich, in his treatise De Festis Judaeorum et Ethnicorum, Cap. iii, (Tiguri.-1592.) replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians. (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, pp. 201, 202.)

The story concerning their extreme strictness on the Sabbath is probably a mistake. But inasmuch as they accepted the Bible as their only guide, it is not wonderful that they refused to place the "Dies Dominicus before the Sabbath," since the Bible gives no authority for such a course. Doctor Hessey refers to these same Sabbatarians as the origin of the present Seventh-day Baptists. A voluminous work by Alexander Ross, speaking of those people at the beginning of the Reformation, says:

"Some only will observe the Lord's-day; some only the Sabbath; some both, and some neither." (A View of All Religions in the World, etc., p. 237. London, 1653.)

In his history of the Christian church, Jones gives their "confession of faith," article tenth of which is as follows:

"Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men (in affairs of religion) as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of the saints, and what is called holy water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the Masses. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 43. New York, 1824.)

On page 65 of the same volume Jones quotes various other authorities.

Claudius Seisselius, Archbishop of Turin, is pleased to say:

"Their heresy excepted, they generally live a purer life than the Christians. They never swear but by compulsion, and rarely take the name of God in vain. They fulfill their promises with punctuality, and living for the most part in poverty, they profess to preserve the apostolic life and doctrine. They also profess it to be their desire to overcome only by the simplicity of faith, by purity of conscience, and by integrity of life not by philosophical niceties, and theological subtleties. And he very candidly admits that, "In their lives and morals they are perfect, irreprehensible, and without reproach among men, addicting themselves with all their might to observe the commandments of God."

Lielenstenius, a Dominitian, speaking of the Waldenses of Bohemia, says: "I say that in morals and life they are good, true in words, unanimous in brotherly love, but their faith is incorrigible and vile as I have shown in ‘my Treatise.’" (History of the Waldenses, Vol. 2, p. 71. London, 1816.)

Again Jones says:

"Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of the Waldenses, inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that several henious crimes were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, who was confessor to his majesty, to make inquiry into this matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor signs of ornaments belonging to the Mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover any traces of the crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath-day, observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the Primitive church, and instructed their children in the articles of Christian faith, and the commandments of God. (History Christian Church, chap. 5, sec. 1. New York, 1824.)

Eccolampadius, Luther, Beza, Bullinger, De Vignaux, Chassagnon, Milton and others unite in bearing testimony to their uprightness and faithful adherence to the Word of God. Their observance of the Sabbath is also further attested as follows. Jones says:

"Because they would not observe saints' day they were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called Inzabbatati, or Insabbtathists. (History Christian Church chap. 5, sec. 1. New York, 1824.)

Benedict has the following:

"We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called Insabbathos, that is regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner supposes this name was given to them because they observed not the Romish festivals and rested from their ordinary occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did not regard the first day Sabbath. (Hist. Baptists, Vol. 2, p. 412. Ed. 1831.)

Not only must a Sabbatarian thus conclude, but all must agree; since no fact is better established than this, viz., that the Sunday was understood to be purely a church festival, one of the very things which they rejected. Blair's History of the Waldenses gives the following:

"Among the documents we have by the same peoples is an explanation of the ten commandments, dated by Boyer, 1120. It contains a compendium of Christian morality. Supreme love to God is enforced, and recourse to the influence of the planets and to sorcerers is condemned. The evil of worshiping God by images and idols is pointed out. A solemn oath to confirm anything doubtful is admitted, but profane swearing is forbidden. Observation of the Sabbath, by ceasing from worldly labors and from sin, by good works, and by promoting the edification of the soul, through prayer and hearing the word, is enjoined. Whatever is preached without Scripture proof, is accounted no better than fables. (Vol. 1, pp. 216, 220. Edinburg, 1833.)

From a historical work of the early part of the seventeenth century, entitled "Purchase's Pilgrimages," a sort of universal history, we learn that the Waldenses, in different localities,

"Keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fasts lawful. But on Easter, even, they have solemn services on Saturdays, eat flesh, and feast it bravely, like the Jews." (Vol. 2, p.1269. London, 1625.)

During the twelfth century they were known in some parts of France and Italy as Passaginians. Of these Mosheim has the following:

"Like the other sects already mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and discipline of the church of Rome; but they were, at the same time, distinguished by two religious tenets, which were peculiar to themselves. The first was a notion that the observation of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians, in consequence of which they circumcised their followers, abstain from those meats, the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. (Eccl. Hist., Vol. 3, p. 127. London, 1810.)

The charge of circumcision is made only by their enemies, the Romanists, and is not well sustained; but if it were true, they were not Jews, but, even as their enemies admit, were most blameless and worthy Christians. Concerning this charge, Benedict says:

"The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story, forced by their enemies, and probably arose in this way: Because they observed the seventh day, they were called, by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day; and if they were Jews they either did, or ought to, circumcise their followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies. But that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether improbable. (Hist. Baptists, Vol. 2, pp. 412-418. Ed. 1813.)

Another direct and important testimony is found in a "Treatise on the Sabbath," by Bishop White. Speaking of Sabbath-keeping as opposed to the practice of the church and as heretical, he says:

"It was thus condemned in the Nazarenes and in the Cerinthians, in the Ebionites and in the Hypsistarii. The ancient Synod of Laodicea made a decree against it, chap. 29; also Gregory the Great affirmed that it was Judaical. In St. Bernard's days it was condemned in the Petrobrussians. The same, likewise being revised in Luther's time, by Carlstadt, Sternberg, and by some secretaries among the Anabaptists, hath both then, and ever since, been condemned as Jewish and heretical. (P. S. London, 1635.)

The various and slanderous charges of corruption and religious excesses which certain Romish writers have made against the Waldenses are truthfully and fairly disposed of by Mr. W. S. Gully, in a work entitled "Valdenses," etc.:

"We may, therefore, consider that all the licentious tales which have been told at the expense of Valdo and his disciples, were the inventions of aftertimes. That individuals among them may have broached some extravagant and fanatical dogmas is not improbable, but we have no contemporary evidence in proof of their having departed from the strictest rules of moral and religious purity, or of their having been guilty of any other than the unpardonable offense of disobeying a spiritual authority which had become as tyrannical in the exercise of its power as it was remiss in the discharge of the sacred trusts committed to it. "The worst thing that can be said of them," said the inquisitor Reiner, whose business it was to accuse and hunt them down, "is that they detest the Romish church." (P. 57, Edinburg edition.

Allix reproduces the following testimony from high Roman Catholic authority:

"The Bishop of Meaux highly chargeth Beza for saving that the Waldenses time out of mind, had stiffly opposed the abuses of the Romish church, and that they held their doctrine from father to son ever since the year 120, as they had heard and received it from the elders and ancestors. He tells us that the first disciples of Waldo were content to allege for themselves, that they had separated themselves from the Romish church at the time when, under Pope Sylvester, she had accepted of temporal endowments and possessions. (History Churches of Piedmont, p. 177.)

Other testimony might be added, but the case does not demand it. It is clear that when the great apostacy began, which culminated in the establishment of the Papacy and the union of Church and State, there were those who refused to join with the apostate throng, or recognize its unscriptural doctrines; that they rejected the false dogma of church infallibility, and adhered to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as the only divine authority and rule of Christian living. As a result of this their lives were holier and purer than those of the apostate church. Being driven from the central arena of ecclesiastical and civil strife, they increased in strength and numbers until they came to be feared by their enemies, when they were eagerly hunted, relentlessly condemned, and slaughtered without mercy. In common with the other truths of the Bible, they obeyed the law of the Fourth Commandment and kept God's Sabbath. Their history forms a strong link in the unbroken chain of Sabbath-keepers which unites the years when the "Lord of the Sabbath" walked upon the earth with these years in which he is marshaling his forces for its final vindication. Traces of these Sabbath-keepers are still found in the Alps.