HAVING followed the Sabbath and the Sunday down to the close of the Dark Ages, in the Western, Romanized church, it is well to turn attention to the Eastern Church, which is even yet an unknown field to many readers.

In the changes of the first four centuries after Christ the Eastern Church, which was really the mother church, and the home of primitive Christianity (See Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. 1, p. 87, seq.) was left unaffected by the influences which started the strong current of empire westward by way of Rome. The Eastern world grew quiet rather than active, and passed into a gradual stagnation of thought, which its isolation from the westward currents served to perpetuate. (See Life and Times of St. Gregory, pp. 28, 49, London Edition, 1850.) No great revival of thought and theology in the Eastern church has yet taken place; Mohammedanism overwhelmed large portions of the field, perverting and preventing reform. In the 16th century the Papacy made some strong inroads, and by the fires and dungeons of the Inquisition and the blandishments of its emissaries turned many into its ranks. Protestant missions began at different points about the opening of the last century, but have not yet gone far enough to create any general awakening. For this reason little interest has been felt in the Eastern Church, and many have deemed that all of church history is involved in the Western branch, out of which our own ecclesiastical currents have come. On the contrary, a very large factor of Christian history is found in the Eastern Church, and especially so in regard to the ideas and practices of the Apostolic period. Dean Stanley notices this feature of the case as follows:

"I have said that the field of Eastern Christendom is a comparatively untrodden field. It is out of sight, and therefore out of mind. But there is a wise German proverb which tells us that it is good, from time to time, to be reminded that "Behind the mountains there are people to be found." Hinter dem Berge sind auch Leute. This, true of all large bodies of the human family, from whom we are separated by natural or intellectual divisions, is eminently true of the whole branch of the Christian family, that lies in the far East. Behind the mountains of our knowledge, of our civilization, of our activity, - behind the mountains, let us also say, of our ignorance, of our prejudice, of our contempt, is to be found nearly a third part of Christendom - one hundred millions of souls professing the Christian faith. Even if we enter no further into their history it is important to remember that they are there. No theory of the Christian church can be complete which does not take some account of their existence. . . .

But the Oriental church has claims to be considered, over and above its magnitude and its obscurity. By whatever name we call it – "Eastern," "Greek," or "Orthodox" - it carries us back, more than any other existing Christian institution, to the earliest scenes and times of the Christian religion. Even though the annals of the Oriental Patriarchates, are, for the most part, as regards the personal history of their occupants, a series of unmeaning names, the recollections awakened by the seats of their power are of the most august kind. Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, are centers of local interest, which none can see or study without emotion. And the churches which have sprung up in those regions, retain the ancient customs of the East, and of the primitive age of Christianity, long after they have died out everywhere else." (Hist. Eastern Church, pp. 88, 89. -New York, 1862.)

There are three groups of these Eastern Christians which we shall consider in the order of their nationality.

The following extract from the pen of Rey. Samuel Gobat is a befitting preface to what may be said concerning this branch of the church:

"It is generally admitted that Christianity was first introduced into Abyssinia about the year of our Lord 330, at the time when Athanasius was patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt. . . . It is from this date that the Abyssinian church assumes importance in the annals of ecclesiastical history. Through all succeeding ages, from that period to the present, she has received her superior ecclesiastic, or Abuna (literally our Father,) by the appointment of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and has continued with little interruption to maintain an intimate connection with the Coptic church of Egypt. . . . During the seventh century, when the Mohammedans of Arabia, spurred on by their religious enthusiasm, made an irruption into Egypt, and nearly crushed the church then existing in that country, the strong ties which had hitherto bound together the Eastern and Western churches were almost entirely sundered; and the Abyssinian church, suddenly becoming obscured, retired for several ages from the page of history. But ere she passed behind the cloud, she encountered a fearful struggle with the Arabians, a circumstance which evinced the reality of her vital energies. The Arabians were a crafty foe; skillful in device, and unscrupulous is to means, they employed alike strategem and force to induce her to submit to their sway, and to adopt the new religion. But, steadfast in her religious principles, the Abyssinian church remained unshaken as a rock amid the dashing billows. Covering her with his shield, God preserved her from the galling yoke of Mohammedan tyranny and permitted her to keep feebly burning the flame of Christian faith which she had received as a rich inheritance from her fathers." (Journal of three years' residence in Abyssinia, pp. 55-58. New York, 1850.)

From the seventh century to the opening of the sixteenth century, the church of Abyssinia was almost entirely shut out from the knowledge of Europe. During the seventeenth century repeated and violent attempts were made by the Jesuits, under the patronage of Portugal, to convert or subdue it. Artful intrigue and bloody war were alike unsuccessful, and the Jesuits were finally driven from the field. Touching the Sabbath as an issue in this struggle, Gobat speaks as follows:

"The flame of discord might easily have been extinguished, by the death of the Viceroy and that of the Abuna, had not the Emperor, regarding his late success as a decisive victory, issued a decree forbidding the people longer to celebrate the Jewish Sabbath, which, from time immemorial, they had been accustomed to hallow with the same strictness and solemnity as the Lord's-day." (Journal, etc., p. 83.)

Against this decree made by the Emperor under the prompting of the Pope's emissaries, the people protested with voice and sword, and the war raged anew. Mr. Gobat describes it thus:

"This unhappy war continued to rage with unabated fury, trembling in the balance between alternate successes and reverses till the Emperor felt the imperious necessity, in consideration of the interest of his throne, and the tranquility of his subjects, of requesting the patriarch to negotiate a treaty between the Pope and his royal highness, in which it should be stipulated, that the Abyssinian church might retain their ancient liturgy, celebrate the same festival days that they formerly observed, and enjoy the privilege of hallowing not less the Jewish Sabbath than the Lord's-day, in agreement with their uniform practice previous to the introduction of the Catholic faith." (Journal, etc., p. 93.)

But this was not enough. The people "claimed nothing less than the entire re-establishment of the ancient constitution of their church, and the total expulsion of the strangers from the kingdom." The Emperor was too much under the control of the Jesuit emissaries to grant this. Another bloody battle took place between his own troops and the protesting people. Though temporarily victorious in this encounter, he finally yielded:

"An imperial herald was accordingly sent through the streets of the capital, proclaiming, "Hear!" "Hear!" I formerly recommended to your acceptance the Catholic faith, because I believed it to be true: but as great numbers of my subjects have sacrificed their lives in defence of the religion of our fathers, I hereby certify that the free exercise of this religion shall be hereafter guaranteed to all. Your priests are hereby authorized to resume possession of their churches, and worship without molestation the God of their ancestors.

It is impossible, adequately to describe the demonstration of joy, evinced by the gushing tears of gratitude which accompanied this public declaration. Voices, echoing the praises of the emperor, floated on every breeze; the people threw from their houses the rosaries and chaplets of the Jesuits and burnt them in bonfires: satisfaction and delight were expressed in every countenance, gladness sparkled in every eye." (Journal, etc., p. 97, 98.)

Gibbon describes this incursion of the Portuguese at length, and tells the story of the demands made by the emissaries of the Pope in the following words:

"After the amusement of some unequal combats between the Jesuits and his illiterate priests, the Emperor declared himself a proselyte to the Synod of Chalcedon presuming that his clergy and people would embrace, without delay, the religion of their prince. The liberty of choice was succeeded by a law, which imposed, under pain of death, the belief of the two natures of Christ; the Abyssinians were enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath; and Segved, in the face of Europe and Africa, renounced his connection with the Alexandrian church." (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 4, chap. 47, p. 565. Harper's edition, 1883.)

Such strength of character and tenacity of purpose have ever marked this branch of the church. Incidental remarks, scattered through the work of Mr. Gobat, show that the Abyssinian church still keeps the Sabbath. Turning to other authority the reader will learn that:

"The Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule of Christian faith; inasmuch that they deny it to be in the power of a general council to oblige the people to believe anything as articles of faith without an express warrant from them. (Church History of Ethiopia, by Michael Geddes, p. 31. London, 1696.)

Tran-substantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread in the sacrament were what the Abyssinians abhorred. They deny purgatory, and know nothing of extreme unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday and Sunday. (Ibid, pp. 34, 35.)

This author, Geddes, gives a detailed account of their doctrines and practices, as given by one Zaga Zabo, the ambassador of the king of Ethiopia, at Lisbon, Spain, in 1534, as follows:

"We are bound by the Institutions of the Apostles to observe two days, to wit; the Sabbath and the Lord's-day, on which it is not lawful for us to do any work, no, not the least. On the Sabbath-day, because God, after he had finished the creation of the world, rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the Holy of Holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor and devotion seems to be plainly contrary to God's will and precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner than his word; and that especially, since Christ came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfill it. It is not, therefore, in imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy apostles, that we observe that day, the favor that was showed herein to the Jews, being transferred to us, Christians; so that, excepting Lent, we eat flesh every Saturday in the year. But in the kingdoms of Barnagaus, Tigre and Mahon, the Christians, according to ancient custom, do eat flesh on all Saturdays and Sundays, even in Lent. We do observe the Lord's-day after the manner of all other Christians in memory of Christ's resurrection." (Church History of Ethiopia, pp. 34, 35.)

More intelligent, Scriptural, and truly Christian views of the Sabbath could scarcely be given. Nor is there in all the account any hint of authority for the Sunday beyond tradition. The "History of the Eastern Church," by Arthur P. Stanley, informs the reader that:

"The church of Abyssinia, founded in the fourth century, by the church of Alexandria, furnishes the one example of a nation, savage, yet Christian, showing us, on the one hand, the force of the Christian faith in maintaining its superiority at all against such immense disadvantages, and, on the other band, the utmost amount of superstition with which a Christian church can be overlaid without perishing altogether. One lengthened communication it has hitherto received from the West - the mission of the Jesuits. With this exception, it has been left almost entirely to itself. Whatever there is of Jewish, or of old Egyptian, ritual preserved in the Coptic church is carried to excess in the Abyssinian. The likeness of the sacred ark, called the ark of Zion, is the center of Abyssinian devotion. To it gifts and prayers are offered. On it the sanctity of the whole church depends. Circumcision is not only practiced, as in the Coptic church, but is regarded as of equal necessity with baptism. There alone the Jewish Sabbath is still observed, as well as the Christian Sunday. They (with the exception of a small sect of the Seventh-day Baptists) are the only true Sabbatarians in Christendom." (P. 96, 97. New York, l862.)

Thus has the Abyssinian church stood firm on the fundamental truth of God's Word, and clung to his Sabbath through all the vicissitudes and cruel opposition of fifteen hundred years, as Christians too, and not as Judaizers, their own words being witnesses. It is not wonderful if they are to-day below the highest Christian standards of religious life; it is rather wonderful that they have not been wholly corrupted and overrun. When we remember the fierce attacks of Mohammedanism, the craft and cruelties of Romanism and the continued encroachments of surrounding Paganism, their present purity in doctrines and in life seems almost miraculous. Gobat testifies that, though he had "sometimes overheard conversation of a very improper and, indeed, debasing character," nevertheless he had "never witnessed so much lewdness or indecency of conduct in the capital of Abyssinia as is sometimes witnessed in those of Egypt, France or England." (Journal, etc., p. 459.)

Here is another example, similar to the one just presented. According to Stanley, this church was founded A.D. 302. It was the central Christian influence in Asia, and during its early history pushed its missionary enterprises even to China. In the fifth century a translation of the Bible was made into the Armenian tongue, which is so perfect as to have been called the "queen of versions." Their general character at the present time is described by Mr. Stanley as follows:

"The Armenians are by far the most powerful, and the most widely diffused, in the group of purely Oriental churches of which we are now speaking, and is such exercise a general influence over all of them. Their home is in the mountain tract that encircles Ararat. But, though distinct from all surrounding nations, they are yet scattered far and wide through the whole Levant, extending episcopate, and carrying on at the same time the chief trade of Asia. A race, a church, of merchant princes, they are in quietness, in wealth, in steadiness, the "Quakers" of the East, the "Jews," if one may so call them, of the Oriental church." (Hist. Eastern Church, pp. 92, 93.)

Rev. Lyman Coleman speaks of the observance of the Sabbath among the Armenians in the following casual manner:

"There are at least fourteen great feast-days in the course of the Year, on which all ordinary labor is suspended, and the day is observed more strictly than the Sabbath." (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pp. 561,562. Philadelphia, 1852.)

J.W. Massie thus describes them:

"The creed which these representatives of an ancient line of Christians cherished was not in conformity with Papal decrees, and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine articles of the Anglican Episcopacy. Separated from the Western world for one thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the Lateran; and their conformity with the faith and practices of the first ages, laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. "We are Christians, and not idolators," was their expressive reply, when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary. ….

La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity and primitive truth of their faith, since they came, and their bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from, the place where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. . . . Remote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous seats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the Eastern Piedmontes, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses prophesying in sack cloth through revolving centuries, though indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city they had once peopled." (Continental India, Vol. 2, pp. 116, 117, 120.)

Yeates informs us that Saturday "amongst them is a festival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church." (East India Church History, p. 134.)

But the following testimony from the pen of Rev. Claudius Buchannan presents the case still more clearly. He says:

"Next to the Jews, the Armenians will form the most generally useful body of Christian missionaries. They are to be found in every principal city of Asia; they are the general merchants of the East, and are in a state of constant motion from Canton to Constantinople. Their general character is that of a wealthy, industrious, and enterprising people. They are settled in all the principal places of India, where they arrived many centuries before the English. Wherever they colonize, they build churches, and observe the solemnities of the Christian religion in a decorous manner. . . . The history of the Armenian church is very interesting. Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mohammedan and Papal corruptions. The Pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented to a union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian Armenia maintained their independence, and they retain their ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship to this day. . . . The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history of which has come down to us. It has been allowed, by competent judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La Croze calls it the "Queen of Versions." This Bible has ever remained in the possession of the Armenian people, and many illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in their history. . . . The Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They acknowledge our Government in India, as they do that of the Sophi in Persia, and they are entitled to our regard. They have preserved the Bible in its purity, and their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian worship throughout our empire on the seventh day; and they have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgment on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be ranked by us with Jews, Mohammedans, and Hindoos?" (Researches in Asia, pp.207-209.)

The above is from a Boston edition of 1811. It will not be found in some, if any, of the later editions, from which it has been expunged, i.e., the passage relative to their observance of the Sabbath. A similar instance of corrupting the text of history is found in a late edition of Grant's History of the Nestorians, in which the word "Christian" is often thrown in before "Sabbath," thus leading the reader to suppose that Sunday is observed by the Nestorians, instead of the Sabbath.

Stanly states that:

The "Chaldean Christians," called by their opponents, "Nestorians," are the most remote of these old Separatists. Only the first two councils, those of Nicaea and Constantinople, have weight with them. The third - of Ephesus - already presents the stumbling block of the decree which condemned Nestorius. Living in the secluded fastnesses of Kurdistan, they represent the persecuted remnant of the ancient church of Central Asia. They trace their descent from the earliest of all Christian missions - the mission of Thaddaeus to Abgarus. . . . In their earlier days they sent forth missions on a scale exceeding those of any Western church, except the See of Rome in the sixth and sixteenth centuries, and for the time redeeming the Eastern church from the usual reproach of its negligence in propagating the gospel. Their chief assumed the splendid title of "Patriarch of Babylon," and their missionaries traversed the whole of Asia, as far eastward as China, and as far southward as Ceylon. (Hist. Eastern Church, pp. 91, 92.)

Coleman speaks of their Sabbath-keeping doctrines and practices as follows, quoting from their authorities:

"These eight festivals of our Lord we observe, and we have many holy days and the Sabbath-day, on which we do not labor. And on Wednesday and Friday we eat no flesh. The Sabbath-day we reckon far-far above the others. . . . The worship of the Sabbath does not differ materially from that of other days, except that an extra service for preaching the gospel is now extensively introduced under the influence of the missionaries. . . . Incense is burned in the churches of the Nestorians on the Sabbath and on feast days." (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, p. 573.)

Doctor Hessey quotes from Grant's History of the Nestorians as follows:

"The Sabbath, he says, is regarded with a sacredness among the mountain tribes, which I have seen among no other Christians in the East. I have repeatedly been told by Nestorians of the plain, that their brethren in the mountains would immediately kill a man for traveling or laboring on the Sabbath; and there is abundant reason to believe that this was formerly done, though it has ceased since the people have become acquainted with the practice of Christendom on this subject. While in the mountains, I made repeated inquiries concerning the observance of that remarkable statute of the Jews, which required that "whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath-day be shall surely be put to death;" and I was everywhere told that this statute had formerly been literally executed. Nor does there appear to be any motive for deception, since the practice is now disapproved by all. There are said to be Nestorians now in Tiyary who will not kindle a fire on the Sabbath to cook their food; but their cold winters oblige them to do it for necessary warmth." (Lectures on Sunday, pp. 309, 310.)

Such is the passage as quoted by Dr. Hessey, and referred to page 171 of the edition of "Grant's Nestorians," used by him. On pages 214, 215 of an edition of 1853, New York, the same passage occurs, except that before the second use of the word Sabbath the word "Christian" is inserted. This is such an evident inconsistency, and so out of harmony with the surroundings, that there can be no doubt that the edition quoted from by Dr. Hessey is the correct one. The sentence referring to the general desecration of "the Lord's-day on the plains" seems to have led Dr. Hessey to suppose that Grant meant to refer to Sunday in the whole paragraph. On the contrary, it seems to us that he was drawing a contrast between the loose observance of the Sunday on the plains and the strict observance of the Sabbath in the mountains, to emphasize his theory that the Nestorians were of Jewish origin, and that the purest stock clung tenaciously to the Sabbath, while those who were more Romanized yet held Sunday in light esteem. This latter fact appears throughout Dr. Grant's work.

Rev. Justin Perkins gives the following from an order of church service among the Nestorian Christians of the present day:

1. Alternate prayers for each day in two weeks.

2. Prayers for every day in the year except the Sabbath-day and festivals.

3. Prayers for the Lord's-day and festivals.

This makes a definite distinction between the Sabbath and the Lord's-day.

Mr. Perkins also reports the existence of a "Romish Legend of the Epistle on the Sabbath," -which custom demanded should be read every Sabbath, and which severely denounced Sabbath-breaking. He also states that reciting prayers constitutes a very considerable part of the daily church service of the Nestorians. The gospels are also read, particularly on the Sabbath and on festivals. (A Residence of Eight Years in Persia among the Nestorian Christians, p. 15. Andover, 1843.)

Neale, writing concerning the church calendar of the Armenians, says:

"The observation of Saturday is, as every one knows, a subject of bitter dispute between the Greeks and Latins the former observing it as a festival, the latter as a day of abstinence. That primitive authority is on the side of the Oriental church none I imagine, will deny. . . . Among both Greeks and Armenians, Saturday is viewed in the light of a second Sunday. The liturgy is then celebrated even when on other days of the week it is not; communions are more frequent, and, as we shall see, the Troparia, etc., as for a day of peculiar solemnity.

Under the head of "The Armenio-Gregorian Calendar," Neale adds:

"There is in truth no great difficulty in the Armenian fasts; at the same time there are great difficulties in the calendar arising from the Saturday commemorations, fixed as such, and the translation of festivals from a fast to a following Saturday. (History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. 2, pp. 731, 795.)

Another modern author testifies as follows:

"It must not be forgotten that throughout the East, Saturday is looked on as a second Sunday. The Armenians keep Saturday is a day in honor of Almighty God the Creator of all things, and Sunday in commemoration of the new creation, brought about by the resurrection of our blessed Lord, Jesus Christ." (The Armenian Church, by E.F.K. Fortescue, p. 53. London, 1872.)

Thus it is clear that with all that modern Papal and Protestant influence has been able to do, the Armenians down to this time keep the Sabbath for the reasons given in the Fourth Commandment.

It is also evident that these branches of the church which have never been subject to the Roman Catholicism have never ceased to observe the Sabbath. It is also shown by their own words that they do this as a Christian duty, after the example of him who is "Lord of the Sabbath." These branches of the church continue to do according to the words of Athanasius, when he said: "We meet upon the Sabbath, not because we are affected with Judaism, but to worship Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath;" for they were colonized about the time he wrote those words. Thus is another link added to the chain of proof in favor of the observance of the Sabbath as a Christian institution by the early church.

Another branch of the Eastern Church called Christians of St. Thomas, Syrian Christians, Christians of Malabar, etc., presents the same picture of Sabbath-keepers.

Early in the ministry of the apostles, St. Thomas is said to have preached the gospel in the south of Arabia, and then, crossing the Arabian Sea, into the southern part of India, where large numbers were converted to the gospel. Claudius Buchannan, D.D., in his "Christian Researches in Asia," says:

"The Syrian Christians inhabit the interior of Travancore and Malabar, in the south of India, and have been settled there from the early ages of Christianity. The first notices of this ancient people in recent times are to be found in the Portuguese histories. When Vasco de Gama arrived at Cochin, on the coast of Malabar, in the year 1503, he saw the sceptre of the Christian king; for the Syrian Christians had formerly regal power in Malay-ala. The name or title of their last king was Belliarte; and he dying without issue, the dominion devolved on the king of Cochin and Diamper.

When the Portuguese arrived, they were agreeably surprised to find upwards of a hundred Christian churches on the coast of Malabar. But when they became acquainted with the purity and simplicity of their worship, they were offended. "These churches," said the Portuguese, "belong to the pope." "Who is the pope?" said the natives, "we never heard of him." The European priests were yet more alarmed when they found that these Hindoo Christians maintained the order and discipline of a regular church under Episcopal jurisdiction; and that for 1,300 years past they had enjoyed a succession of bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch. "We," said they," are of the true faith, whatever you from the west may be; for we come from the place where the followers of Christ were first called Christians."

"The doctrines of the Syrian Christians are few in number, but pure, and agree in essential points with those of the church of England, so that although the body of the church appears to be ignorant, and formal, and dead, there are individuals who are alive to righteousness, who are distinguished from the rest by their purity of life, and are some times censured for too rigid a piety. . . .

All must confess that it was Christ's church in the midst of a heathen land. The Church of England would be happy to promote its welfare, to revive its spirit, and to use it as a means of future good in the midst of her own empire.

I took occasion to observe that there were some rites and practices in the Syrian church, which our church might consider objectionable or nugatory. (pp. 85, 86. 99, 103, 104. Armstrong, Boston, 1811.)

The efforts of the emissaries of the Papal church to reduce these primitive Syrian Christians to the Romish faith were carried forward through the Inquisition. Dellon, one of the victims of that bloody tribunal, who escaped, wrote an account of its workings, and of the charges upon which men were tried, in which we find Sabbath-keeping a prominent one. Witness the following from his book. His arrest occurred in 1673:

"Amongst the crimes cognizable in the Inquisition there are some which may be committed by one person alone, as blasphemy, impiety, etc., and others again which require several, as assisting at the Jewish Sabbath.

In chapter 20, on "The injustice committed in the Inquisition toward those accused of Judaism," he says:

"But when the period of the Auto da Fe approaches, the Proctor waits upon him and declares, that be is charged by a great number of witnesses, of having Judaized; which means, having conformed to the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, such as not eating pork, hare, fish without scales, etc., of having attended the solemnization of the Sabbath, having eaten the Paschal Lamb, etc. He is then conjured "by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ," (for such are the terms affected to be used in this Holy House,) voluntarily to confess his crimes, as the sole means of saving his life; and the Holy Office desires, if possible, to prevent his losing it. The innocent man persists in denying what be is urged to confess; he is, in consequence, condemned as "convicto negativo," (convicted, but confessing not,) to be delivered over to the secular power, to be punished according to law, that is to be burnt.

He, perhaps, then concludes, that he shall be discharged; but he has other things to perform, which are infinitely less easy than what he has hitherto done; for the Inquisitors, by degrees, begin to urge him in this way – "If thou hast observed the law of Moses, and assembled on the Sabbath-day as thou sayest, and thy accusers have seen thee there, as appears to have been the case; to convince us of the sincerity of thy repentance, tell us who are thine accusers, and those who have been with thee at these assemblies."" (Dellon's Account of the Inquisition at Goa, translated from the French-Paris, 1684. Hull, England, 1812, pp. 83,56,58.

There can be no doubt that the charge of "Judaism" as opposed to Christianity was false. The Inquisition was never noted for the justness nor the accuracy of its charges. But the fact that assembling on the Sabbath was a prominent crime in the eyes of the Inquisitors shows that these Christians, like their compeers, the Abyssinians and Armenians, kept the Sabbath as they received it from the apostles.

REFORMS center around one representative idea. Great reforms usually begin by reaction at the point were great evils become too dangerous and dominant. Each stage of the reformation must come in its own order. Error grows tyrannical with age. It imposes bitter experiences before men rise up in determined rebellion. The Lutheran movement began when the burden of "church authority" became intolerable. Fainting humanity longed to come to God for rest and salvation, without the intervention of church and priest and pope. The system of indulgences was the lowest point in the Papal apostacy. Here Luther made the attack. Thus salvation through faith, without the intervention of the church or the sanction of its authority, became the central idea in the first stage of the reformatory movement. Under such circumstances, outside issues were almost forgotten, and the battle raged around the question of man's right to read God's Word and to believe in Christ without ecclesiastical intervention.

Aside from these general principles of reform there were special reasons why the Sabbath question did not find a prominent place in the earliest stage of the Reformation. The theory which had been held so long, that the Sabbath was Jewish only, was accepted by the Continental Reformers. Keeping this fact in view, the reader will not wonder at what follows. Doctor Hessey, speaking of Luther's Larger Catechism, says:

"The comment which it offers on the fourth commandment begins by explaining the word Sabbath, with reference to its Hebrew meaning to be a "Feiertag, dies feriandi seu vacandi a labore."

It then goes on to speak thus:

"This precept, so far as its outward and carnal meaning is concerned does not apply to us Christians. The Sabbath is an outward thing, like the other ordinances of the Old Testament which were bound to certain modes and persons and times and places, but are now all of them, made free by Christ. But still, in order that we may gather for simple people some Christian meaning from this precept, understand what God requires of us therein, in the following manner. We celebrate festivals, not for the sake of intelligent and instructed Christians (for these have no need of them), but first even for the sake of the body. Nature herself teaches the lesson that the working classes, servants and maids, are to be considered; they have spent the whole week in laborious employment, and require a day on which they may take breath from their work and refresh themselves and restore their exhausted frames by repose. The second reason, and indeed the chief one, is this; that on such a day of rest (an dem solchem Ruhetage -die Sabbati), leisure and time may be obtained for divine worship (a duty for which, otherwise, no opportunity could be found); so that we may come together to hear and handle the Word of God, and further that we may glorify God with hymns and psalms, with songs and prayers.

It is, however, to be observed, that with us, this is not so tied to certain times, in the way it was with the Jews, as that this or that day in particular should be ordered or enjoined for it. No day is better or more excellent than another. These duties ought to be performed every day. But the majority of mankind are so cumbered with business that they could not be present at such assemblies. Some one day, therefore at least, must be selected in each week, for attention to these matters. And seeing that those who preceded us (majores nostri) chose the Lord's-day (Sonntag -dies dominica) for them, this harmless and admitted custom must not be readily changed; our objects in retaining it are, the securing of unanimity and consent of arrangement, and the avoidance of the general confusion which would result from individual and unnecessary innovation. (Sunday, Lecture 6, pp. 167, 168.)

The following, from other sources, shows Luther's position yet more clearly:

"As for the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for its observance; and if we do so, the reason ought to be, not because Moses commanded it, but because nature likewise teaches us to give ourselves, from time to time, a day's rest, in order that man and beast may recruit their strength, and that we may go and hear the Word of God preached. (Michelet's Life of Luther, Hazlitt's Translation, p. 271. London, 1884.)

Again Luther says:

"The gospel regardeth neither Sabbath nor holidays, because they endured but for a time, and were ordained for the sake of preaching, to the end that God's Word might be tended and taught." (Luther's Table Talk, Bell's Translation, chap. 31, p. 357 London, 1652.)

And again:

"Keep the Sabbath holy, for its use both of body and soul; but if anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake; if anywhere anyone sets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on the Christian spirit of liberty. (Quoted in Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century. p. 20. London, 1846.)

And again:

"According to Luther the Mosaic law was imposed on the Jews alone, and even upon them ceased to be obligatory at the coming of Christ. The ten commandments, says he: "do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews. If a preacher wishes to force you back to Moses, ask him whether you were brought by Moses out of Egypt. If he says no, then say: How then does Moses concern me, since he speaks to the people that have been brought out of Egypt? In the New Testament Moses comes to an end, and his laws lose their force. He must bow in the presence of Christ. We must stop the mouths of the factious spirits who say: Thus says Moses. Then do you reply: Moses does not concern us. If I accept Moses in one commandment, I must accept the whole Moses. In that case I should be obliged to be circumcised, and to wash my clothes in a Jewish manner, and to eat and drink and dress, and do everything of this kind, in the manner in which the Jews are commanded to do them in the law.

Therefore we will not obey Moses, or accept him. Moses died and his government terminated when Christ came. (Luther on the Ten Commandments, quoted by Hengstenberg, On the Lord's-day, p. 62.)

Again Luther says:

"The words of the Scripture prove clearly to us that the ten commandments do not affect us; for God has not brought us out of Egypt, but only the Jews. We are willing to take Moses as a teacher, but not as our lawgiver, except when he agrees with the New Testament and with the law of nature. . . . No single point in Moses binds us. . . . Leave Moses and his people alone. I listen to the word which concerns me. We have the gospel. (Instructions to Christians. How to make use of Moses, quoted by Hengstenberg, p. 61. This treatise may be found in the Latin of Luther's Works 111, 68, Jena, 1603. See also Cox Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, pp. 383, 384.)

The "Augsburg Confession," which was drawn up by Melancthon, and is still recognized as the standard of faith in the Lutheran church, is equally plain in its unqualified no-Sabbathism. It speaks as follows:

"Concerning ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, we teach that those may be kept and performed which can be attended to without sin, and which promote peace and good order in the church, such is certainly holy days, festivals, etc. Concerning matters of this kind, however, caution should be observed, lest the consciences of men be burdened, as though such observances were necessary to salvation. (Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Art. 15. New York, 1850.)

The twenty-eighth article, treating of the power of the church, takes up the Sabbath question directly and says, speaking of the traditions of the Romish church:

"Likewise the authors of traditions act contrary to the command of God, when they place sin in meats, days and such like things; and burden the church with the bondage of the law; as if tbere ought to be among Christians, for the meriting of righteousness, a worship of God like unto that of which we read in Leviticus, in ordering whereof God committed, as they say, to the apostles and bishops. And the pontiffs appear to be deceived by the example of Moses's law; hence those burdens, that certain meats defile and pollute the conscience, and that it is deadly sin to do any manner of work on the holy days and on Sunday, or to leave unsaid the Horae Septa; that fastings deserve remission of sins, and that they are necessary to the righteousness of the New Testament; that sin, in a case reserved, cannot be forgiven without the authority of the reserver, where, indeed, the canons themselves speak only of the reservation of the canonical penalty, and not of the reservation of sin. From whence, and of whom, have the bishops the power and authority to impose these traditions upon the church, to wound consciences? For St. Peter forbids the yoke to be laid upon the disciples' necks. And St. Paul to the Corinthians says, that the power was given them to improve, and not to destroy. Why then do they multiply sins by such precepts? We have clear texts of Divine Writ, forbidding the institution of such precepts, thinking thereby to merit grace, or as if the same were necessary to salvation. . . . For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be kept still in the churches, which is, that the bondage of the law is not necessary to justification, as it is written, "Be not again entangled in the yoke of bondage." The pre-eminence of the gospel must still be retained, which declares that we obtain remission of sins and justification freely by faith in Christ. and not for certain observations or rites devised by men.

What shall we think, then, of the Lord's-day, and church ordinances and ceremonies? To this our learned men respond, that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the church; not that we should purchase by them remission of sins, or that we can satisfy for sins, or that consciences are bound to judge them necessary, or to think that they sin who, without offending others, break them. So Paul ordains, that in the congregation women should cover their heads, and that interpreters and teachers be heard in order in the church. It is convenient that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of charity and tranquility, that so one should not offend another, that all things may be done in the churches in order, and without tumult; but yet, so that the conscience be not charged, as to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin who, without hurting others, break them; as that no one should say that a woman sins who goeth abroad bareheaded, offending none.

Even such is the observation of the Lord's-day, of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holy days and rites. For they that judge that, by the authority of the church, the observing of Sunday instead of the Sabbath-day, was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. The Scripture permits and grants, that the keeping of the Sabbath-day is now free; for it teaches that the ceremonies of Moses's law, since the revelation of the gospel, are not necessary. And yet, because it was needful to ordain a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the church did appoint Sunday, which day, as it appears, pleased them rather than the Sabbath-day, even for this cause, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping and observance of either Saturday, or of any other day is not necessary.

There are wonderful disputations concerning the changing of the law - the ceremonies of the new law - the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from a false persuasion and belief of men, who thought that there must needs be in the church an honoring of God, like the Levitical law, and that Christ committed to the apostles and bishops authority to invent and find out ceremonies necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the church when the righteousness of faith was not clearly taught. Some dispute that the keeping of the Sunday is not fully, but only in a certain manner, the ordinance of God, They prescribe of holy days, how far it is lawful to work. Such manner of disputations, whatever else they be, are but snares of consciences." (Unaltered Augsburg Confession, pp. 172-175. New York, 1850.)

Under such theories, but one practical result could come, viz., the loss of all regard for any day as sacred. The fruitage of these theories is fully seen in the Continental Sunday in Germany and elsewhere in Europe at the present time.

ZWINGLE was the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland. John Calvin came to his assistance, and became the leading spirit in the work, in Switzerland and in France. Calvin's exacting nature led him to demand greater uniformity in practice than was sought in Germany. But his theories concerning Sunday were the same as those promulgated by Luther, as will be seen below. Theophilus Brabourne, an English author who wrote a century after Zwingle, quotes him in the following words:

"The Sabbath, in so far forth as it is ceremonial, is abolished; and, therefore, now we are not tied or bound to any certain times. (On the Sabbath, p. 277. London, 1630.)

Heylyn corroborates the above as follows:

"Zwinglius avoweth it to be lawful, on the Lord's-day, after the end of the divine service, for any man to follow and pursue his labors, as commonly we do, saith he, in time of harvest. (Hist. of the Sab., Part 2, chap. 6, sec. 9.)

Dr. Hessey quotes Zwingle as follows:

"Now hear, my Palentinus, how the Sabbath is rendered ceremonial. If we would have the Lord's-day so bound to time that it shall be wickedness, in aliud tempus transferre, to transfer it to another time, in which resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the Word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so solicitously observed, would obtrude on us a ceremony, for we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us, that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity urges, (as is usual to be done, especially in harvest time), to transfer the solemnity and rest of the Lord's-day or Sabbath to some other day; or on the Lord's-day itself, after finishing of the holy things, to follow their labors, though not without great necessity. Libel ad Valentin, Gentil. (Sunday, p. 352, Note 387.)

Zwingle's notes on Col. 2: 16, say:

"The spirit of the law is its very marrow - to love God supremely, and our neighbor also. To bear God's Word, to meditate on his bounties, to give thanks for the same, and to assemble for public worship - all this belongs to the spirit of the law which likewise regards the love of our neighbor, in requiring that our servants and workmen be permitted to rest from their toil. For although we are not bound to a certain time, we are bound to set forth the glory of God to bear his Word, to celebrate his praise, and to exercise charity toward our neighbors. (Work's, Vol. 4, p. 515.)

The prominence of Calvin in the work of the Reformation, and the extent of his influence in the Reformed churches down to the present time, lend interest to his opinions on all questions. His views relative to the Sabbath question are fully expressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, from which we give somewhat copious extracts. Writing of the Fourth Commandment and of the Sabbath, he says:

"The end of this precept is, that, being dead to our own affections and works, we should meditate on the kingdom of God, and be exercised in that meditation in the observance of his institutions. But, as it has an aspect peculiar and distinct from the others, it requires a little different kind of exposition. The fathers frequently call it a shadowy commandment, because it contains the external observance of the day, which was abolished with the rest of the figures at the advent of Christ. And there is much truth in their observation; but it reaches only half of the subject. Wherefore it is necessary to seek further for an exposition, and to consider three causes, on which I think I have observed this commandment to rest. For it was the design of the heavenly Lawgiver, under the rest of the seventh day, to give the people of Israel a figure of the spiritual rest, by which the faithful ought to refrain from their own works, in order to leave God to work within them. His design was, secondly, that there should be a stated day, on which they might assemble together to hear the law and perform the ceremonies, or at least which they might especially devote to meditations on his works; that by this recollection they might be led to the exercises of piety. Thirdly, he thought it right that servants, and persons living under the jurisdiction of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, that they might enjoy some remission from their labor.

* * * * * * * * *

This perpetual cessation was represented to the Jews by the observance of one day in seven, which the Lord, in order that it might be the more religiously kept, recommended by his own example. For it is no small stimulus to any action, for a man to know that be is imitating his Creator. If any one inquire after a hidden signification in the septenary number, it is probable, that because in Scripture it is the number of perfection, it is here selected to denote perpetual duration. This is confirmed also by the circumstance, that Moses, with that day in which he narrates that the Lord rested from his works, concludes his description of the succession of days and nights. We may also adduce another probable conjecture respecting this number - that the Lord intended to signify that the Sabbath would never be completed until the arrival of the last day. For in it we begin that blessed rest, in which we make new advances from day to day. But because we are still engaged in a perpetual warfare with the flesh, it will not be consummated before the completion of that prediction of Isaiah, "It shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord;" that is, when God shall be "all in all." The Lord may be considered, therefore, as having delineated to his people, in the seventh day, the future perfection of his Sabbath in the last day, that, by a continual meditation on the Sabbath during their whole life, they might be aspiring towards this perfection.

* * * * * * * * * *

As the two latter causes, however, ought not to be numbered among the ancient shadows, but are equally suitable to all ages - though the Sabbath is abrogated, yet it is still customary among us to assemble on stated days for hearing the Word, for breaking the mystic bread, and for public prayers; and also to allow servants and laborers a remission from their labor. That in commanding the Sabbath, the Lord had regard to both these things, cannot be doubted. The first is abundantly confirmed even by the practice of the Jews. The second is proved by Moses, in Deuteronomy, in these words: "That thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt." Also in Exodus: "That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed." Who can deny that both these things are is proper for us as for the Jews ? Assemblies of the church are enjoined in the Divine Word, and the necessity of them is sufficiently known even from the experience of life. Unless there be stated days appointed for them, how can they be held?

According to the direction of the Apostle, "all things are to be done decently and in order" among us. But so far is it from being possible to preserve order and decorum without this regulation, that, if it were abolished, the church would be in imminent danger of immediate convulsion and ruin. But if we feel the same necessity, to relieve which the Lord enjoined the Sabbath upon the Jews, let no one plead that it does not belong to us. For our most provident and indulgent Father has been no less attentive to provide for our necessity than for that of the Jews. But why, it may be asked, do we not rather assemble on every day, that so all distinction of days may he removed? I sincerely wish that this were practiced; and truly spiritual wisdom would be well worthy of some portion of time being daily allotted to it; but if the infirmity of many persons will not admit of daily assemblies, and charity does not permit us to require more of them, why should we not obey the rule which we have imposed upon us by the will of God?

I am obliged to be rather more diffuse on this point because, in the present age, some unquiet spirits have been raising noisy contentions respecting the Lord's-day. They complain that Christians are tinctured with Judaism, because they retain any observance of days. But I reply, that the Lord's-day is not observed by us upon the principles of Judaism; because in this respect the difference between us and the Jews is very great. For we celebrate it not with scrupulous rigor, as a ceremony which we conceive to be a figure of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a remedy necessary to the preservation of order in the church.

However, the ancients have, not without sufficient reason substituted what we call the Lord's-day in the room of the Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient Sabbath, the same day which put an end to the shadows admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number, that I would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will I condemn those churches, which have other solemn days for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from superstition. And this will be the case, if they be only designed for the observance of discipline and well regulated order. Let us sum up the whole in the following manner: As the truth was delivered to the Jews under a figure, so it is given to us without any shadows; first, in order that during our whole life we should meditate on a perpetual rest from our works, that the Lord may operate within us by his Spirit; secondly, that every man, whenever he has leisure, should diligently exercise himself in private in pious reflections on the works of God, and also that we should at the same time observe the legitimate order of the church, appointed for the hearing of the Word, for the administration of the sacraments, and for public prayer thirdly, that we should not unkindly oppress those who are subject to us. Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the ceremonial part of this commandment, which, according to them, is the appointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the same opinion of the holiness of a day; for on this principle, the same mysterious signification would still be attributed to particular days, which they formerly obtained among the Jews. . . . But the principal thing to be remembered is the general doctrine, that lest religion decay or languish among us, sacred assemblies ought diligently to be held, and that we ought to use those external means which are adapted to support the worship of God. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, chap. 8, pp. 354-359.)

In his commentary on Galatians, Calvin gives full expression to the idea that no particular day is to be regarded as sacred. He says:

"Of what nature, then, was the observation which Paul reproves. It was that which would bind the conscience by religious considerations, as if it were necessary to the worship of God, and which, as he expresses it in the Epistle to the Romans, would make a distinction between one day and another. (Rom. 14:5.) When certain days are represented as holy in themselves, when one day is distinguished from another on religious grounds, when holy days are reckoned a part of divine worship, then days are improperly observed. The Jewish Sabbath, new moons and other festivals were earnestly pressed by the false apostles, because they had been appointed by the law. When we, in the present age, make a distinction of days, we do not represent them as necessary, and thus lay a snare for the conscience. We do not reckon one day to be more holy than another; we do not make days to be the same thing with religion and the worship of God, but merely attend to the preservation of order and harmony. The observance of days among us is a free service and devoid of all superstition. (Calvin's Com. on Gal. 4:10, Pringle's Trans.)

In Calvin's sermons on the Book of Deuteronomy, sermon 34, we have the following:

"Yea, and we have to mark also, that it is not enough for us to think upon God and his works upon the Lord's-day every man by himself; but that we must meet together upon some certain day to make open confession of our faith. Indeed this ought to be done every day, as I have said afore. But yet in respect of men's rawness, and by reason of their slothfulness, it is necessary to have one special day dedicated wholly thereunto. It is true that we be not bound to the seventh day, neither do we (indeed) keep the same day that was appointed to the Jews, for that was Saturday. But to the intent to show the liberty of Christians, the day was changed because Jesus Christ in his resurrection did set us free from the bondage of the law, and canceled the obligation thereof. That was the cause why the day was shifted. But yet we must observe the same order of having some day in the week, be it one or be it two, for that is left to the free choice of Christians. (Sermons, pp. 204, 205 of Golding's Trans.)

Again he says:

"But some one will say, "We still keep up some observance of days. I answer that we do not by any means observe days as though there were any sacredness in holy days, and as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but respect is paid to order and Government, not to days." (Com. on Col. 2:16.)

Hopkins bears the following testimony:

"Calvin took low ground upon this subject, speaking of the Sabbath as "abrogated," to be used by Christians only as a remedy necessary for the preservation of order in the church, for hearing the Word, for breaking the mystic bread, for public prayers, and to let servants and laborers rest. The pernicious influence of his views still infects the Continental church. . . . It was the custom with the Protestant churches on the Continent - thanks in part to Calvin - for the people, after divine service, to refresh themselves with bowling, walking abroad, and other innocent recreations." (Hist. of the Puritans. Vol. 3. p. 586. Boston, 1859.)

But lest some one should charge us with not fully representing Calvin, we add his comments upon those specific portions of the New Testament which are claimed in support of the "Puritan" theory of a "change of day," and of Sunday as sacred on New Testament authority. In commenting on the time of Christ's resurrection, and the harmony of the evangelists on that point, he says nothing of the "change of day," or the commemorating of the day because of the resurrection. In his comments on John 20, he makes no claim that "after eight days" was the next Sunday. On Acts 2:1, in treating of Pentecost, he makes no claim that it fell on the first day of the week. On Acts 20:7, the meeting at Troas, he speaks with definiteness, but in a way which shows that he found in it no support for Sunday-observance. He says:

"Either he doth mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable, for this cause, that the day was more fit for an assembly, according to custom.

For to what end is there mention of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of time? Also it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place. Therefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodus for them all. (Commentaries, Latin Edition of 1667. Acts 20:7.)

On 1 Cor. 16:2, Calvin is still more plainly committed against the idea that Sunday had any recognition in the New Testament. The following are his words:

"On one of the Sabbaths. The end is this that they might have their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to wait until he came, as anything that is done suddenly, and in a bustle, is not well done, but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one's ability might enable - that is on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies.

For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience; and farther, that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom, that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean Lord's-day, for the probability is, that the apostles, at the beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they set aside that day and substituted another. Now the Lord's-day was made choice of chiefly because our Lord's resurrection put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts us in mind of our Christian liberty." (Commentaries, 1 Cor. 16.)

The foregoing comments show that the idea of a sacred Sunday was no part of Calvin's personal creed, however much the Puritan notions became associated with the Calvinistic theology at a later day. The Puritan Sunday traveled northward from England, and not southward from Scotland. Dr. Hessey gives credence to the tradition that Calvin carried out his ideas of liberty in his personal practices. He says:

"At Geneva a tradition exists, that when John Knox visited Calvin on a Sunday, he found his austere coadjutor bowling on a green. At this day, and in that place, a Calvinist preacher, after his Sunday sermons, will take his seat at the card table." (Bampton Lectures, p. 366, note 449. As authority for this tradition, and the accompanying statement, Hessey gives Disraeli - Charles the First, Vol. 2, p.16; also Strypes Life of Bp. Aylmer, c. xi.)

Such were the views of the great lights in the Continental Reformation, Luther and Calvin. The lesser lights followed in the same paths. Bullinger and Beza, upon whom Calvin's mantle fell, were true to the teachings of their predecessor. In his commentary upon Rev. 1:10, Bullinger asserts that "Christian churches entertained the Lord's-day, not upon any commandment from God, but upon their free choice." In his sermons he discusses the question at length. In that discussion he says:

"Now, as there ought to be an appointed place, so likewise there must be a prescribed time, for the outward exercise of religion, and so consequently, an holy rest. They of the primitive church, therefore, did change the Sabbath-day, lest, peradventure they should have seemed to have imitated the Jews, and still to have retained their order and ceremonies; and made their assemblies and holy restings to be on the first day of sabbaths, which John calleth Sunday or the Lord's-day, because of the Lord's glorious resurrection upon that day. And although we do not in any part of the Apostles' writings find any mention made that this Sunday was commanded us to be kept holy; yet, for because, in this fourth precept of the first table we are commanded to have a care of religion and the exercising of outward godliness, it would be against all godliness and Christian charity, if we should deny to sanctify the Sunday, especially, since the outward worship of God cannot consist without an appointed time and space of holy rest.

I suppose also, that we ought to think the same of those few feasts and holy days, which we keep holy to Christ our Lord, in memory of his nativity or incarnation, of his circumcision, of his passion, of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ our Lord into heaven, and of his sending of the Holy Ghost upon his disciples. For Christian liberty is not a licentious power and dissolving of godly ecclesiastical ordinances, which advance and set forward the glory of God and love of our neighbor. But for because the Lord will have holy days to be solemnized and kept to himself alone, I do not therefore like of the festival days that are held in honor of any creatures. This glory and worship is due to God alone. Paul saith: "I would not that any man should judge you in part of an holy day, or of the sabbaths, which are shadow of things to come." And again: "Ye observe days and months and years and times; I fear lest I have labored in you in vain." And therefore we at this day, that are in the church of Christ, have nothing to do with the Jewish observation; we have only to wish and endeavor to have the Christian observation and exercise of Christian religion to be freely kept and observed. (Sermons Second Decade, pp. 259 - 261.)

Beza speaks as follows:

"Concerning the fourth commandment, I suppose it is agreed upon among Christians, that the same is abrogated, so far as it was ceremonial, but not in such a manner as that the Lord's-day ought to be observed according to the manner of the Jewish Sabbath, etc.; that Christians upon that day should abstain from their daily labors, except only such time of the day is was appointed for public assemblies. This was neither commanded in the Apostles' days, nor yet observed, until Christian Emperors enjoined the same to the end that people might not be abstracted from holy meditations. Neither in those days was the same precisely or strictly observed." (Homily 30, on the Songs of Solomon.)

Heylyn speaks of Beza's views in these words:

"Beza his [Calvin's] scholar and Achates' sings the selfsame song, that howsoever the assemblies of the Lord's-day were of apostolic and divine tradition, yet so that there was no cessation from work required, as was observed among the Jews. For that, saith he, had not so much abolished Judaism, as put it off and changed it to another day. And he then adds that this cessation was first brought in by Constantine and afterwards confirmed with more and more restraints, by the following Emperors, by means of which it came to pass, that that which was first done for a good intent, viz., that men being free from their worldly business, might wholly give themselves to hearing of the Word of God, degenerated at last into downright Judaism. (History Sabbath, part 2, chap. 6, see. 5.)

Heylyn goes on, speaking of others, as follows:

"So for the Lutheran churches, Chemnitz charges the Romanists with superstition, because they taught the people that the holy days, considered only in themselves, had a native sanctity. And howsoever for his part, he thinks it requisite that men should be restrained from all such works as may be any hindrance to the sanctifying of the day, yet he accounts it but a part of the Jewish leaven so scrupulously to prohibit such external actions which are at all no hindrance to God's public service, and man's Sabbath duties. Bucer goes further yet, and doth not only call it a superstition, but an apostasy from Christ, to think that working on the Lord's-day, in itself considered, is a sinful thing. He adds that he "did very well approve of the Lord's-day meetings, if men were once dispossessed of the opinions that the day was necessary to be kept, that it was holier in itself than the other days, and that to work upon that day was in itself sinful." Lastly, the churches of the Switzers profess, in their confession – c. 24 - that, in the keeping of the Lord's-day, they give not the least hint to any Jewish superstitions, "for neither," as they said, "do we conceive one day to be more holy than another, or think that rest from labor, in itself considered, is any way pleasing unto God." …. Bucer resolves the point more clearly, and saith, that in the apostles' times "the Lord's-day, by the common consent of Christian people, was dedicated unto public rest, and the assemblies of the church." And Peter Martyr, upon a question being asked, why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian church, makes answer, "that upon that day, and all the rest, we ought to rest from our own works, the works of sin." That this was rather chosen than that, for God's public service, "that," saith he, "Christ left totally unto the liberty of the church, to do therein what should seem most expedient, and that the church did very well, in that she did prefer the memory of the resurrection before the memory of the creation." ….. Gaulter speaking more generally (says) that "the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath-day, as being then most famous and so most in use. But when the churches were augmented, the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses." (Hist. Sab., part 2, chap. 6, sees. 5,7.)

The character of the reformatory movement in France was so nearly allied to that in Switzerland that little need be said concerning it. It met with but slight success until after the reformed party had become established in Switzerland, when Calvin, who had been exiled from his native France, returned, and became, as he had been in Switzerland, the master spirit of the French Reformation. The first Protestant congregation was formed in Paris, in 1555, and the first Synod held there in 1559. In 1571, the General Synod at La Rochelle adopted the Gallican Confession and the Calvinistic system of Government and discipline. Thus the same view obtained as in Switzerland; and the French church was characterized by the same ideas of Christian liberty.

We are therefore ready to sum up the case regarding the Reformation on the Continent. We cannot do this better than by quoting from Doctor Hessey:

"And so it was in reference to the Lord's-day. With one blow, as it were, and with one consent, the Continental Reformers rejected the legal or Jewish title which had been set up for it, the more than Jewish ceremonies and restrictions by which, in theory it least, it had been encumbered; the army of holy days, of obligation by which it had been surrounded. But they did more. They left standing no sanction for the day itself, which could commend itself powerfully to men's consciences. They did not perceive that, through the Apostles, it was of the Lord's founding. They swept away, together with the upper works, which were not the Lord's, the under works which were the Lord's. And when they discovered that men, that human nature, in fact, could not do without it, they adopted the day indeed, but with this reservation, expressed or implied, "The Lord's-day is to be placed in the category of ordinances, which, being matters of indifference, any particular or National Church hath authority to ordain, change, or abolish; or, which was worse still, they made it a purely civil institution, dependent, if not for its origin, at least for its continuance, upon the secular power." (Sunday, Lect. 6, pp. 165, 166.)

On page 172, Hessey concludes in these words:

"We are now, I think, in a condition to sum up the views of the Continental Reformers of the sixteenth century on the subject before us. Sabbatarians, indeed, those eminent men were not. They are utterly opposed to the literal application of the fourth commandment to the circumstances of Christians. They scarcely touch upon that commandment, except to show that the Sabbath has passed away. . . . They feel it necessary to defend their practice on grounds, sometimes perhaps of apostolic example, (with the proviso, however, that such example is to be taken only for what it is worth,) but generally, of antiquity, of the church's will, of the church's wisdom, of considerations of expediency, of regard to the weaker brethren, and sometimes on lower grounds still. And neither the day itself, nor the interval at which it recurs, is of obligation. Our Lord's resurrection is made a decent excuse for the day, rather than the original reason, or one of the original reasons on its institution. We miss also in their writings that close connection of the Lord's day with the Lord's Supper, which was prominently brought forward in early times…. And it seems to me more than probable that the want of a deeper sanction for the observance of the Lord's-day than their teachers supplied, led the members both of the Protestant and of the Reformed communions into a practical disregard of it, closely resembling that of the communion which they had indignantly disclaimed.

Heylyn sums up the case in a similar strain:

"Thus have we proved by the doctrine of the Protestants, of what side soever, and those of greatest credit in their several churches, eighteen by name, and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion, that the Lord's-day is of no other institution than the authority of the church.

. . Nay, by the doctrine of the Helvetian churches, if I conceive their meaning rightly, every particular church may designate what day they please to religious meetings, and every day may be a Lord's-day or a Sabbath." (Hist. Sab., Part 2, chap. 6, see. 8.)

The fact is thus placed beyond question that the "Continental" reformers taught unmodified no-Sabbathism. The present flood of no-Sabbathism, which is pouring into America from the Continent of Europe, is the logical fruitage of the theories which were taught thus early. But according to the philosophy of history such results were unavoidable. It was a no-Sabbath tree which the reformers planted.

Robert Cox makes the same conclusions in a criticism upon a passage from the papers of the "Sabbath Alliance," in which he states that Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Beza, Bucer, Zwingle and others taught "expressly or in effect that the Sabbath was an exclusively Jewish institution, and was never meant for this more advanced age." (Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, p. 484.)

The reformatory movement was less radical at first in England than in Germany. It sought to correct certain abuses without any material change in the doctrines of the church. The personal alienation between Henry VIII. and the pope hastened the rupture, and gave birth to the "English Church." But the fickleness of Henry, and his tendency to favor the Papacy during the later years of his life, prevented the accomplishment of much legal reform previous to the close of his reign, in 1546. A majority of the Regents who administered the affairs of the government during the minority of Edward VI. favored the Reformation. This brought the support of the civil power, and, so far as it could be expressed by civil law, the Reformation was well advanced at the close of Edward's reign. Speaking on this point, Neale says:

"They made as quick advances, perhaps, in restoring religion toward its primitive simplicity as the circumstances of the time would admit; and it is evident that they designed to go further, and not make this the last standard of the Reformation. Indeed, Queen Elizabeth thought her brother had gone too far, by stripping religion of too many ornaments, and, therefore, when she came to the crown, she was hardly persuaded to restore it to the condition in which he left it. King James I., King Charles I., Archbishop Laud, and all their admirers, instead of removing farther from the superstitious pomps of the Church of Rome, have been for returning back to them, and have appealed to the settlement of Queen Elizabeth as the purest standard. (History of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 55. New York, 1843.)

The editor of Neale's work, John a Choules, M.A., adds a note to the above as follows:

"It is evident to the careful student of history that the Reformation in England produced its happiest effects in the days of Edward, that the church of England has never been so pure, as soon after its transition from popery; and that its subsequent alterations have ever been in favor of Romanism."

With this glance at the general situation, the reader is prepared to examine the matter in hand more in detail.

William Tyndale stands at the head of the list. He suffered martyrdom in 1533. In his "Reply to Sir Thomas Moore" we find the following:

"And as for the Sabbath, a great matter, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet change it into the Monday, or any other day as we see need; or may make every tenth day holy day, only if we see a cause why. We may make two every week, if it were expedient and one not enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, than to put a difference between us and the Jews, and less we should become servants to the day after their superstition. Neither needed we any holy day at all, if the people might be taught without it. (Works of the English Reformers, William Tyndale and John Fryth, Vol. 2. p. 101. London, 1831.)

Tyndale's associate, John Fryth, speaks with still greater plainness in the following words:

"Our forefathers who were in the beginning of the church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent that men might have an ensample of Christian liberty, and that they might know that neither the keeping of the Sabbath, nor of any other day is necessary according to Paul: "Ye observe days, times and months." "I am afraid of you, that I have labored in vain toward you." Howbeit, because it was necessary that a day should be reserved, in which the people should come together to hear the Word of God, they ordained, instead of the Sabbath, which was Saturday, the next day following, which is Sunday. And, although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew, as a thing indifferent, yet they did much better to overset the day, to be a perpetual memory that we are free, and not bound to any day, but may do all lawful works to the pleasure of God and the profit of our neighbor. We are in manner as superstitious in the Sunday as they were in the Saturday; yea, and we are much madder. For the Jews have the Word of God for their Saturday, since it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the seventh day solemn. And we have not the Word of God for us, but rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day as the Jews do, but the first, which is not commanded by God's law. But Paul biddeth that no man judge us, as concerning holy days, meats and such other exterior things; yea, and in no ways will he that we observe them, counting them more holy than other days. For they were instituted that the people should come together to hear God's Word, receive the sacraments, and give God thanks; that done, they may return unto their houses and do their business as well as any other day. He that thinketh that a man sinneth which worketh on the holy day, if he be weak or ignorant, ought better to instruct and so to leave his hold; but if he be obstinate and persevere in his sentence, he is not of God but of the devil, for he maketh sin in such as God leaveth free. According to this ensample, I would that our ceremonies were altered; because (as I have said) the people seek health in them, and what villiany more can they do to Christ's blood." (Declaration of Baptism, p. 96.)

Thomas Cranmer (burned in 1555), in his Catechism, first published 1548, has the following:

"And here note, good children, that the Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath-day, and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath or Saturday. But we Christian men in the New Testament are not bound to such commandments of Moses's law concerning differences of times, days and meats, but have liberty to use other days for our Sabbath-days therein to hear the Word of God, and keep an holy rest. And therefore, that this Christian liberty may be kept and maintained we now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to obey. (Catechism, p. 40, Oxford, 1829; also Cox Sab. Lit., and Hessey, Sunday Lectures.)

In another work, Cranmer reiterates the same doctrine in these words:

"There be two parts of the Sabbath-day - one is the outward bodily rest from all manner of labor and work; this is mere ceremonial, and was taken away with the other sacrifices and ceremonies by Christ at the preaching of the gospel. The other part of the Sabbath-day is the inward rest or ceasing from sin, from our own wills and lusts, and to do only God's will and commandments. . . . This spiritual Sabbath - that is to abstain from sin and to do good - are all men bound to keep all the days of their life, and not only on the Sabbath-day. And this spiritual Sabbath may no man alter nor change, no not the whole church.

That the outer observance of the Sabbath is mere ceremonial, St. Paul writeth plainly, as that the holy days of the new moon, and of the Sabbath-days are nothing but shadows of things to come.

Jerome also, to the Galatians IV., according to the same, saith, "Lest the congregation of the people without good order, should diminish the faith in Christ, therefore certain days were appointed, wherein we should come together; not that that day is holier than the other in which we come together, but that whatsoever day we assemble in, there might arise greater joy by the sight of one of us to another." (Confutation of Unwritten Verities, Miscellaneous Writings, pp. 60, 61. Cambridge, 1846.)

Concerning civil enactments, Heylyn speaks as follows, after quoting the opinions of Tyndale, Fryth and others:

"Now that which was affirmed by them in their particulars, was not long afterwards made good by the general body of this church and state, the king, the lords spiritual and temporal, and all the commons met in Parliament, anno, fifth and sixth of King Edward VI., where, to the honor of Almighty God, it was thus enacted: "Forasmuch as men be not at all times so mindful to laud and praise God, so ready to resort to hear God's Holy Word, and to come to the holy communion as their bounded duty doth require, therefore, to call men to remembrance of their duty and to help their infirmity, it hath been wholesomely provided that there should be some certain times and days appointed, wherein the Christians should cease from all kinds of labor, and apply themselves only and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works, properly pertaining to true religion which works, as they may well be called God's service, so the times especially appointed for the same, are called holy days. Not for the matter of the nature either of the time or day - for so all days and times are of like holiness - but for the nature and condition of such holy works, whereunto such times and days are sanctified and hallowed: that is to say, separated from all profane uses, and dedicated, not unto any saint or creature but, only unto God and his true worship. Neither is it to be thought that there is any certain time, or definite number of days prescribed in the holy Scriptures, but the appointment both of the time and also of the number of days, is left by the authority of God's Word unto the liberty of Christ's church, to be determined and assigned orderly in every country by the discretion of the rulers and ministers thereof, as they shall judge most expedient, to the true setting forth of God's glory, and the edification of their people."

Nor is it to be thought that all of this preamble was made in reference to the holy days or saint's days only, whose being left to the authority of the church was never questioned; but in relation to the Lord's-day, also, as by the act itself doth fully appear; for so it followeth in the act.

Be it therefore enacted, etc., that all the days hereafter mentioned shall be kept, and commanded to be kept holy days, and none other; that is to say, all Sundays in the year, the feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Epiphany, of the Purification, with all the rest now kept, and there named particularly, and that none other day shall be kept and commanded to be kept holy day, and to abstain from lawful bodily labor.

Nay, which is more, there is a further clause in the selfsame act, which plainly shows that they had no such thought of the Lord's-day, as that it was a Sabbath, or so to be observed, as the Sabbath was, and therefore did provide it, and enact by the authority aforesaid, "that it shall be lawful to every husbandman, laborer, fisherman, and to all and every other person and persons, of what estate, degree or condition he or they be, upon the holy days aforesaid, in harvest, or at any other time in the year, when necessity shall so require, to labor, ride, fish, or work any kind of work at their free will and pleasure, any thing this act to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is the total of this act, which if examined well, as it ought to be, will yield us all those propositions or conclusions, before remembered, which we collected from the writings of those three particular martyrs. Nor is it to be said that it is repealed and of no authority. Repealed, indeed, it was, in the first year of Queen Mary, and stood repealed in law, though otherwise in use and practice, all the long reign of Queen Elizabeth; but in the first Year of King James was revived again. Note here that in the selfsame Parliament, the common prayer book, now in use, being reviewed by many godly prelates, was confirmed and authorized; wherein so much of the said act as doth concern the names and numbers of the holy days, is expressed, and, as it were, incorporated into the same. Which makes it manifest that in the purpose of the church, the Sunday was no otherwise esteemed of than any other holy day." (Part 2, chap. 8, sec. 2.)

Such testimony from one who was Sub-Dean of Westminster, and chaplain to Charles I., and whose History of the Sabbath was first published in 1631, is of the highest importance. It shows beyond question that the same no-Sabbathism which characterized the Reformation on the continent obtained in the Church of England.

Mary, who succeeded Edward, was a persistent papist. She checked the tide of reformation and cursed the land with her brief but bitter reign. She was succeeded by Elizabeth in 1558, who at once set about restoring the desolations which Mary had left along her bloody pathway. But the work was less radical, and moved more slowly than it had moved under Edward. The "Act of Conformity" finally drove the Puritan element out of the church. This prepared the way for the fuller development of the Puritan movement, and left the Established Church to sink into that arrested development which always succeeds partial reform. The state of the Sunday question is seen by the "Injunctions" published during the first year of Elizabeth:

"All the Queen's faithful and loving subjects shall henceforth celebrate and keep their holy day according to God's holy will and pleasure, that is, in hearing the Word of God read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offenses unto God and amendment of the same in reconciling of themselves charitably to their neighbors, where displeasure hath been, in oft-times receiving the communion of the body and blood of Christ, in visiting the poor and sick, using all soberness and godly conversation. Yet, notwithstanding, all Parsons, Vicars and Curates shall teach and declaim to their parishioners, that they may with a safe and quiet conscience, after their common prayer, in time of harvest, labor upon the holy and festival days, and save that which God hath sent; and if for any scupulosity or grudge of conscience, men should abstain from working on these days, that then they should grievously offend God."

"This makes it evident that Queen Elizabeth in her own particular, took not the Lord's-day for a Sabbath, or to be of a different nature from the other holy days. Nor was it taken so by the whole body of our Church and State, in the first Parliament of her reign, what time it was enacted: "that all and every person and persons, inhabiting within this realm and any other of the Queen's dominions, shall diligently and faithfully - having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, - endeavor themselves to repair to their parish church or chapel, accustomed, or, upon reasonable let thereof, to some usual place where common prayer shall be used in such time of let, upon every Sunday, and other days ordained and used to be kept as holy days, and then and there to abide orderly and soberly, during the time of common prayer, preaching, or other service of God, upon pain of punishment, etc.

This law is still in force, and still like to be; and by this law, the Sundays and holy days are alike regarded. Nor by the law only, but by the purpose and intent of the Holy Church, who in her public liturgy is as full and large for every one of the holy days, as for the Sunday, the liturgy only excepted. For otherwise, by the rule and prescript thereof, the same religious offices are designed for both, the same devout attendance required for both, and whatsoever else may make both equal. And therefore by this statute, and the common prayer book, we are bound to keep more Sabbath, than the Lord's-day Sabbath, or else none at all. (Heylyn Hist. Sab., Part 2, chap. 8, see. 4.)

Doctor Hessey speaks of the reign of Elizabeth as follows:

"Practically, the observance of Sunday was in a very unsatisfactory state throughout the reign of Elizabeth, A.D. 1558-1603. There seems to have been a great forgetfulness of its religious character. In one of the Queen's injunctions, Sunday is classed with other holidays, and it is expressly said, that "if for any scrupulosity or grudge of conscience some should superstitiously abstain from working on those days, they shall grievously offend." In fact, labor was almost enjoined after common prayer. On the same principle we find the Queen granting a license to one John Seconton, to use certain plays and games upon nine several Sundays. After a time, in A.D. 1580, the London Magistracy obtained from her an interdiction of this practice on Sunday, within the liberties of the city. Elsewhere it was carried on; and the pictures of the Sunday recreations of the period which have come down to us, though somewhat profusely colored, indicate a low tone of feeling on the subject of the holy day." (Sunday, etc., see. 7, pp. 201, 202.)

During the latter years of the reign of Elizabeth when, according to Mr. Hessey, "The desecration of Sunday which prevailed seems to have been most appalling" (lbid, pp. 206, 207), she refused to sanction a law for its better observance, which had been carried through Parliament by the Puritan influence. In this she only carried out the doctrine of the church by which the Sunday was held as a holiday only, and not as a Sabbath. Neale speaks of these times in the following words:

"The Lord's-day was very much profaned by the encouragement of plays and sports in the evening, and sometimes in the afternoon. The Rev. Mr. Smith, M.A., in his sermon before the University of Cambridge, the first Sunday in Lent, maintained the unlawfulness of these plays, for which he was summoned before the Vice Chancellor, and upon examination offered to prove that the Christian Sabbath ought to be observed by abstinence from all worldly business, and spent in works of piety and charity; though he did not apprehend we were bound to the strictness of the Jewish precepts. The Parliament had taken this matter into consideration, and passed a bill for the better and more reverent observation of the Sabbath, which the Speaker recommended to the Queen in an elegant speech. But her Majesty refused to pass it, under pretense of not suffering the Parliament to meddle with matters of religion, which was her prerogative. However, the thing appeared so reasonable, that, without the sanction of a law, the religious observation of the Sabbath grew in esteem with all sober persons, and after a few years became the distinguishing mark of a Puritan. (History of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 176.)

In another place Neale adds:

"While the bishops were thus harrassing honest and conscientious ministers for scrupling the ceremonies of the church, practical religion was at a very low ebb. The fashionable vices of the times were profane swearing, drunkenness, reveling, gaming, and profanation of the Lord's-day; yet there was no discipline for these offenders, nor do I find any such cited into the spiritual courts, or shut up in prisons. If men came to their parish churches and approved of the habits and ceremonies, other offenses were overlooked, and the court was easy. At Paris Gardens, in Southwark, there were public sports on the Lord's-day, for the entertainment of great numbers of people who resorted thither. But on the thirteenth of January, being Sunday, it happened that one of the scaffolds being crowded with people, fell down, by which accident some were killed, and a great many wounded. This was thought to be a judgment from heaven; for the Lord Mayor, in the account be gives of it to the treasurer, says, "that it gives great occasion to acknowledge the hand of God for such abuse of the Sabbath-day, and moveth me in conscience to give order for redress of such contempt of God's service;" adding, that for this purpose he had treated with some justices of the peace in Surrey, who expressed a very good zeal, but alleged want of commission, which he referred to the consideration of his lordship. But the court paid no regard to such remonstrances, and the Queen had her ends in encouraging the sports, pastimes and revelings of the people on Sundays and holy days." (Id., p. 154.)

Such were the doctrines of the Reformed English Church, and such their fruits at the opening of the seventeenth century. In 1603, James I. of Scotland came to the throne. A stricter observance of the Sunday had obtained to some extent among those of the Puritan party who accepted the doctrines concerning the Sabbath which had just then been published by Nicholas Bownde. These efforts made by the Puritans caused no little complaint, which led to a declaration by the King, commonly called the "Book of Sports," which was published in 1618. In this he declares that for the good of his people it is his pleasure that lawful recreations be allowed, and therefore:

"After divine service, they should not be disturbed, hindered or discouraged from any lawful recreations; such as dancing, either men or women, archery for men. Leaping vaulting or any other such harmless recreation; nor from having May-games, Whitsun-ales or Morrice-dances, and setting up of May-poles or other sports therewith used; so as the same be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or hindrance of divine service; also, that women should have leave to carry rushes to the church for the decorating of it, according to their ancient custom; withal prohibiting all games unlawful to be used on the Sundays, only as bear-baiting, bull-baiting, enterludes and, at all times prohibited among the meaner sort of people, bowling."

"A declaration which occasioned much noise and clamor; and many scandals spread abroad, as if these counsels had been put into that prince's head by some great prelates which were then of most power about him. But on that point they might have satisfied themselves that this was no court doctrine, no new divinity which that learned prince had been taught in England. He had declared himself before, when he was King of the Scots only, to the selfsame purpose, as may appear from his Basilicon Doron, published anno 1598. This was the first blow, in effect, which had been given, in all his time, to the new Lord's-day Sabbath, then so much applauded." (Heylyn's Hist. Sab., Part 2, chap. 8, sec. 10.)

James I. was succeeded by his son, Charles I., who took the throne in 1625, and married Marie, sister of Louis XIII. of France. She was an intriguing papist, and had great influence over her husband. Neale says:

"The Queen was a very great bigot to her religion; her conscience was directed by her confessor, assisted by the Pope's nuncio, and a secret cabal of priests and Jesuits. These controlled the Queen, and she the King, so that in effect the nation was governed by popish counsels till the Long Parliament." (Hist. Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 279.)

Perhaps Mr. Neale states the case too strongly; nevertheless, the leading tendency was toward Romanism rather than Protestantism. William Laud, Bishop of London, became Prime Minister three years after the accession of Charles I. His character is aptly described by one of his contemporaries, Bishop Hall, who says to him in a letter:

"I would I knew where to find you; to-day you are with the Romanists, to-morrow with us; our adversaries think you ours; and we, theirs. Your conscience finds with both, and neither; how long will you halt in this indifference?" (Hist. Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 279.)

With such men at the head of affairs, it is not wonderful that the tide beat hard against reform. About 1633, since the Puritan element was gaining among the people, efforts were made to suppress the more riotous assemblies that were common upon Sunday. Laud took affront at this so-called invasion of the domain of the church, and complained to the King. The case was tried, the civil officers severely reprimanded, and ordered to revoke their enactments against the recreations. The results of this action are stated by Mr. Neale in the following words:

"To encourage these disorderly assemblies more effectually, Archbishop Laud put the King upon republishing his father's declarations of the year 1618, concerning lawful sports to be used on Sundays after divine service, which was done accordingly, Oct. 18th, with this remarkable addition: After a recital of the words of King James's declaration, his majesty adds, "Out of a like pious care for the service of God, and for suppressing of those humors that oppose truth, and for the ease, comfort and recreation of his majesty's well-deserving people, he doth ratify his blessed father's declaration, the rather, because of late, in some of the counties of the kingdom, his majesty finds that, under the pretense of taking away an abuse, there hath been a general forbidding, not only of ordinary meeting, but of the feasts of the dedication of churches, commonly called wakes; it is therefore his will and pleasure, that these feasts with others, shall be observed, and that all neighborhood and freedom, with manlike and lawful exercises, be used, and the justices of the peace are commanded not to molest any in their recreations, having first done their duty to God, and continued in obedience to his majesty's laws. And he does farther will that publication of this command be made, by order from the bishops, through all the parish churches of their several dioceses, respectively." (Hist. Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 312.)

The publication of the foregoing widened the breach between the Puritans and the government. Many clergymen were deposed for refusing to read these declarations from their pulpits and much trouble and persecution came upon all dissenters. These agitations, and the ripening of other turbulent elements culminated in civil war in 1642. The government soon came into the hands of the Puritan party, and hence the civil history of the Sunday from 1646 to 1660 belongs to the next chapter. The execution of the King in 1649, the establishment of the Cromwellian Protectorate in 1653, the death of Cromwell in 1658, the military interregnum, and the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, are the prominent points in this turbulent period. The restoration of Charles and the re-establishment of the Church of England were followed by a period of great moral and social debauchery. The King gave himself up to a life of avowed lewdness, and great dissoluteness prevailed among the baser sort of those who adhered to the throne and to the state religion. In 1661 the "Savoy Conference" was called. This was an effort to harmonize the Puritan party with the state religion party. This it failed to do. Concerning the Sunday at that time and since, Dr. Hessey speaks as follows:

"The Savoy Conference, as we have said, refused to make any alteration in our authorized documents so far as Sunday was concerned. Since that time, the church of England has not formally meddled with the subject. Meanwhile, Sunday has gone through considerable vicissitudes. What it was in the licentious reign of Charles the II. may be surmised from the mournful picture, given by Evelyn, of the Sunday preceding the death of that king. Puritanism had indeed died out in reference to the Lord's-day; but I confess that the state of things which succeeded was worse than Puritanism. In the middle of the eighteenth century, there was a reaction. Methodism rose up. This is not the place to discuss either the justifiableness of that movement, or the influence which it has had upon the church of England. But I may venture to quote a passage from Earl Stanhope which illustrates very clearly its bearings upon the immediate subject. "It is," says he, "certainly one of the ill effects of Methodism that it has tended to narrow the circle of innocent enjoyments." Then, after mentioning some instances he adds: "Of one clergyman, Mr. Grimshaw, who joined the Methodists, and is much extolled by them, it is related by his panegyrist: "He endeavored to suppress the generally prevailing custom in country places during the summer, of walking in the fields on the Lord's-day, between the services, or in the evening in companies. He not only bore his testimony against it from the pulpit, but reconnoitered the fields in person to detect and reprove delinquents." How different was the saying of good old Bishop Hacket, "Serve God and be cheerful."" (Sunday, Lect. 7, pp. 218, 219.)

The Church of England has not spoken authoritatively upon the Sabbath question since the above extract from Hessey's work was written, and hence it is not needful to trace its history further. The civil enactments, which are noted in the foregoing pages, constitute the legal authority concerning Sunday and its observance in England. The use of the ten commandments in the liturgy of the English Church cannot be interpreted as favoring the idea of the Sabbath –Saturday - as may be seen from the discussions and interpretations at the time they were first placed in the liturgy (1552), which interpretations are sustained by modern churchmen. (See Cox, Sab. Lit. Vol. 1, p. 139; Heylyn, Hist. Sab., Part 2, chap. 8, sec. 3; and Hessey, Sunday, Lect. 5, p. 149.)

The "Book of Homilies," published in 1562, in the homily on the "Place and Time of Prayer," presents the claim of analogy between the Sabbath and the Sunday, This was done to conciliate the Puritan element, which was then beginning to separate from the church; but the homily - which is not authoritative - teaches nothing different from what is shown in the foregoing extracts, concerning the origin of Sunday-observance, or the authority upon which it is based. (See Cox, Sab. Lit., Vol. 1, p. 412; and Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's-day, p. 299.)

Hence the case, as regards the Church of England, may be stated briefly thus:

The English church has always taught that the civil and religious authorities, the state and the church, have power to ordain and regulate the observance of Sunday. In her purest days, the Sunday is placed on a footing with the other church holidays. After the separation between the church and the Puritan party, the enactments in favor of Sunday were less strict, and the practical observance of it was looser until the time of Cromwell. When the church party was restored, after the civil war, there was no improvement in theory, and none in practice, except here and there where the Puritan element affected the people in spite of the teachings and laws of the ruling power. If there has been any temporary or local effort for a more sabbatic observance of Sunday since the middle of the eighteenth century, it has been made by Dissenters, and not by the church. The history of the English church must, therefore, go in to form a part of the history of that ecclesiastical no-Sabbathism which was developed with the papacy, and beyond which the English church was not carried by her efforts at reformation. In further support of this thought, it is befitting to close this chapter with the following, from high authority:

"The founders of the English Reformation, after abolishing most of the festivals kept before that time, had made little or no change as to the mode of observance of those they retained. Sundays and holy days stood much on the same footing as days on which no work, except for good cause, was to be performed; the service of the church was to be attended, and any lawful amusement might be indulged in. . . . Those who opposed them (the Puritans) on the high-church side, not only derided the extravagance of the Sabbatarians, as the others were called, but pretended that the commandment, having been confined to the Hebrews, the modern observance of the first day of the week, as a season of rest and devotion, was an ecclesiastieal institution, and in no degree more venerable than that of the other festivals, or the seasons of Lent, which the Puritans stubbornly despised." (Hallam's Constitutional History of England. Works, Vol. 4, p. 227. New York, 1847.)

Thus it is seen that the English Reformers took the same position concerning the Sabbath and Sunday which the Continental reformers had taken. They continued the no-Sabbath theories which were first introduced by the early Pagan-Christian leaders beginning with Justin Martyr. Those theories were the basis of Sunday-observance for centuries in the Roman Catholic Church, with the added doctrine of church authority in the place of Biblical authority. Thus it has come about that neither on the continent nor in England has the Sabbath question ever risen to the true Protestant position, and therefore the fact that Sunday-observance, especially on the continent of Europe, has never risen much above the holiday standard.

THE more radical and devoted men, who led in the work of reformation under Edward VI., were so restrained by conservative influences during the reign of Elizabeth that they grew restive and evinced a strong tendency to separate from the Established Church. The restrictions which were imposed by the "Act of Conformity" increased this tendency until it culminated in open separation. At first the Puritans plead for a better observance of Sunday as a part of the general work of civil and religious reform. As they continued to seek for higher life and greater purity, the Sabbath question grew in importance. This was not fortuitous. Men never come into closer relations with God without feeling the sacredness of the claims which his law imposes; and no part of that law stands out more prominently than the Fourth Commandment, when the heart seeks to bring highest honors to him who is at once Creator, Father and Redeemer. As these men threw off the shackles of church authority, and stood face to face with God, recognizing him as their only lawgiver, they were compelled to take higher ground concerning the Sabbath. This fact crowded the Puritan movement toward the position then occupied by English Seventh-day Baptists, who were already a vigorous factor in the prevailing discussions concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday. Seventh-day Baptists insisted that Protestantism could not be true to its fundamental principles without returning to the Sabbath according to the Bible. The logic of their position was unanswerable, and from that time to this one of the strongest points made by Romanists against Protestants is that they do not keep the Sabbath. As will be seen below, Puritanism adopted the Seventh-day Baptist position, rejecting only the seventh day of the week.

The key-note of the Puritan theory concerning the Sabbath and Sunday was struck by Nicholas Bownde (or Bound), in a book entitled, "The Doctrine of the Sabbath, plainly laid forth and soundly proven," etc. This was first published in 1595. Very few copies of the book are in existence. The only one in America, so far as we know, is in Alfred University Library, Alfred, New York, from which the following copious quotations are made. After a preliminary discussion, Mr. Bownde opens the case in these words:

"First of all, therefore, it appeareth in the story of Genesis, that it was from the beginning, and that the seventh day is sanctified at the first, so soon as it was made, insomuch that Adam and his posterity, if they had continued in their first righteous estate, should have kept that day holy above the rest, seeing the Lord sanctified it for their sakes; and though it be so indeed that they should have been occupied in some honest calling and work upon the six days (according as it is said to Adam, that the Lord put the man into the garden of Eden, that be might dress it and keep it), yet notwithstanding, upon the seventh day they should have ceased from all worldly labor, and given themselves to the meditation of God's glorious works, and have been occupied in some more immediate parts of his service, according to the former commandment. And that we might understand indeed, that the law of sanctifying the Sabbath is so ancient, the prophet Moses, in Genesis, doth of purpose use the same words which the Lord God himself doth in pronouncing it (as it is set down in Exodus), namely, that he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, and that in it God rested from all his work which he made; to teach us assuredly that this commandment of the Sabbath was no more than first given when it was pronounced from heaven by the Lord than any other of the moral precepts; nay, that it hath so much antiquity as the seventh day hath being; for so soon as the day was, so soon was it sanctified, that we might know, that as it came in with the first man, so it must not go out but with the last man, and as it was in the beginning of the world, so it must continue to the ending of the same, and as the first seventh day was sanctified so must the last be, and as God bestowed this blessing upon it in the most perfect estate of man, so must it be reserved with it till he be restored to his perfection again. (The Doctrine, etc., pp. 5, 6.)

Mr. Bownde next proceeds to argue that a knowledge of the Sabbath existed from Adam to Moses, basing the claim largely upon the fact of the recognition of the Sabbath as an established institution, before the giving of the law at Sinai, as shown in the sixteenth of Exodus. The argument under this head is well sustained. The New Testament argument he presents as follows:

"And that this Sabbath-day, which hath that commendation of antiquity and consent which we have heard, ought to stand still in his proper force, and that it appertaineth to us Christians now, most evidently appeareth by the authority and credit which it receiveth from the gospel and New Testament also, in which it is so highly commended unto us (that I might not in this place speak of the manifold other testimonies that it hath in the Old). And by name we may see how our Saviour Christ, and all his apostles established it by their practice; for they upon the Sabbath, ordinarily enter into the synagogues of the Jews and preach unto the people, doing such things upon those days as appertain to sanctifying of them according to the commandment. (Id., p. 9.)

Mr. Bownde next goes on to show that Christ and the apostles did not observe the Sabbath ceremonially, since they observed it guided by the Holy Spirit after the ceremonies were abolished. He quotes several passages from the Book of Acts, and adds to these the argument founded upon the wants of our race, showing that perpetual and universal wants demand a perpetual and universal Sabbath. He also argues that if Adam needed the Sabbath before the Fall, the world lost in sin needs it much more. This done, Mr. Bownde answers certain commonplace objections to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and proceeds to make a last and logical effort in support of a "change" from the Sabbath to the Sunday. His words are as follows:

"Now, as we have hitherto seen, that there ought to be a Sabbath-day, so it remaineth that we should hear upon what day this Sabbath should be kept, and which is that very day that is sanctified for that purpose. For I know it is not agreed upon among them that do truly hold that there ought to be a Sabbath, which is that very day upon which the Sabbath should always be. Herein the Lord hath been merciful unto his church, and succored the infirmities of man in this behalf, and decided the endless contention that might have been about this matter, in that he hath told us that it is the seventh day, which be hath sanctified for that purpose. For it is in express words said, in Genesis, that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. And in Exodus, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" and afterwards the same words be repeated by Moses in Deuteronomy. Therefore it must needs be upon that day, and upon none other: for the Lord himself sanctified that day, and appointed it for that purpose, and none but it; and therefore it is truly said, of that great clerk saint, Augustine, De solo Sabbatho dictum est, etc., "This is said only of the Sabbath, God sanctified the seventh day," insomuch, that a man being in conscience persuaded that he should keep holy unto the Lord some one day or other, should ignorantly choose out some other day, neglecting the seventh, to sanctify it by resting from his labors, and wholly applying himself to God's service, he could not look for that blessing from God, which no doubt, the church of God doth find at his hand, upon that day, by virtue of his special promise; for he blessed that day and sanctified it. And as Peter Martyr alledgeth it out of Rabbi Agnon, "This blessing doth light upon those who observe and sanctify the same Sabbath that God hath appointed; and we do not read that he bestowed that blessing upon any other day which we know he did upon the seventh. So that the substance of this law is natural, as Master Junius saith, and to be observed of all men alike, namely, that every seventh day should be holy unto God. And so it is true not only that of every seven days, as Peter Martyr saith, "one must be reserved unto God," and, a little after, "It is perpetual that one day in the week should be reserved for the service of God," but that this must be upon the seventh. In setting down of which, I do not so far forget myself, but that I remember that some, whom with all humility I do reverence in the Lord, and give thanks unto him for their labors, that (I say) they are otherwise minded, and do not think that the church is necessarily tied to the number of seven in observing the day. Yet I do not see (be it far from me that I should obstinately contend with any) where the Lord hath given any authority to his church, ordinarially and perpetually, to sanctify any day except that which he hath sanctified himself. For I hold this, with other learned men, as a principle of divinity, that it belongeth only to God to sanctify the day as it belongeth to him to sanctify any other things to his own worship. . . . Therefore we must needs acknowledge it to be the singular wisdom and mercy of God toward his church, thus by sanctifying the seventh day, to end the strife. For, as we see in God's service, when men go away from his Word, there is no end of devising that which he alloweth not; and they fall upon everything, saving upon that they should; so in appointing the day if we be not ruled by the Word, we shall find by experience that every day will seem more convenient to us than that, at leastwise we shall seem to have as good reason to keep any other as the seventh." (Id., pp. 30, 31, 33.)

Continuing the subject, he presses the point that God sanctified the day because in it he had rested, and that the Jews were not at liberty to change even "the number of that day," and that they only properly worshiped God and proved their love for him holy when they kept his specific day. His conclusion is in these words:

"Thus we learn that God did not only bless it, but bless it for this cause and so we see that the Sabbath must needs still be upon the seventh day, as it always hath been. (Id., p. 35.)

After thus surveying the field, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Bownde could be so blinded to the legitimate deductions from his own arguments as to talk of a change of day. But so strong were his prejudices against what he calls Judaism that he clung to Sunday, supporting his claim with the following broken reed:

"But now concerning this very special seventh day that we now keep in the time of the gospel, that is well known, that it is not the same it was from the beginning, which God himself did sanctify, and whereof he speaketh in this commandment, for it was the day going before ours, which in Latin retaineth its ancient name, and is called the Sabbath, which we also grant, but so that we confess it must always remain, never to be changed any more, and that all men must keep holy this seventh day, and none other, which was unto them not the seventh, but the first day of the week, and it is so called many times in the New Testament, and so it still standeth in force, that we are bound unto the seventh day, though not unto that very seventh. Concerning the time, and persons by whom, and when the day was changed, it appeareth in the New Testament, that it was done in the time of the apostles, and by the apostles themselves, and that together with the day, the name was changed, and was in the beginning called the first day of the week, afterwards the Lord's-day. (Id., pp. 35, 36.)

Mr. Bownde quotes only two passages of Scripture in support of the above claim, Acts 20:7, and 2 Cor. 16:2. In direct opposition to his previous proposition, that the Word of God alone is authority, he devotes several pages to quotations and remarks concerning the "Doctors and Fathers " in the church, seeking to show that the early Christians changed the observance from the Sabbath to the Sunday. These quotations are made from those who gave most prominence to the resurrection theory as a reason for its observance, and so, by a sort of implication, a degree of divine authority is hinted at. The greater part of the book is occupied in discussing the manner of observing Sunday, as regards rest from labor and forms of public worship. Great strictness in the one and extreme simplicity in the other are inculcated. The appearance of this book caused no little commotion. It was at once adopted by the Puritan party. It was strongly opposed by the church party as an encroachment upon Christian liberty, and as putting an undeserved luster and importance upon Sunday over the other festivals. Rogers, author of the Commentary upon the Thirty-nine Articles, in his preface, boasts that it had been, and would be until his dying day, "the comfort of his soul" that he had been instrumental in bringing this Sabbatarian heresy to light. Archbishop Whitgift and Lord-Chief-Justice Popham called in this work and forbade its reprinting. It was much read privately, however, and after the death of Whitgift, was reprinted with additions in 1606.

Such were the theories of the Puritans concerning Sunday. It now remains to trace its history in civil legislation in brief outline. The open separation between these radical reformers and the Established Church began about 1560, when they were derisively called Puritans. During the remainder of the reign of Elizabeth and that of her successor, James I., they had but little direct political influence. But as all reforms find their first welcome among the common people, Puritanic ideas and practices gained steadily among the masses. The spirit of liberty demanded release from those civil and ecclesiastical usurpations and oppressions which marked the beginning of the reign of Charles I. His queen was an open friend of the Papists, while he claimed to be the supporter of the orthodox church, as founded by Elizabeth. Archbishop Laud and his co-workers were the King's advisers, and were at the head of the church party. Against these were arranged the whole Puritan party, and many others who could not fellowship the papistic tendency of the court. In the Parliament, this included the body of the House of Commons and a part of the House of Lords. But the Bench of Bishops, who were ex-officio members of the House of Lords, for a long time thwarted all efforts for change or reform.

About 1640 the open struggle commenced by the passage of a reformatory bill in the House of Commons, one provision of which was for a stricter observance of Sunday. It was defeated in the House of Lords; but the discussion and agitation did much to arouse the people, and to disturb the security of the throne and the church party. This would probably have ended for the time in discussion except that upon the failure of the bill there came the insurrection of the Papists, and the massacre of Protestants in Ireland, on the 23d of October, 1642. Strong suspicions were entertained that the Court, especially the Queen, was a party to the plot, and fears were aroused that a similar fate awaited English nonconformists. The failure of the efforts of Parliament and of the Irish Protestants to obtain relief for the sufferers and punishment for the offenders, at the hands of the Court, widened the breach between the two parties, and showed the complicity of the Court with the barbarous butchery of the Irish. This led to a rapid separation. The Bishops were soon driven from the House of Lords. The King fled to York. Parliament, having tried in vain to obtain his co-operation in averting the dangers to the kingdom, took the power into its own hands. Each party possessed itself of as much territory and military strength as possible, and the King, marching against London, was met at Edgehill, near Keinton, in Warwickshire, by the Parliament forces under the Earl of Essex, and the first battle took place on the 23d of October, 1643.

Two causes now set to work to bring about a more religious observance of Sunday:

(a) The Parliament was bound, by the turn matters had taken, to press the reforms for which it had been contending, among which was a stricter observance of Sunday.

(b) The calamity of civil war with all its horrors was upon the nation, and like all great calamities it tended to make the people more religious. Of the influence of the war in its early stages on the religious habits of the people, Neale speaks as follows:

"Though the discipline of the church was at an end, there was nevertheless an uncommon spirit of devotion among the people in the Parliament quarters. The Lord's-day was observed with remarkable strictness, the churches being crowded with numerous and attentive hearers three or four times in the day. The officers of the peace patrolled the streets and shut up all public houses. There was no traveling on the road or walking in the fields, except in cases of absolute necessity. Religious exercises were setup in private families, as reading the Scriptures, family prayer, repeating sermons and singing, of Psalms, which was so universal that you might walk through the city of London on the evening of the Lord's-day without seeing an idle person or hearing anything but the voice of prayer or praise from churches and private houses.

As is usual in times of public calamity, so at the breaking out of the civil war all public diversions and recreations were laid aside. By an ordinance of September 2d, 1642, it was declared that, "whereas public sports do not agree with public calamities, nor public stage-plays with the seasons of humiliation, this being an exercise of sad and pious solemnity, the other being spectacles of pleasure too commonly expressing lascivious mirth and levity, it is therefore ordained that, while these sad causes and set times of humiliation continue, public stage-plays shall cease, and be forborne; instead of which are recommended to the people of this land the profitable duties of repentance and making their peace with God."" (History Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 424.)

The Parliament party was not at once successful. The advantage seemed to be with the Royalists for some time after the opening of the war. Concerning this, and its effect on the observance of the Sunday, Neale says:

"The Parliament's affairs being low, and their counsels divided, they not only applied to heaven by extraordinary fastings and prayers, but went on vigorously with their intended reformation. They began with the Sabbath, and on March 22d, 1642-3, sent to the Lord Mayor of the city of London, to desire him to put in execution the statutes for the due observation of the Lord's-day. His lordship, accordingly, issued his precept the very next day to the aldermen, requiring them to give strict charge to the church wardens and constables within their several wards, that from henceforth "they do not permit or suffer any person or persons, in time of divine service, or at any time on the Lord's-day, to be tippling in any tavern, inn, tobacco shop, ale house or other victualing house whatsoever; nor suffer any fruiters, or herb-women to stand with fruit, herbs or other victuals or wares in any streets, lanes or alleys, or any other ways to put things for sale at any time of that day, or in the evening of it; or any milk woman to cry milk; nor to suffer any persons to unlade any vessels of fruit or other goods, and carry them on shore; or to use any unlawful exercises or pastimes; and to give express charge to all inn keepers, taverns, cook shops, ale houses, etc., within their wards, not to entertain any guests to tipple, eat, drink or take tobacco in their houses on the Lord's-day, except inn-keepers, who may receive their ordinary guests, or travelers who come for the dispatch of their necessary business; and if any persons offend in the premises, they are to be brought before the Lord Mayor or one of his Majesty's justices of the peace to be punished as the law directs." This order had a very considerable influence upon the city, which began to wear a different face of religion to what it had formerly done. May 5th the book tolerating sports upon the Lord's-day was ordered to be burned by the hands of the common hangman in Cheapside and other usual places; and all persons having any copies in their hands were required to deliver them to one of the sheriffs of London to be burned." (Id. Vol. 1, p. 454.)

This fanatical spirit and the desire to gain the blessing of God upon their cause led to a similar observance of other days. A monthly fast had been ordained, previous to the commencement of the war, in view of the troubles in Ireland. Concerning this, Mr. Neale speaks as follows:

"Next to the Lord's-day, they had a particular regard to their monthly fast. April 24th, all constables, or their deputies were ordered to repair to every house within their respective liberties, the day before every public fast, and charge all persons strictly to observe it according to the said ordinances. And upon the day of the public fast, they were enjoined to walk through their said liberties, to search for persons who, either by following the work of their calling or sitting in taverns, victualing or ale houses, or in any other ways, should not duly observe the same, and to return their names to the Committee for examination, that they might be proceeded against for contempt. The fast was observed the last Wednesday in every month, the public devotions continued with little or no intermission from nine in the morning till four in the afternoon, and (as has been already observed) with uncommon strictness and rigor." (Ibid.)

Then came the "Assembly of Divines at Westminster," the Solemn League and Covenant, the expulsion of the common prayer book of the Established Church, and the introduction of the Directory as the guide to worship in the Parliament churches, the expulsion of royal professors from the universities, etc. This brings us to the next enactment concerning Sunday, made by the Puritan Parliament, April 6, 1644. Neale briefly records with reference to it as follows:

"Religion was the fashion of the age. The Assembly was often turned into a house of prayer, and hardly a week passed without solemn fasting and humiliation in several of the churches of London and Westminster. The laws against profaneness were carefully executed, and because the former ordinances for the observation of the Lord's-day had proved ineffectual, it was ordained, April 6th, that all persons should apply themselves to the exercise of piety and religion on the Lord's-day; that no wares, fruits, herbs, or goods of any sort, be exposed to sale, or cried about the streets, upon penalty of forfeiting the goods. That no person without cause shall travel, or carry a burden or do any worldly labor, upon penalty of ten shillings for the traveler, and five shillings for every burden and for every offense in doing any worldly labor or work. That no person shall on the Lord's-day, use or be present at, any wrestling, shooting, fowling, ringing of bells for pleasure, markets, wakes, church-ales, dancing, games, or sports whatsoever, upon penalty of five shillings to every one above fourteen years of age. And if children are found offending in the premises, their parents or guardians to forfeit twelve pence for every offense. That all May poles be pulled down, and none others erected. That if the several fines above mentioned cannot be levied, the offending party shall be set in the stocks for the space of three hours. That the King's declaration concerning lawful sports on the Lord's-day be called in, suppressed and burned.

This ordinance shall not extend to prohibit dressing meat in private families, or selling victuals in a moderate way in inns or victualing houses, for the use of such as cannot otherwise be provided for; nor to the crying of milk before nine in the morning, or after four in the afternoon. (Ib., Vol. 1, p. 499, 500.)

Tracing the history of the Puritan party through these years of strife, years of wide-spread anarchy in church and state, the reader finds but few more enactments relative to the Sunday.

In 1650, stringent laws, with severe penalties, were enacted against all the prominent vices, such as profaneness, different forms of licentiousness, impious opinions concerning God and the Bible, drunkenness, etc. Sunday came in with these for its share.

"Though several ordinances had been made heretofore for the strict observation of the Lord's-day, the present House of Commons thought fit to enforce them by another, dated April 9th, 1650, in which they ordain, "that all goods cried, or put to sale on the Lord’s-day, or other days of humiliation and thanksgiving appointed by authority, shall be seized. No wagoner or drover shall travel on the Lord's-day, on penalty of ten shillings for every offense. No persons shall travel in boats, coaches, or on horses, except to church, on penalty of ten shillings. The like penalty for being in a tavern. And where distress is not to be made, the offender is to be put in the stocks six hours. All peace officers are required to make diligent search for discovering offenders; and in case of neglect, the justice of peace is fined five pounds, and every constable twenty shillings." (Neale, Hist. Puritans, Vol. 2, p. 118.)

A few vears later, in 1656, Parliament made another effort to enforce the strict observance of Sunday, stimulated no doubt, in part, by the lawlessness of the Quakers, who were growing numerous, and who opened their shops, and otherwise violated the civil laws relative to Sunday observance. The enactment as given by Neale is as follows:

"As new inroads were made upon the ordinances for observation of the Sabbath, the Parliament took care to amend them. This year they ordained that "the Sabbath should be deemed to extend from twelve of the clock on Saturday night to twelve of the clock on Lord's-day night," and within that compass of time they prohibited all kinds of business and diversions, except works of necessity and mercy. No election of magistrates is to be on the Lord's-day; no holding of courts or return of writs, but if according to their charters they fall upon the Lord's-day, they are to be deferred to Monday. It is further enacted, that all persons not having a reasonable excuse, to be allowed by a justice of the peace, shall resort to some church or chapel where the true worship of God is performed, or to some meeting place of Christians not differing in matters of faith from the public profession of the nation, on a penalty of two shillings and sixpence for every offense. It is further ordered, that no minister shall be molested or disturbed in the discharge of his office on the Lord's-day, or any other day when he is performing his duty, or in going and coming from the place of public worship. Nor shall any willful disturbance be given to the congregation, on penalty of five pounds, or being sent to the workhouse for six months, provided the information be within one month after the offense is committed. This ordinance is to be read in every church or chapel in this nation annually, the first Lord's-day in every March." (Ib., Vol. 2, p. 166.)

Soon after this came the "Restoration," under Charles II., and Puritanism, as a controlling power in the government, passes out of sight. Whatever may be said concerning the course of the Puritan party as a political power, it is evident that the moral character of the people was much improved during its supremacy. Rigid and intolerant, it nevertheless possessed much more of true religion and vital piety than the formalists did who preceded and followed it. Many of the corrupt elements in church and state which could not be reformed were exiled. But with the restoration under Charles II. these came swarming back, and in turn harrassed and drove out the Puritans. Mr. Neale sums up the case in these words:

"And here was an end of those distracted times which our historians have loaded with all the infamy and reproach that the wit of man could invent. The Puritan ministers have been decried as ignorant mechanics, canting preachers, enemies to learning, and no better than public robbers. The Universities were said to be reduced to a mere Munster, and that if the Goths and Vandals, and even the Turks had overrun the nation, they could not have done more to introduce barbarism, disloyalty and ignorance; and yet in these times, and by the men who then filled the university chairs were educated the most learned divines and eloquent preachers of the last age, as the Stillingfleets, Tillotsons, Bulls, Barrows, Whitbys and others, who retained a high veneration for their learned tutors after they were rejected and displaced. The religious part of the common people have been stigmatized with the character of hypocrites; their looks, their dress and behavior have been represented in the most odious colors; and yet, one may venture to challenge these declaimers to produce any period of time since the Reformation wherein there was less open profaneness and impiety and more of the spirit, as well as appearance of religion. Perhaps there was too much rigor and preciseness in indifferent matters: but the lusts of men were laid under a visible restraint, and though the legal constitution was unhappily broken, and men were governed by false politics, yet better laws were never made against vice, or more vigorously executed.

The dress and conversation of the people were sober and virtuous, and their manner of living remarkably frugal. There was hardly a single bankruptcy to be heard of in a year, and in such a case the bankrupt had a mark of infamy set upon him, that he could never wipe off. Drunkenness, fornication, profane swearing, and every kind of debauchery were justly deemed infamous, and universally discountenanced. The clergy were laborious to excess, in preaching and praying, in catechising youth, and visiting their parishes. The magistrates did their duty in suppressing all kinds of games, stage plays and abuses in public houses. There was not a play acted in any theater in England for almost twenty years. The Lord's-day was observed with unusual reverence; and there were a set of as learned and pious youths trained up in the University as had ever been known. So that if such a reformation of manners had obtained under a legal administration, they would have deserved the character of the best times.

But when the legal constitution was restored, there returned with it a torrent of debauchery and wickedness. The times which followed the Restoration were the reverse of those that preceded it; for the laws which had been enacted against vice for the last twenty years, being declared null, and the magistrates changed, men set no bounds to their licentiousness. A proclamation, indeed, was published against those loose and riotous cavaliers, whose lovalty consisted in drinking healths, and railing at those who would not revel with them. But, in reality, the King, was at the head of these disorders, being devoted to his pleasures, and having given himself up to an avowed course of lewdness. His bishops and chaplains said that he usually came from his mistresses’ apartments to church, even on sacrament days. There were two playhouses erected in the neighborhood of the court. Women actresses were introduced into the theaters, which had not been known until that time; the most lewd and obscene plays were brought on the stage, and the more obscene, the King was the better pleased, who graced every new play with his royal presence. Nothing was to be seen at court but feasting, hard drinking, reveling and amorous intrigues, which engendered the most enormous vices. From court, the contagion spread like will-fire among the people, insomuch that men threw off the very profession of virtue and piety, under color of drinking the King's health. All kinds of old cavalier riotings and debauchery revived. The appearance of religion, which remained with some, furnished matters of ridicule to libertines and scoffers. Some who had been concerned in the former changes thought they could not redeem their credit better than by deriding all religion, and telling or making stories to render their former party ridiculous. To appear serious, or make conscience either of words or actions, was the way to be accounted a schismatic, a fanatic, or a sectarian, though, if there was any real religion during the course of this reign, it was chiefly among those people. They who did not applaud the new ceremonies were marked out for Presbyterians, and every Presbyterian was a rebel. The old clergy who had been sequestered for scandal, having taken possession of their livings, were intoxicated with their new felicity, and threw off all restraints of their order. Every week, says Mr. Baxter, (Life, part 2, p. 288) produced reports of one or other clergyman, who was taken up by the watch, drunk, at night, and mobbed in the streets. Some were taken with lewd women; and one was reported to be drunk in the pulpit. Such was the general dissoluteness of manners which attended the deluge of joy, which overflowed the nation upon his majesty's restoration." (Id., Vol. 2, p. 208.)

For twenty-five years (until 1683) did this profligate king, surrounded by a court like himself, carry on his ruinous rule. Sunday-observance shared largely in the general decline, specially since it had been maintained before in a great degree by the civil power. Popery, secretly favored by the King, grew strong. The Puritan or Parliament party, now known under the general name of Non-conformists, was divided into Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Quakers, etc., all of whom were bitterly persecuted. Among these, the Quakers, holding within their number many educated and influential men, though extremely strict in other respects, ignored all ideas of a Sabbath, or any obligation to observe days. (For their views, see Dymond's essays on the Principles of Morality, essay 2, chap. 1, and the Doctrines of Friends, by Elisha Bates, chap. 13.) Thus between the reigning dissoluteness and the revival of the earlier doctrine of "no sacred time," the strict observance of Sunday passed away.

It was not until the fifth year of the reign of George I. (1719) that a complete recognition of the Non-conformists, and a general toleration of dissenters was obtained. There was little or no improvement in the observance of Sunday until the middle of the eighteenth century. The Church of England still retains her old standards concerning Sunday. The English Dissenters are now much less rigid in their observance of Sunday than the Puritans were. The Church of Ireland has always been too nearly allied to the church of England on this point to need any separate notice here. The Church of Scotland has been, and yet is more Puritanic concerning Sunday. The following, from the pen of Doctor Hessey, will sufficiently illustrate its most rigid features:

"Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Sabbatarian doctrines had taken deep root, and were improved into an elaborate system. Four examples shall suffice. In the year 1644 the Six Sessions ordained public intimation to be made that "no person, man nor woman, shall be found vaging, walking, and going upon the streets upon the Lord's-day after the afternoon's sermon, keeping idle, and entertaining impertinent conferences." In the next year, the same court ordained that "the magistrates, attended by the ministers by course, shall go up and down the streets upon the Lord's-day after the afternoon sermon, and cause take particular notice of such as shall be found forth of their houses vaging abroad upon the streets, and cause cite them before the Session to be rebuked and censured." And on the 5th of April A.D., 1658, this direction was issued: "The magistrate to cause some English soldiers go along the streets, and those outparts above written, both before sermon and after sermon, and lay hold upon both young and old whom they find out of their houses or out of the church."

"My fourth instance shall be taken from the records of the Presbytery of Strath-bogie, June 6, A.D., 1658: "The said day, Alexander Cairnie, in Tilliochie was delaitit for brak of Sabbath, in bearing ane sheep upon his back from the pasture to his own house. The said Alexander compeirit and declarit that it was of necessitie for saving of the beast's lyfe in tyme of storme; was rebukit for the same, and admonished not to do the lyke."" (Sunday, Lect. 7, p. 216, 217.)

Those who wish to follow the legislation concerning Sunday in England and Scotland will do well to refer to my "History of Sunday Legislation," published by D. Appleton & Co., New York.

THE descendants of the Waldenses in Bohemia, Holland and other parts of Northern Europe, formed the material for Sabbath-keeping churches which came to light when the rays of Reformation began to illumine the long-continued night of Papal apostacy. These Sabbath-keepers were Baptists, and hence were classed with the despised "Anabaptists" during the early part of the sixteenth century. Most writers have, therefore, passed over the history of those years by saying of Sabbath-observance that it was "revived by some sectaries among the Anabaptists." When Sabbath-keepers were persons of prominence, more definite notice was taken of them. Enough can be gathered, however, to show that Sabbath-keepers were not uncommon on the continent of Europe from the opening of the sixteenth century forward. We have given all necessary details concerning these Sabbath-keepers in chapter fifteen of this volume. All the prominent writers concerning the Reformation in England recognize the connection between the English Seventh-day Baptists and the Sabbath-keeping Dissenters, of whom we have spoken in the fifteenth chapter. This connection is also recognized by writers since the English Reformation.

Mr. Gilfillan, a Scotch author, quotes a writer of the year 1585, one John Stockwood, who states that in those times there were "manifold disputations among the learned, and a great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and simple sort, concerning the Sabbath-day, and the right use of the same, some maintaining the changed and unchangeable obligations of the Seventh-day Sabbath," etc. (Sabbath, etc., p. 60.)

Chambers' Cyclopedia refers to the Bohemian Sabbath-keepers and their successors as follows;

"Accordingly, in the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious and independent thinkers, (as it had previously done to some Protestants in Bohemia,) that the Fourth Commandment required of them, the observance, not of the first, but of the specified seventh day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as a service then due to God. They became numerous enough to make a considerable figure for more than a century in England, under the title of "Sabbatarians" - a word now exchanged for the less ambiguous appellation of "Seventh-day Baptist." … They have mostly disappeared in England, though in the seventeenth century so numerous and active as to have called forth replies from Bishop White, Warner, Baxter, Bunyan, Wallis and others." (Article, Sabbath Vol. 8. London, 1866.)

Thus it is seen that there were Protestant Sabbath-keeping Baptists in Bohemia, Holland and England in the beginning of the sixteenth century. This link unites the past with the present, and gives an unbroken chain of Sabbath-keepers from the days of Christ, Lord of the Sabbath, to the present hour. The church has never been without witnesses for the truth concerning God's holy day.

The development and organization of Seventh-day Baptists in England is easily traced. In these pages this will be done by noting some of the Seventh-day Baptist authors and martyrs whose names appear in history.

Among the notable ones who taught the truth relative to the Sabbath, and suffered for it, was John Trask - spelled also Trasque and Thraske. Ephriam Paggitt, in his "Church Herisiography," devotes more than fifty pages to the history of Trask, his wife and his followers. From this it appears that he first began to observe Sunday according to the law of the Fourth Commandment. One of his comrades, Lackson, (Hessey says Jackson) carrying the question on to its legitimate results, taught that the day mentioned in the law must be observed - the seventh and not the first day. Trask accepted this, and many more with him. Paggitt mentions William Hillyard, Christopher Sands, Mrs. Mary Chester, who was afterwards imprisoned, and Rev. Mr. Wright and his wife. He also mentions in the same connection "One Mr. Hebden, a prisoner in the new prison, that lay there for holding Saturday Sabbath." Mrs. Chester was kept in prison for some time, but was finally released upon her apparent conversion to the church. But her tendency to the truth was too strong, and "twelve months after she was set at liberty she relapsed into her former errors." Paggitt charges Trask and his followers with Judaical opinions concerning Christ; but the charge grew out of the fact that they observed the Sabbath, and no "official" charge of this kind was made against them on their trials.

Mrs. Trask, before her imprisonment, kept a private school for children, having one assistant teacher who was also a Sabbath-keeper. Attention was drawn to her Sabbatarian principles, from the fact that she would not teach upon the Sabbath, and on the trial she was condemned to imprisonment, (See Paggitt, p. 209.) concerning which Paggitt speaks as follows:

"His wife, Mistress Trask, lay for fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her opinions about the Saturday-Sabbath; in all which time she would receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she wanted much, alledging that it is written, "it's a more blessed thing to give than to receive." Neither would she borrow. She deemed it a dishonor to her head, Christ, either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part of her imprisonment, that is till a little before her death, was bread and water, roots and herbs. No flesh, nor wine, nor brewed drink. . . . She charged the keeper of the prison not to bury her in church nor churchyard, but in the fields only; which accordingly was done. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings a year; what she lacked more to live upon, she had of such prisoners as did employ her sometimes to do business for them. But this was only within the prison, for out of the prison she would not go, so she sickened and died. So there was an end to the sect in less than half a generation. 'Tis true it begins of late to be revived again; but yet faintly. The progress it makes is not observed to be much; so that of all gangrenes of spirit, with which the times are troubled, as yet it spreads little; and therefore it is hoped a short caveat (such as this is) may suffice against it." (p. 196. This was written in 1661, forty years after the trial of Trask.)

Trask was brought before the infamous" Star Chamber" in 1618, and tried upon the following charges, which appear in the speech of Bishop Andrews against him. (See Paggitt, p. 199.) The Bishop states that his fault consisted in trying to make "Christian men, the people of God, His Majesty's subjects, little better than Jews. This he doth in two points, and when he takes it in his head, he may do it in two and two and two more."

These are the specifications:

"One is, Christians are bound to abstain from those meats which the Jews were forbidden in Leviticus.

The other that they are bound to observe the Jewish Sabbath."

Bishop Andrews labors, in a lengthy speech, to prove both these positions heretical. There is no argument of importance adduced in the speech. It does however contain that somewhat noted passage, Dominicum Servasti," etc. (see chapter vii.), which leaves no shadow of doubt that he was the author of it, and shows also that he gives no authority for it. This trial resulted in the following sentence, which was executed upon Trask:

"Set upon the Pillory at Westminster, and from thence to be whipped to the fleet, there to remain prisoner."

He afterwards made a recantation and was released, whereupon he wrote a book in 1620, as evidence of his conversion, entitled,

"A Treatise of Liberty from Judaism, or an Acknowledgement of True Christian Liberty. Indited and Published by John Trask, of the late Stumbling, now Happily Running in the Race of Christianity." (See Heylyn Hist. Sab., part 2, chap. 8, sec. 10; Cox Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, pp. 152, 153.)

Thus did the hand of persecution suppress the first prominent development of Sabbath truth in England. The suppression was, however, neither complete nor of long duration. Eight years later Theophilus Brabourne, of Norfolk, published his first book, entitled, "A discourse upon the Sabbath-day; Wherein are handled these particulars ensuing: 1. That the Lord's-day is not the Sabbath-day by divine institution. 2. An exposition of the Fourth Commandment, so far forth as may give light unto the ensuing discourse; and particularly here it is shown at what time the Sabbath-day should begin and end, for the satisfaction of those who are doubtful on this point. 3. That the Seventh-day Sabbath is not abolished. 4. That the Seventh-day Sabbath is now still in force. 5. The author's exhortation and reasons that nevertheless, there be no Rent from our Church as touching practice. - 1628, 18mo. p. 238."

Cox says:

"Brabourne is a much abler writer than Trask, and may be regarded as the founder in England of the sect at first known as Sabbatarians, but now calling themselves Seventh-day Baptists. This sect arose in Germany in the sixteenth century. Heylyn holds that in setting up their doctrine they built fairly on the Puritan foundations, and "ploughed with no other than their heifers." . . .

Towards the conclusion of the treatise, he thus appeals to the prudence of his readers: "And now let me propound unto your choice these two days, the Sabbath-day on Saturday, or the Lord's-day on Sunday; and keep whether of the twain you shall in conscience find the more safe. If you keep the Lord's-day, but profane the Sabbath-day, you walk in great danger and peril (to say the least) of transgressing one of God's eternal and inviolable laws, the Fourth Commandment; but on the other side, if you keep the Sabbath-day, though you profane the Lord's-day, you are out of all gunshot and danger, for so you transgress no law at all, since Christ nor his apostles did ever leave any law for it. (Brabourne, p. 290. Sab. Lit., Vol. 1, p. 157, 158.)

Two years later Brabourne issued a more exhaustive work, the first edition of which was published in 1630, and the second in 1632. A copy of the first edition is before us, wanting only the title page, which we copy from Cox's notice of the second edition. It is as follows:

"A defense of that most ancient and sacred Ordinance of God's, the Sabbath-day. . . . Undertaken against all Anti-Sabbatarians, both of Protestants, Papists, Antinomians and Anabaptists; and by name and especially against these X Ministers: M. Greenwood. M. Hutchinson, M. Furnace, M. Benton, M. Gallard, M. Yates, M. Chappel, M. Stinnet, M. Johnson, and M. Warde. The Second Edition, corrected and amended; with the supply of many things formally omitted. 1632, 4to, pp. 633. (Cox, Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 162.)

Through this book the name of Brabourne became inseparably connected with the true Sabbatarianism of those times. The character and influence of the work is shown in the fact that Bishop Francis White, by order of the King, prepared an answer to it, entitled, "A Treatise on the Sabbath-day, Containing a Defense of the Orthodoxal Doctrine of the Church of England, against Sabbatarian Novelty." - London, 1635. In his dedication to Archbishop Laud, White speaks of Brabourne as follows:

"A certain Minister of Northfolk, where I myself of late years was Bishop, published a Tractate of the Sabbath; and, proceeding after the rule of Presbyterian principles, among which, this was principal: That all religious observations and actions, and among the rest, the ordaining and keeping of Holy days, must have a special warrant and commandment in Holy Scripture, otherwise the same is superstitious; concluded from thence, by necessary inference, that the seventh day of every week, to wit, Saturday, having an express command in the Decalogue, by a precept simply and perpetually moral, (as the Sabbatarians teach) and the Sunday or Lord's-day being not commanded, either in the Law or in the Gospel "the Saturday must be the Christian's weekly Sabbath, and the Sunday ought to be the working day." ….

Now because his Treatise of the Sabbath was dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which he grounded all his arguments, (being commonly preached, printed and believed, throughout the kingdom,) might have poisoned and infected many people, either with this Sabbatarian error, or with some other of like quality; it was the King our gracious Master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise should be set forth to prevent further mischief, and to settle his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient and Orthodoxal Catholic Church." (Introduction, near the close.)

Bishop White was well qualified to write, and he produced a work which, except the History of the Sabbath by Peter Heylyn, was stronger than any of the books put forth by the churchmen of those times. Brabourne was summoned before the "High Commission, whose well tempered severity herein so prevailed upon him that, submitting himself to a private conference, and perceiving the unsoundness of his principles, he became a convert, conforming himself quietly to the Church of England." (See Fuller's Church History, Book 10, century XVII., section 32; also Brook's Lives of Puritans, Vol. 2, p. 362, and White, p. 305.)

This "quiet conformity to the Church of England" on the part of Brabourne was evidently only a temporary wavering, for he "wrote after-wards, and a composition of his against Cawdrey, which came out in 1654, gives evidence that he was still a Seventh-day Baptist." He was overborne for the moment, rather than permanently changed, since his "preface" contained a candid and calm discussion of the causes which impelled him to write and the consequences which might follow. On this very point he says:

"The soundness and clearness of this my cause, giveth me good hope that God will enlighten them [the magistrates] with it, and so incline their hearts unto mercy. But if not, since I verily believe and know it to be a truth, and my duty not to smother it, and suffer it to die with me, I have adventured to publish it and defend it, saying with Queen Esther, "If I perish, I perish;" and with the Apostle Paul; "neither is my life dear unto me, so that I may fulfill my course with joy." What a corrosive would it prove to my conscience, on my death-bed, to call to mind how I knew these things full well, but would not reveal them. How could I say with St. Paul, that I had revealed the whole counsel of God, had kept nothing back which was profitable? What hope could I then conceive that God would open his gate of mercy to me, who, while I lived, would not open my mouth for him." (This "Introduction" is not paged. This passage is from his address to the reader.)

There is further evidence that he held to the Sabbath, for Mr. Cox (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, p. 6,) notices another book from his pen in reply to two books against the Sabbath, one by Ives and the other by Warner. This last work by Brabourne was pubished at London, in 1659. It thus appears that he published four books in favor of the Sabbath.

Next upon the list stands the name of James Ockford, a follower of Brabourne, who issued a work in 1642, entitled "The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment." Something concerning its character and history may be gleaned from a work in favor of Sunday by Cawdrey and Palmer, published in 1652. In part third, section thirty-three, is found the following:

"But before we conclude this chapter, we shall take a brief survey of what a later Sabbatarian hath written, being, it seems, unsatisfied (as well he might) with all that hath been said by the Bishop, (referring to Bishop White's answer to Brabourne and others in his way, in answer to the Sabbatarian arguments. One James Ockford (as we hinted above) hath revived the quarrel, and makes use of his adversaries weapons to beat themselves withal. There hath been a sharp confutation of his book by fire, it being commanded to be burnt, as perhaps it well deserved. Yet lest he should complain of harsh dealing, no answer being given him, for his satisfaction, though all his arguments are already confuted in this present discourse, we shall give him a brief account of our judgment concerning his whole book - we think to a full satisfaction." (p. 446.)

Cawdrey and Palmer were members of the Assembly of Divines, and wrote from the Puritan standpoint. Their review of Ockford's book, and the book itself, show that his arguments were well sustained. About ten years later, Edward Fisher published a book in favor of the Sabbath, entitled "A Christian Caveat," etc. This work passed through at least five editions. Cox speaks of it as "A pithy, clever treatise directed against the opinions held by the Puritans, of whom he affirms that, because they are neither able to produce direct Scripture nor solid reason for what they say, they labor to support their conceits by fallacies, falsities and wrestling of God's Holy Word, as upon scanning, their proofs will be manifest to the meanest capacity." (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 237.) Portions of this Caveat, by Fisher, were republished by the American Sabbath Tract Society, in 1853, as No. 5 of a Bound Volume of Tracts.

The name Edward Stennet stands next upon the list; his first work in favor of the Sabbath was entitled,

"THE ROYAL LAW CONTENDED FOR; OR, Some brief Grounds serving to prove that the Ten Commandments are yet in full force, and shall so remain till Heaven and Earth pass away, etc. (London, 1658.)

By a Lover of Peace with Truth, Edward Stennet.

"They that forsake the Law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them." Prov. 28:4.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God and keep His Commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Ecc. 12:13.

"The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2: 27, 28.

"Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all Thy Commandments." Psa. 119:6."

This work was republished by the American Sabbath Tract Society in 1848. From the preface to that edition we extract the following notice concerning the author:

"The friends of the Sabbath will doubtless receive this little volume as a valuable relic of the past - as a word from one of the tried and faithful friends of the truth, one who not only loved the day of God's weekly rest, but greatly delighted in the promise of a future and glorious Sabbathism with the people of God. Edward Stennet, the author, was the first of a series of Sabbatarian ministers of that name, who for four generations continued to be among the foremost of the Dissenters in England, and whose praise is still in all the churches. He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from the Established Church, he was deprived of the means of support; and his family being large, he applied himself to the study of medicine, by the practice of which he was enabled to give his sons a liberal education. He suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at that time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth, he experienced tribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much distress from unfriendly dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his influence, and ruin his cause. He wrote several treatises upon the subject of the Sabbath besides this, but they are very rare, and perhaps cannot all be found in a perfect state of preservation.

It would be well, no doubt, to revive all of them, and, if practicable, republish them in the some form as this, that they might be bound together, and placed, as they deserve to be, in every Sabbath-keeper's library. They all breathe the genuine spirit of Christianity, and in their day were greatly conducive to the prosperity of the Sabbath-keeping churches."

Another work from his pen, entitled "The Seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord," and published in 1664, is before us. It is an able reply to a book by one Mr. Russel, entitled "No Seventh-day Sabbath Recommended by Jesus Christ."

Next comes a book by William Sellers, published in 1671, the title of which runs as follows:

"An examination of the late book published by Doctor Owen, concerning a Sacred Day of Rest. Many Truths therein, as to the morality of a Christian Sabbath, assented to. With a Brief Inquiry into his Reasons for the Change of it from the seventh day to the first, by way of denial. As also the consent of Doctor Heylyn and others, touching the time and manner of the change. With an Inquiry into the nature of the assertions about the first and second covenants." 4to, pp. 56.

Next in order is the name of an author whose works were prominently associated with the history of the Seventh-day Baptists in England during the last half of the seventeenth century, Francis Bampfield. He wrote at least two works upon the Sabbath, besides others of a scientific and literary character. The first work on the Sabbath is entitled,

"The Judgment of Mr. Francis Bampfield, late Minister of Sherbourne in Dorsetshire, for the Observation of the Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath; with his Reasons and Scripture for the same. Sent in a letter to Mr. Ben of Dorchester. Together with Mr. Ben's sober Answer to the Same, and a Vindication of the Christian Sabbath against the Jewish, Published for the satisfaction of divers friends in the West of England." London, 1672, 12mo., pp. 86.

His second work bears the following title:

Sabbatike hemera hemera hiera, Septima Dies Desiderabilis, Sabbatum Jehovae. The Seventh-day Sabbath the desirable day, the closing, completing day of that first created week, which was, is, and will be, the just measure of all succeeding weeks in their successive courses, both for working in the six foregoing days, and for rest in the Seventh, which is the last day, by an unchangeable law of well established order, both in the revealed Word and in created Nature. (1677, Fol., pp. 149.)

The character of this man and his sufferings in behalf of the truth, are shown in the words of an English author of later time, Edmund Calamy, who gives the following account of him:

"He was descended from an ancient and honorable family in Devonshire, and being designed for the ministry from his birth, was educated accordingly; his own inclination concurring with the design of his pious parents. When be left the university (where he continued seven or eight years) be was ordained a Deacon of the Church of England by Bp Hall and afterwards Presbyter by Bp Skinner, and was soon after preferred to a living in Dorsetshire, of about one hundred pounds per annum, where he took great pains to instruct his people, and promote true religion among them. Having an annuity of eighty pounds a year settled upon him for life, he spent all the income of his place in acts of charity among his parishioners, in giving them Bibles and other good books, setting the poor to work, and relieving the necessities of those that were disabled; not suffering a beggar, knowingly, to be in his parish: While he was here he began to see that in many ways the Church of England needed reformation, in regard to doctrine, worship and discipline; and therefore, as became a faithful minister, he heartily set about it, making the laws of Christ his only rule. But herein he met great opposition and trouble. (Non-Conformists Memorial, Vol. 1, p. 468, London, 1775.)

When the Act of Uniformity was passed, in 1662, being unable to conform to its requirements, Mr. Bampfield gave up his place, and though he was strictly loyal in all the political troubles of those times, he. nevertheless suffered much on account of his nonconformity. "Soon after his ejectment be was imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family." Injustice and cruelty were shown him in these minor imprisonments; but he was doomed to much greater trials and sufferings, for we learn from Calamy that Mr. Bampfield afterward suffered eight years imprisonment in Dorchester jail, which he bore with great courage and patience, being filled with the comfort of the Holy Ghost. He also preached in the prison, almost every day, and gathered a church there. Upon his discharge in 1675, be went about preaching the Gospel in several counties. But he was soon taken up again for it in Wiltshire, and imprisoned at Salisbury; where, on account of a fine, he continued eighteen weeks. During this time he wrote a letter which was printed, giving an account of his imprisonment, and the joy he had in his sufferings for Christ. Upon his release he came to London, where he preached privately several years with great success, and gathered a people; who, being baptized by immersion (Mr. Bampfield having become a Baptist), formed themselves into a church, and met at Pinner's Hall, which, being so public, soon exposed them to the rage of their persecutors.

On Feb. 17, 1682, a constable and several men with halberts, rushed into the assembly when Mr. Bampfield was in the pulpit. The constable ordered him in the king's name to come down. He answered that be was discharing his office in the name of the King of kings. The constable telling him he had a warrant from the Lord Mayor, Mr. Bampfield replied: "I have a warrant from Christ, who is Lord Maximus, to go on," and so proceeded in his discourse. The constable then bid one of the officers pull him down; when he repeated his text; Isa. 63d., "The day of vengeance is in his heart, and the year of his redeemed ones is come;" adding, "He will pull down his enemies." They then seized him and took him with six others, before the Lord Mayor, who find several of them 10 pounds, and bid Mr. Bampfield begone. In the afternoon they assembled at the same place again, where they met with a fresh disturbance, and an officer, though not without trembling, took Mr. Bampfield and led him into the street; but the constable having no warrant, they let him go, so he went with a great company, to his own house, and there finished the service.

On the 24th of the same month, he met his congregation again at Pinner's Hall, and was again pulled out of the pulpit, and led through the streets with his Bible in his hand, and great multitudes after him; some reproaching him, and others speaking in his favor: one of whom said, "See how he walks with his Bible in his hand, like one of the old martyrs." Being brought to the sessions where the Lord Mayor then was he and three more were sent to prison. The next day they were brought to the bar, and being examined were remitted to Newgate. On March 17, 1683, he and some others, who were committed for not taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, were brought to the Old Bailey, indicted, tried, and by the jury (directed by the Judge) brought in guilty. On March 28, being brought again to the sessions to receive their sentence, the recorder, after odiously aggravating their offense, and reflecting on scrupulous consciences, read their sentence, which was: ‘That they were out of the protection of the King's Majesty; that all their goods and chattels were forfeited, and they were to remain in jail during their lives, or during the King's pleasure.’" Upon this Mr. Bampfield would have spoken, but there was a great uproar - "Away with them, we will not hear them," etc., and so they were thrust away; when Mr. Bampfield said, "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness; the Lord be judge in this case." They were then returned to Newgate, where Mr. Bampfield (who was of a tender constitution) soon after died in consequence of the hardships be suffered, much lamented by his fellow prisoners, as well as by his friends in general. Notwithstanding his peculiar sentiments, all who knew him acknowledged that he was a man of serious piety, and deserved a different treatment from what he met with from an unkind world. He was one of the most celebrated preachers in the West of England, and extremely admired by his hearers, till be fell into the Sabbatarian notion, of which he was a zealous asserter. (Non-conformists Memorial, Vol. 1, pp. 470-472. London. 1775.)

Thus even the enemies of the Sabbath bear highest testimony in favor of this noble martyr for the truth.

In 1692 there appeared a work from Thomas Bampfield, a brother of the man mentioned above. Its title runs as follows:

"An enquiry whether the Lord Jesus Christ made the world, and be Jehovah, and give the Moral law, and wliether the Fourth Commandment be repealed or not."

This work was answered by John Wallis, D.D., Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford, which elicited a second book in reply by Mr. Bampfield, entitled,

"A Reply to Dr. Wallis, his Discourse concerning the Christian Sabbath." (London, 1683.)

An examination of these works shows that he was a writer of no mean ability. He was a Barrister, and being less connected with the church and theological matters than his brother, does not appear as prominently in history. He is however noticed by both Calamy and Cox. Wallis wrote a second book in reply to Thos. Bampfield's second work, which was published in 1694.

Passing into the next century, another book comes before the public in 1724, from the pen of George Carlow, entitled, "Truth defended, or Observations on Mr. Ward's expository discourses from the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th verses of the 20th chapter of Exodus, concerning the Sabbath." This work was reprinted in America, at Stonington, Conn., in 1802, and again by the American Sabbath Tract Society, in New York. The following historic notice of the author is taken from the American edition of 1847.

Of the personal history of George Carlow, but little is known. He was a member of the Sabbath-keeping church which once flourished at Woodbridge, Suffolk, Eng. Having visited London, probably for purposes connected with the publication of his book, he was recommended to the fellowship of the church of Mill Yard, in Goodman's Fields. Hence his name appears upon the records of that church as a transient member. He was evidently a man of plain parts, not schooled in the rules of logic, but learned in the Scriptures. From that fountain of true wisdom, the Word of God, he had inbibed a spirit which gives a pungency and heart-searching character to his writings not often found in books of controversy. The argumentative part of the subject is not perhaps so well managed in this book as in some more modern publications. But as the author was well read in the controversies concerning the Sabbath, the historical information which he presents is very valuable. The whole work is characterized by a spirit of evangelical piety and earnestness which must make its influence powerful and salutary wherever read.

A pastor of the "Mill Yard Seventh-day Baptist church," in London, Robert Cornthwaite, published five books upon the Sabbath question. The first was published about 1733, and the last in 1740. These are their titles in order:

1. Reflections on Dr. Wright's Treatise on the Religious observation of the Lord's-day, according to the express words of the Fourth Commandment, showing the inconclusiveness of the Doctor's reasoning on that subject, and the impossibility of grounding the First-day Sabbath on the Fourth Commandment, or any other text of Scripture produced by him for that purpose.

2. The Seventh-day of the week the Christian Sabbath. (London,1735.)

3. The Seventh-day Sabbath farther vindicated, or a Defense of some Reflections on Dr. Wright's Treatise on the Religious observation of the Lord's-day, according to the express words of the Fourth Commandment; as, also, of the Seventh-day of the week, the Christian Sabbath, against the exceptions of Mr. Caleb Flemming. [An Unitarian minister whose work was published the same year. London, 1736.]

4. A Second Defense of some Reflections on Dr. Wright's Treatise on the Religious observation of the Lord's-day, etc., against the exceptions of Mr. Caleb Flemming, in which his explication of Gen. 2:2,3, is considered, and shown to be as inconsistent as the Doctor's Explication of the Fourth Commandment; and the Seventh-day Sabbath is proved to oblige all Christians on Protestant principles. (London, about 1737.)

5. An Essay on the Sabbath, or a modest attempt towards a plain, Scriptural resolution of the following questions. 1. Whether the Seventh-day Sabbath was given to Adam in Paradise. 2. Whether the same now obliges Christians, occasioned by the following pieces lately wrote upon the subject, viz.: Mr. Hallett's Discourse on the Lord's-day; Mr. Jephson's Discourse concerning the Religious Observation of the Lord's-day, etc. Mr. Chubb's Dissertation concerning the Time of Keeping a Sabbath. Mr. Killingworth's Appendix to his Supplement to the sermons preached at Salter's Hall, against Popery; Mr. Dobels Seventh-day Sabbath not obligatory on Christians, and his Appendix; and Dr. Watts' Holiness of Times, Places and People. In which everything judged material, offered by any of these gentlemen on the negative side of either of the above mentioned questions, is impartially considered. (London, 1740.)

Robert Cox (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, p. 198) quotes largely from this work, and says:

"Mr. Cornthwaite is one of the ablest defenders of the positions taken up by Seventh-day Baptists."

It will be seen by the titles that Mr. Cornthwaite's books were mostly controversial. They were widely circulated, and the replies to them were written by some of the most eminent men of those times.

ORGANIZATION OF SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ENGLAND.

The Seventh-day Baptists were the most radical reformers, and the most fearless dissenters who took part in the English Reformation. Every influence opposed the organization of such men into churches; even their public meetings were prohibited at times by law. Hence not many churches were permanently organized until about 1650. Between that time and the close of the century, at least eleven churches were organized, and there were many unorganized groups of Sabbath-keepers scattered through the kingdom. These churches were located at Braintree, in Essex, Chersey, Norweston and Salisbury, in Wiltshire, Sherbourne, in Buckinghamshire, Tewksbury, or Natton, in Gloucestershire, Wallingford, in Berkshire, Woodbridge, in Suffolk; and three in London, viz.: the Mill Yard church, the Cripplegate church, and the Pinner's Hall Church. We have space only to add that from the English churches the Seventh-day Baptists were planted in America, as will be seen in a succeeding chapter. These English Seventh-day Baptists connecting with their Waldensian ancestors keep the links unbroken between the Seventh-day Baptists of the United States and the Apostolic church, as it was before the Sunday made war on God's Holy Day, through the help of the civil law and Pagan cult.

ABOUT the beginning of the seventeenth century, certain dissenters fled from England to Holland. Failing to succeed in propagating their views among the Hollanders, and finding their own purity on the decline, they determined to seek a home in the New World. They reached America in 1620, and settled at New Plymouth. In 1629 a large colony from England joined them. This was the birth of New England, and the establishing of Puritanism in America. The civil government which these men adopted was the direct outgrowth of their religion. The theocracy of the Hebrews under Moses furnished the model after which it was patterned. The result was more than a union of church and state; it was rather a state in the church. In the civil laws of those time we find the practical expression of the orthodox theology; and in the execution of those laws, an index to the vitality and power of the prevailing religion. It is, therefore, suited to the purposes of this chapter to collect the laws of the early colonists concerning Sunday, and, as far as may be necessary, to sketch the history of their execution.

There were no direct statute laws concerning the observance of Sunday during the earlier years of the Plymouth Colony. There was, however, a rigid common law, founded on the laws of the Jewish Theocracy. In 1650, June 10th, the general court enacted the following:

"Further be it enacted, that whosoever shall profane the Lord's-day by doing any servile work, or any such like abuse, shall forfeit for every such default ten shillings, or be whipped."

In 1651, June 6th:

"It is enacted by the court that whatsoever person or persons shall neglect the frequenting the public worship of God that is according to God, in the places where they live, or do assemble themselves upon any pretense whatsoever, contrary to God and the allowance of the government, tending to the subversion of religion and churches, or palpable profanation of God's holy ordinances, being duly convicted, viz., every one that is a master or dame of a family, or any other person at their own disposing, to pay ten shillings for every such default." (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, pp. 57, 58.)

It is also

"Enacted by the Court, that if any in any lazy, slothful or profane way doth neglect to come to the public worship of God, they shall forfeit for every such default ten shillings, or be whipped. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, p. 58.)

In 1658, we have the following:

"Whereas, complaint is made of great abuses in sundry places in this government of profaning the Lord's-day by travelers, both horse and foot, by bearing of burdens, carrying of packs, etc., upon the Lord's-day, to the great offense of the godly, well-affected amongst us: It is therefore enacted by the court, and the authority thereof, that if any person or persons shall be found transgressing in any of the precincts of any township within this Government, he or they shall be forthwith apprehended by the constable of such town and fined twenty shillings to the colony's use, or else set in the stocks four hours, except they can give a sufficient reason for their so doing; and they that transgress in any of the above said particulars, shall only be apprehended on the Lord's-day; and on the second day following shall either pay their fine, or sit in the stocks as aforesaid. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, p. 100.)

The general laws concerning attendance on public worship passed in 1651 were repealed in 1659, and the following was enacted, and repeated in 1661.

"It is enacted by the court, that whatsoever person or persons shall frequently absent or neglect, upon the Lord's-day, the public worship of God that is approved of by this government, shall forfeit for every such default ten shillings. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, p. 122.)

The following "Sunday Excise Law" was enacted in 1662:

"Whereas, complaint in made of some Ordinary keepers, in this jurisdiction, that they do allow persons to stay on the Lord's-day, drinking in their houses in the interims of times between the exercises, especially young persons and such as stand not in need thereof: It is enacted by the court and the authority thereof, that no Ordinary keeper in this government, shall draw any wine or liquor on the Lord's-day, for any, except in cases of necessity, for the relief of those that are sick, or faint, or the like, for their refreshing, on the penalty of paying a fine of ten shillings for every default. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, p. 137.)

In 1662 the court urges the strict enforcement of the laws against traveling and unlawful meetings on Sunday. (Ib., p. 140.)

In 1682 the general court, sitting at Plymouth, enacted the following:

"To prevent profanation of the Lord's-day by foreigners, or any others, unnecessarily traveling through our towns on that day: It is enacted by the court, that a fit man in each town be chosen, unto whom, whomsoever hath necessity of travel on the Lord's-day in case of danger of death or such necessitous occasions, shall repair and making out such occasions satisfyingly to him, shall receive a ticket from him to pass on about such like occasions, which if the traveler attend not unto it shall be lawful for the constable or any man that meets him, to take him up, and stop him until he be brought before authority, or pay his fine for such transgression, as by law in that case is provided. And if it after shall appear that his plea was false, then may he be apprehended at another time, and made to pay his fine as aforesaid. (Ib., p. 258.)

In 1674 further legislation against liquor selling took place as follows:

"It is enacted by the court, that as to the restraining of abuses in "ordinaries," that no ordinary keeper shall sell or give any kind of drink to inhabitants of the town upon the Lord's-day; and also that all ordinary keepers be required to clear their houses of all town dwellers and strangers that are there (on a drinking account), except such as lodge in the house, by the shutting in of the daylight, upon the forfeiture of five shillings, the one-half to the informer, and the other half to the town's use. (Ib., p. 236.)

In the year 1665 the following law was enacted against Sleeping in Church:

"Whereas, complaint is made unto the court, of great abuse in sundry towns of this jurisdiction, by persons there behaving themselves profanely, by being without doors at the meeting house on the Lord's-days in time of exercise, and there misdemeaning themselves by jesting, sleeping, or the like: It is enacted by the court and hereby ordered that the constables of each township in this jurisdiction shall, in their respective towns, take special notice of such persons, and to admonish them; and if notwithstanding, they shall persist on in such practices, that he shall set them in the stocks, and in case this will not reclaim them, that they return their names to the Court. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, p. 214.)

Four years later, July, 1669, this law was further added to as follows:

"It is enacted by the court, that the constable or his deputy in each respective town of this Government, shall diligently look after such as sleep or play about the meeting house in times of the public worship of God on the Lord's-day, and take notice of their names, and return such of them to the court who do not, after warning given to them, reform.

As also that unnecessary violent riding on the Lord's-day the persons that so offend, their names to be returned to the next court after the said offense.

It is enacted by the court, that any person or persons that shall be found smoking of tobacco on the Lord's-day, going to or coming from the meetings, within two miles of the meeting house, shall pay twelve pence for every such default to the colony's use." (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, pp. 224, 225.)

In 1668 the matter of attendance on public worship was again taken up, and the following law enacted:

"Whereas, the court takes notice of great neglect of frequenting the public worship of God on the Lord's-day; it is enacted by the court and the authority thereof that the selectmen in each township of this Government shall take notice of such in their townships as neglect, through profaneness or slothfulness, to come to the public worship of God, and shall require an account of them; and if they give them not satisfaction, that then they return their names to the court. (Plym. Col. Rec., Vol. 11, pp. 217, 218.)

This not having the desired effect, the following was enacted in June, 1670:

"For the further prevention of the profanation of the Lord's-day, it is enacted by the court and the authority thereof, that the selectmen of the several towns of this jurisdiction, or any one of them, may, or shall, as there may be occasion, take with him the constable or his deputy, and repair to any house or place where they may suspect that any slothfully do lurk at home, or get together in companies, to neglect the public worship of God, or profane the Lord's-day; and, finding any such disorder, shall return the names of the persons to the next court, and give notice also of any particular miscarriage that they have taken notice of, that it may be inquired into. (Ib., p. 228.)

In 1652, and again in 1656, laws were passed prohibiting Indians from hunting, working or playing on Sunday within the limits of the colony. (Ib., pp. 60, 184.)

In 1691 Plymouth became united to Massachusetts under a new charter, from which time their histories are identical.

There were no formal statutes concerning Sunday by the local authorities of this colony during the first years of its existence. The First General Letter from the governor and deputy of the Company in England, dated April 17, 1629, contained the following instruction:

"And to the end the Sabbath may be celebrated in a religious manner, we appoint that all that inhabit the plantation, both for the general and particular employments, may surcease their labor every Saturday throughout the year, at three of the clock in the afternoon, and that they spend the rest of that day in catechising, and preparations for the Sabbath, as the ministers may direct. (Mass. Col. Rec., Vol. 1, p. 395.)

This instruction and the Common Law, like that of the Plymouth Colony, formed the basis of the earliest customs. In the formation of the government, upon those points wherein the civil authorities were in doubt concerning any question, the matter was referred to the Elders. Among the Answers of the Reverend Elders to certain questions propounded to them, November 13, 1644, is the following, which, as the reader will see, suggests the death penalty for profaning Sunday:

"The striking of a neighbor may be punished with some pecuniary mulct, when the striking of a father may be punished with death. So any sin committed with an high hand, as the gathering of sticks on the Sabbath-day, may be punished with death, when a lesser punishment might serve for gathering sticks privily, and in some need. (Ib., Vol. 2, p. 93.)

Concerning this point, Hutchinson, the historian, says:

"In the first draught of the laws by Mr. Cotton, which I have seen, corrected with Mr. Winthrop's hand, diverse other offenses were made capital, viz., profaning the Lord's-day in a careless or scornful neglect or contempt thereof. Numbers 15:30-36. (Hist. Mass., Vol. 1, p. 390.)

On the 4th of November, 1646, the general court decreed:

"That wheresoever the ministry of the Word is established, according to the order of the gospel, throughout this jurisdiction, every person shall duly resort and attend thereunto, respectively upon the Lord's-days, and upon such public fast days and days of thanksgiving as are to be generally held by the appointment of authority. And if any person within this jurisdiction shall, without just and necessary cause, withdraw himself from learning the public ministry of the Word, after due means of conviction used, he shall forfeit for his absence from every such public meeting five shillings. (Mass. Col. Rec., Vol. 2, p. 178.)

Some questions having arisen concerning the meaning of the passage "after due conviction used," in the above law, it was explained May 10, 1649, as meaning "legal conviction." A little later, a general court, sitting at Boston, on the 30th of August, 1653, enacted the following:

"Upon information of sundry abuses and misdemeanors committed by several persons on the Lord's-day, not only by children playing in the streets and other places, but by youths, maids and other persons, both strangers and others, uncivilly walking the streets and fields, traveling from town to town, going on shipboard, frequenting common houses and other places to drink, sport, and otherwise to misspend that precious time, which things tend much to the dishonor of God, the reproach of religion, and the profanation of his holy Sabbath, the sanctification whereof is sometimes put for all duties immediately respecting the service of God, contained in the first table: It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that no children, youths, maids or other persons, shall transgress in the like kind on penalty of being reputed great provokers of the high displeasure of Almighty God, and further incurring the penalties hereafter expressed, namely, that the parents and governors of all children above seven years old, (not that we approve of younger children in evil,) for the first offense in that kind, upon due proof before any magistrate, town commissioner, or selectman of the town where such offense shall be committed, shall be admonished; for a second offense, upon due proof, as aforesaid, shall pay a fine of five shillings; and for a third offense, upon due proof, as aforesaid, ten shillings; and if they shall again offend in this kind, they shall be presented to the county court, who shall augment punishment, according to the merit of the fact. And for all youths and maids, above fourteen years of age, and all elder persons whatsoever that shall offend and be convicted as aforesaid, either for playing, uncivilly walking, drinking, traveling from town to town, going on shipboard, sporting or any way misspending that precious time, shall, for the first offense, be admonished, upon due proof, as aforesaid; for a second offense, shall pay as a fine five shillings; and for a third offense, ten shillings; and if any shall farther offend that way, they shall be presented to the next county court, who shall augment punishment according to the nature of the offense; and if any be unable or unwilling to pay the aforesaid fines, they shall be whipped by the constable not exceeding five stripes for ten shillings fine; and this to be understood of such offenses as shall be committed during the daylight of the Lord's-day." (Ib., Vol. 3, pp. 316, 317.)

In volume four another record of this action may be found with this addition:

"This law is to be transcribed by the constables of each town, and posted upon the meeting house door, there to remain the space of one month, at least." (Ib., Vol. 4, Part I., p. 151.)

On the 18th of October of the following year, 1654, a general court, sitting at Boston, enacted that:

"Whereas, experience gives us cause to complain of much disorder in time of public ordinances, in the meeting houses in several congregations in this jurisdiction, through the unreverent carriage and behavior of diverse young persons, and others, notwithstanding the best means that have been hitherto used in the said assemblies, for the reformation thereof, it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that it shall be in the liberty of the officers of the congregation, and the selectmen of such towns together, to nominate some one or two meet persons, to reform all such disordered persons as shall offend by any misdemeanor, either in the congregation or elsewhere near about the meeting house, either by serious reproof, more private or public, or other the like warning and meet correction of the magistrate or commissioners of that town judge meet. And we are not doubtful but the reverend elders of the several congregations, according to their wisdom, will so order the time of their public exercise, but none shall be ordinarily occasioned to break off from the congregation before the full conclusion of public exercises." (Ib., pp. 200, 201.)

At the second session of the general court for 1658, held at Boston on the 19th of October, in view of the increase of Sunday profanation, the following action was taken:

"Whereas by too sad experience it is observed, the sun being set, both every Saturday and on the Lord's-day, young people and others take liberty to walk, and sport themselves in the streets or fields in the several towns in this jurisdiction, to the dishonor of God and the disturbance of others in their religious exercises, and too frequently repair to public houses of entertainment and there sit drinking, all which tends, not only to the hindering of due preparation for the Sabbath, but as much as in them lies renders the ordinance of God altogether unprofitable, and threatens rooting out the power of godliness, and procuring the wrath and judgments of God upon us and our posterity: for the prevention whereof it is ordered by this court, and the authority thereof, that if any person or persons henceforth, either on the Saturday night or on the Lord's-day night after the sun is set, shall be found sporting in the streets or fields of any town in this jurisdiction, drinking or being in any houses of entertainment (unless strangers or sojourners, as in their lodgings), and can not give a satisfactory reason to such magistrate or commissioner in the several towns as shill have cognizance thereof, every such person so found, complained of and proved transgressing, shall pay five shillings for every such transgression, or suffer corporal punishment, as authority aforesaid shall determine. (Mass. Col. Rec., Vol. 4, Part I., p. 347.)

At a general court called by order of the council and held at Boston the lst of August, 1665, the following was enacted:

"This court being sensible that through the wicked practices of many persons who do profane God's holy Sabbaths, and contemn the public worship of his house, the name of God is greatly dishonored, and the profession of his people here greatly scandalized, as tending to all profaneness and irreligion, as also that by reason of the late order of Oct. 20tb, 1663, remitting the fines imposed on such to the use of the several towns, the laws made for reclaiming such enormities are become ineffectual, do therefore order and enact, that henceforth all fines imposed according to law for profanation of the Sabbath, contempt or neglect of God's public worship, according to his Majesty's charter, shall be to the use of the several counties as formerly, anything in the above said law to the contrary notwithstanding; and in case any person or persons so sentenced do neglect or refuse to pay such fine or mulct as shall be legally imposed on them, or give security in court, to the treasurer for payment thereof, every such person or persons, so refusing or neglecting to submit to the court's sentence, shall for such his contempt be corporally punished according as the court that bath cognizance of the case shall determine, and where any are corporally punished, their fines shall be remitted. (Records of the Colony of Mass. Bay, Vol. 4, Part II., p. 395.)

Three years later, October, 1668, the General Court, sitting at Boston, took up this matter again, and passed the following:

"For the better prevention of the breach of the Sabbath, it is enacted by this court and the authority thereof, that no servile work shall be done on that day, viz., such as are not works of piety, of charity, or of necessity; and when other works are done on that day, the persons so doing, upon complaint or presentment, being legally convicted thereof before any magistrate or county court, shall pay for the first offense ten shillings fine, and for every offense after to be doubled; and, in case the offense herein be circumstanced with profaneness or high-handed presumption, the penalty is to be augmented at the discretion of the judges. As an addition to the law for preventing profaning of the Sabbath-day by doing servile work, this court doth order, that whatsoever person in this jurisdiction shall travel upon the Lord's-day, either on horseback or on foot, or by boats from or out of their own town to any unlawful assembly or meeting not allowed by law, are hereby declared to be profaners of the Sabbath, and shall be proceeded against as the persons that profane the Lord's-day by servile work. (Ib.. p. 395.)

At a general court held in Boston in 1667, the Sunday laws were further amended by an act of the 24th of May, running as follows:

"This Court, being desirous to prevent all occasions of complaint, referring to the profanation of the Sabbath, and as an addition to former laws, do order and enact, that all the laws for sanctification of the Sabbath and preventing the profaning thereof, be twice in the year, viz., in March and in September, publicly read by the minister or ministers on the Lord's-day in the several respective assemblies within this jurisdiction, and all people by him cautioned to take heed to the observance thereof. And the selectmen are hereby ordered to see to it that there be one man appointed to inspect the ten families of his neighbors, which tything man or men shall, and are hereby, have power [this language is badly arranged, but such is the record] in the absence of the constable, to apprehend all Sabbath-breakers and disorderly tipplers, or such as keep licensed houses or others that shall suffer any disorders in their houses on the Sabbath-day, or evening after, or at any other time, and to carry them before a magistrate or other authority, or commit to prison as any constable may do, to be proceeded with according to law.

And for the better putting a restraint and securing offenders that shall any way transgress against the laws, tittle Sabbath, either in the meeting house by abusive carriage or misbehavior, by making any noise or otherwise, or during the day time, being laid hold on by any of the inhabitants shall, by the said person appointed to inspect this law, be forthwith carried forth and put into a cage in Boston, which is appointed to be forthwith by the selectmen, to be set up in the market-place and in such other towns as the county courts shall appoint, there to remain till authority shall examine the person offending and give order for his punishment, as the matter may require, according to the laws relating to the Sabbath." (Records of the Colony of Mass. Bay, Vol. 5, p. 133.)

The same court made additional laws concerning Quaker meetings, ordering all constables, on penalty of the forfeiture of forty shillings, to "make diligent search" for such gatherings, especially on the Lord's-day, and if denied admittance, to break down the doors and arrest the frequenters according to law. It also ordered that persons complained of, as being absent from public service on Sunday, who would neither affirm that the were present nor that they were "necessarily absent by the providence of God," should be thereupon adjudged as convicted, and punished accordingly. (Ib., p. 134.)

October 15, 1673, the foregoing laws were amended as follows:

"As an addition to the law of the Sabbath, Sect. the second, it is ordered by the court and the authority thereof besides the penalty upon the persons there offending, the public house-keeper, where any such person or persons are found so transgressing (as in the said law is expressed), shall pay five shillings to the treasury of the county where the offense is committed. (Records of the Colony of Mass. Bay, Vol. 4, Part II., p. 562.)

On the 10th of October, 1677, the general court in session at Boston made the following additions to this law:

"As an addition to the late law made in May last for the prevention of profanation of the Sabbath, and strengthening the hands of tything men appointed to inspect the same, it is ordered that those tything men shall be and are hereby appointed and empowered to inspect public licensed houses, as well as private and unlicensed houses, houses of entertainment, as also ex-officio to enter any such houses and discharge their duty according to law; and the said tything men are empowered to assist one another in their several precincts and to act in one another's precincts with as full power as in their own, and yet to retain their special charges within their own bounds. (Records of the Colony of Mass. Bay, Vol. 5, p. 155.)

Two years later, October 15, 1679, the general court, at Boston, enacted certain local laws, of which the following is a copy:

"For prevention of profanation of the Sabbath, and disorders on Saturday night, by horses and carts passing late out of the town of Boston, it is ordered and enacted by this court, that there be a ward, from sunset on Saturday night, until nine of the clock or after, consisting of one of the selectmen or constables of Boston, with two or more meet persons, who shall walk between the fortification and the town's end, and upon no pretense whatsoever suffer any cart to pass out of the town after sunset, nor any footman or horseman, without such good account of the necessity of his business is may be to their satisfaction; and all persons attempting to ride or drive out of town after sunset, without such reasonable satisfaction given, shall be apprehended and brought before authority to be proceeded against as Sabbath breakers; and all other towns are empowered to do the like as need shall be. (Ib., pp. 239, 240-)

By the same court, the reading of the Sunday laws was placed in the hands of the town clerks, to be done at some public meeting of the town, instead of being done by the ministers on Sunday. (Ib., p. 243.)

Thus the laws stood with little or no change until the new charter and the provincial government.

In 1691, Massachusetts, including Plymouth Colony and other territories lying north and east, was reorganized under a new charter from King William and Queen Mary. The change did not, however, materially affect the status of the Sunday laws.

On the 22d of August, 1695, a general act was passed which embodied the substance of all the former colonial laws. By this, all "labor and sporting" was prohibited under penalty of five shillings fine. All "traveling" except in cases of great necessity was punishable by a fine of twenty shillings. The keepers of public houses were forbidden to entertain any except travelers and boarders, on penalty of five shillings fine. Any one justice of the peace was empowered to try the cases, and on his judgment to pass sentence, and the fines, if not forthcoming, were to be collected by distraint. If the offender was unable to pay the fine, be was to be "set in the stocks," or "caged," not to exceed three hours.

These acts were in force from sunset on the seventh day forward. All civil officers and parents were enjoined to carefully enforce these acts. (Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, from 1692 to 1719, folio edition, London, 1724, pp. 15, 16.)

In May, 1711, this law was added to, in that twelve hours imprisonment was made one of the penalties of transgression, and constables were especially empowered and instructed to labor diligently to prevent profanation of the Sunday. (Ib., p. 277.)

In 1716 we find Sunday-desecration on the increase, since, although many laws have been passed, it is said: "Many persons do presume to work and travel on the said day;" so that the authorities saw fit to increase the penalty for "working or playing " to ten shillings, and that for traveling to twenty shillings for the first offense. For the second offense these fines were doubled, and parties made to give "sureties" for good behavior in the future. A month's continued absence from the public Sunday services was also made finable in the sum of twenty shillings, or "three hours in the stocks or cage." (Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, p. 328.)

In 1727, the fine for "working or playing" was increased to fifteen shillings, and that for traveling to thirty shillings for the first offense, and for the second three pounds. If the offender failed to pay, be was liable to the stocks or the cage for four hours, or to imprisonment in the county jail, not to exceed five days. At this time, also, funerals, since they induced "great profanation" of Sunday, by the traveling of children and servants in the streets, were prohibited, except in extreme cases, and then under license from a civil officer of the town. The director of a funeral transgressing this was to be fined forty shillings, and the sexton or grave digger twenty shillings. Shops for the retailing of strong drinks were also to be searched by the proper officers, and if any were found there drinking, the proprietor and the drinker were each to pay five shillings. (Acts and Resolves of the Province of Mass. Bay, Vol. 2, p. 456. Boston edition, 1874.)

In 1741, an additional act was passed against slothfully loitering in the streets or fields, making the penalty twenty shillings for the first offense and forty for the second, with costs, and imprisonment until paid. Appeal to the next court was allowed. (Ib., p. 1,071.)

In 1760, a general amendment was made by repealing all former laws relative to Sunday, and enacting a new code. The reasons for repealing are thus stated:

"Whereas by reason of different constructions of the several laws now in force relating to the observation of the Lord's-day, or Christian Sabbath, the said laws have not been duly executed, and, notwithstanding the pious intention of the legislators, the Lord's-day hath been greatly and frequently profaned, therefore, etc."

The preface to the new law is as follows:

"And whereas, it is the duty of all persons, upon the Lord's-day, carefully to apply themselves publicly and privately to religion and piety, the profanation of the Lord's-day is highly offensive to Almighty God; of evil example, and tends to the grief and disturbance of all pious and religiously disposed persons, therefore. etc."

The main features of the new code were the same as those of the former laws. The provisions were these:

1. Work or play, on land or water, is fined not less than ten nor more than twenty shillings.

2. Traveling by any one except in extremity, and then only far enough for immediate relief is liable to the same penalty.

3. Licensed public house keepers are forbidden to entertain any except "travelers, strangers and lodgers" in their houses or about their premises, for the purpose of drinking, playing, lounging, or doing any secular business whatever, on penalty of ten shillings; the person lounging, etc., also paying not less than five shillings. On the second conviction the inn-keeper is made to pay twenty shillings, and on the third offense to lose his license.

4. Loitering, walking, or gathering in companies in "streets, fields, orchards, lanes, wharves," etc., is prohibited on pain of five shillings fine; and on a second conviction, the offender is required to give bail for future obedience.

5. Absence from public service for one month is fined ten shillings.

6. No one is to assist at any funeral, not even to ring a bell, unless it be a licensed funeral, on penalty of twenty shillings fine. In Boston, however, a funeral might be attended after sunset without a license.

7. The observance of the Sunday was to commence from sunset on the seventh day.

8. Twelve wardens were appointed in each town to execute these laws; these were to look after all infringements of the laws, enter all suspected places, examine or inquire after all suspected persons, etc. In Boston, they were to patrol the streets every Sunday (very stormy or cold days excepted), and diligently watch and search for offenders. In case any one convicted on any point in this code failed to pay his fine at once, he was to be committed to the common jail, not less than five nor more than ten days. These laws were to be read at the March meeting of the towns each year. (Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, folio edition, pp. 392 to 396. Boston, 1759.)

In 1761, this code was supplemented by another act making it five pounds fine to give any false answers to a warden, or to refuse him aid or information when called upon. These were all carried over, in essence, to the state laws when the state was organized in 1780.

The primary compact formed by the colonists at New Haven shows that they took the Bible as their guide in all things. The Common law, based upon the Sabbath law of the Jewish theocracy, was the accepted authority concerning the Sunday. In December, 1647, the transactions of certain ship masters in the harbor of New Haven on Sunday brought the matter before the civil court. The offenders, after examination, were dismissed, but the case created considerable interest, and the times seemed to demand some definite legislation. Hence, on the 31st of January, 1647, the court took the following action:

"It was propounded to the court to consider whether it were not meet to make a law for restraining of persons from their ordinary outward employments on any part of the Sabbath, and the rather, because some have of late taken too much liberty in that way, and have been called to answer for it in the particular court. The court, considering that it is their duty to do the best they can that the law of God may be strictly observed, did therefore order that Whosoever shall, within this plantation, break the Sabbath by doing any of their ordinary outward occasions, from sunset to sunset, either upon the land or upon the water, extraordinary cases, works of mercy and necessity being excepted, he shall be counted an offender, and shall suffer such punishment as the particular court shall judge meet, according to the nature of his offense. (New Haven Colony and Plantation Records, from 1638 to 1649, p. 358.)

The "New Haven Code," published for the use of the colony in 1656, embraces all the general laws which were enacted previous to the union between New Haven and Connecticut colonies. This code contains the following, relative to attendance on public worship:

"And it is further ordered that wheresoever the ministry of the Word is established within this jurisdiction, according to the order of the gospel, every person, according to the mind of God, shall duly resort and attend thereunto, upon the Lord's-day, at least, and also upon days of public fasting or thanksgiving ordered to be generally kept and observed. And if any person within the jurisdiction shall without just and necessary cause, absent or withdraw from the same, he shall, after due means of conviction used, for every such sinful miscarriage, forfeit five shillings to the plantation, to be levied as other fines. (New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-65, p. 588.)

The following statute on the "Profanation of the Lord's-day" is worthy of careful notice:

"Whosoever shall profane the Lord's-day or any part of it, either by sinful servile work, or by unlawful sport, recreation, or otherwise, whether willfully or in a careless neglect, shall be duly punished by fine, imprisonment, or corporally, according to the nature and measure of the sin and offense. But if the court upon examination, by clear and satisfying evidence, find that the sin was proudly, presumptuously, and with a high hand, committed against the known command and authority of the blessed God, such a person therein despising and reproaching the Lord, shall be put to death, that all others may fear and shun such provoking, rebellious courses. Numb. 15, from 30 to 36 verse." (New Haven Colonial Records, 1653-65, p. 605.)

In 1665, the colony of New Haven was united with that of Connecticut under the latter name. Its history will therefore be traced under that head from this point forward.

Here, again, there were at first no special statutes relative to Sunday. In 1650 a general code of laws was established in which is the following provision, as a part of the law against burglary:

And if any person shall commit [such burglary, or] rob, in the fields or houses on the Lord's-day, besides the former punishments, he shall, for the first offense, have one of his ears cut off; and for the second offense in the same kind, he shall lose his other ear in the same manner, and if he fall into the same offense the third time, be shall be put to death. (Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, prior to 1665, p. 514.)

At a general court, held Sept. 8, 1653, the following was enacted relative to maritime matters:

"Whereas, it is observed that many seamen divers times weigh anchors in the harbors of several plantations within these liberties, and pass out on the Lord's-day, to the grief and offense of the beholders, for the preventing whereof it is ordered: That after the publishing this order, no vessel shall depart out of any harbor within this jurisdiction, but the master of the boat or vessel shall first give notice of the occasion of his remove to the head officer of the town next the said harbor where they so anchor, and obtain license, under the hand of the said officer, for his liberty therein. Otherwise they shall undergo the censure of the court." (Colonial Records of Conn. prior to 1665, p. 247.)

The law relative to the attendance on public worship is the same, in essence, as those already noticed. It is as follows:

"It is ordered and decreed by this court and authority thereof, that wheresoever the ministry of the Word is established according to the gospel, throughout this jurisdiction, every person shall duly resort and attend thereunto, respectively upon the Lord's-day and upon such public fast days and days of thanksgiving as are to be generally kept by the appointment of authority. And if any person within this jurisdiction shall, without just and necessary cause, withdraw himself from hearing the public ministry of the Word, after due means of conviction used, he shall forfeit for his absence from every such public meeting five shillings, all such offenses to be heard and determined by any one magistrate or more, from time to time." (Ib., p. 524.)

Two years after the union of the colonies of New Haven and Connecticut under one government, a law was passed forbidding Indians to profane Sunday on penalty of five shillings fine, or one hour in the stocks.

On the 19th of May, 1668, a general law was enacted as follows:

"Whereas, the sanctification of the Sabbath is a matter of great concernment to the weal of a people, and the profanation thereof is that as pulls down the judgments of God upon that place or people that suffer the same: It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that if any person shall profane the Sabbath, by unnecessary travel, or playing thereon in the time of public worship, or before or after, or shall keep out of the meeting house during the public worship unnecessarily, there being convenient room in the house, he shall pay five shillings for every such offense, or sit in the stocks one hour; any one assistant or commissioner to hear and determine any such case; and the constables in the several plantations are hereby required to make search after all offenders against this law, and make return thereof to the commissioners or assistants:"

In 1676 the above was strengthened by the following:

"Whereas, notwithstanding former provisions made for the due sanctification of the Sabbath, it is observed that by sundry abuses the Sabbath is profaned, the ordinances rendered unprofitable, which threatens the rooting out of the power of godliness, and the procuring of the wrath and judgments of God upon us and our posterity; for prevention whereof it is ordered by this court that if any person or persons henceforth, either on the Saturday night or on the Lord's-day night, though it be after the sun is set, shall be found sporting in the streets or fields of any town in this jurisdiction, or be drinking in houses of public entertainment or elsewhere, unless for necessity, every such person so found, complained of, and proved transgressing, shall pay ten shillings for every such transgression, or suffer corporal punishment for default of due payment. Neither shall any sell or draw any sort of strong drink at any time, or be used in any such manner, upon the like penalty for every default.

It is also further ordered that no servile work shall be done on the Sabbath, viz., such as are not works of piety, charity or necessity; and no profane discourse or talk, rude or unreverent behavior shall be used on that holy day, upon the penalty of ten shillings fine for every transgression hereof, and in case the offense be circumstanced with high-handed presumption as well [as] profaneness, the penalty to be augmented at the discretion of the judges. (Col. Rec., Conn., from 1665 to 1677, pp. 88, 280.)

Under date of May, 1684, is found an act referring to the foregoing laws and their enforcement in the following words:

"Whereas, this court, in the calamitous time of New England's distress by the war with the Indians in the Years seventy-five and seventy-six, were moved to make some laws for the suppression of some provoking evils which were feared to be growing up among us, as viz., profanation of the Sabbath, neglect of catechising of children and servants, and family prayer; young persons shaking off the government of parents or masters; boarders and inmates neglecting the worship of God in families where they reside; tippling and drinking; uncleanness; oppression in workmen and traders; which laws (for want of due prosecution of offenders that are guilty of the breach of them) have little prevailed to the suppressing of the growth of said evils amongst us, and not answered that expectation of reformation which this court aimed at; it is therefore ordered by this court, that the selectmen, constables and grand jurymen in the several plantations shall have a special care in their respective places to promote the due and full attendance of those forementioned orders of this court, by the several inhabitants of their respective towns, and the selectmen, constables, and grand jurymen shall, at least once a month, make presentment of all breaches of such laws as are come to their knowledge, to the next assistant or commissioner, under their hands." (Colonial Records of Conn., from 1678 to 1689, pp. 147, 148.)

Any failure on the part of these officers to perform the above mentioned duties was made finable to the amount of ten shillings for every neglect. Two years later this act was renewed in nearly the same words. (Ib., p. 203.) Thus did Sabbath desecration, so-called, increase in spite of these stringent laws, guarded by severe and often-executed penalties.

Soon after this came the interruption of the government by Andros, which lasted between one and two years. When the Government was restored, the general court declared all laws to be binding which were in force before the interruption. After this restoration of the colonial government in 1689, little appears concerning the Sunday laws for several years. In 1715, an especial act was passed concerning the movements of vessels in the harbors, and a general one requiring the officers to execute the existing law against vice and immorality, among which the Sunday laws are mentioned. The power of these officers to search after delinquents was also increased. (Acts and Laws of Conn., folio edition, pp. 206-208. New London, 1715 and 1737.) In 1721, additional laws were passed under the following preamble:

"Whereas, notwithstanding the liberty by law granted to all persons to worship God in such places as they shall for that end provide, and in such manner as they shall judge to be most agreeable to the Word of God; and notwithstanding the laws already provided for the sanctification of the Lord's-day, or the Christian Sabbath, many disorderly persons in abuse of that liberty, and regardless of those laws, neglect the public worship of God on the said day, and profane the same by their rude and unlawful behavior; therefore, etc.

By this law,

1. Non-attendance on lawful public worship was subjected to a fine of five shillings.

2. The same penalty was incurred by going forth from one's place of abode for any reason except to attend worship or perform works of necessity.

3. A fine of twenty shillings was imposed for assembling at any meeting house on Sunday without the consent of the congregation to whom it belonged and the minister who usually officiated in it.

4. Disturbing any meeting for public worship on Sunday was made punishable by a fine of forty shillings.

5. Failure to pay or secure a fine imposed for any of these offenses within one week was punished by labor in the houses of correction for one month or less.

6. No appeal from a justice's court was allowed.

7. All charges were to be preferred within one month from the time of the offense. (Acts and Laws of Conn., folio, pp. 261, 262. New London, 1715 - 1737.)

Other supplementary acts were also passed, relating mainly to the duties of the civil authorities in executing these laws. In 1726, all assistant justices of the peace were empowered, on their own "plain view or personal knowledge," of profanity, drunkenness, or Sabbath-breaking, to make out a judgment accordingly against the offender, "any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." (Ib., p. 319.)

In 1733, a more extensive code was established, of which the following is an outline:

1. Non-attendance on public worship for a specified time was punished by a fine of three shilling.

2. Ten shillings was made the penalty for assembling in a meeting-house without the consent of the congregation and minister for whom it was provided. No persons were allowed to neglect public worship and meet in private houses, on penalty of ten shillings.

3. All work or play, on land or water, on Sundays, fast, or thanksgiving days, was prohibited under a fine of ten shillings.

4. Disturbing public worship by rude or clamorous behavior, in or within hearing of the assembly was fined forty shillings.

5. All traveling, except in great extremity, was forbidden on pain of twenty shillings fine, and all absence from one's house, except for church attendance or " necessity," incurred a fine of five shillings.

6. Staying outside at the meeting house (there being room inside), or going out unnecessarily during service, or playing or talking around places of worship, was finable in the sum of three shillings. Gathering in companies in streets, or elsewhere, on the evening before or the evening after the Sunday, or on the evening after any fast day, was liable to a penalty of three shillings, or two hours in the stocks, religious gatherings excepted.

7. Loitering or drinking in or about any public place after sunset on Seventh-day night subjected both the offender and the keeper of the place to a fine of five shillings.

8. No vessel was allowed to put to sea from any harbor, river or creek within the colonial limits without license, granted only in extreme emergency, nor to weigh anchor within two miles of any place of meeting unless to get nearer to that place, under forfeiture of thirty shillings.

9. Posting notices or publishing them in any way was declared illegal, and the proper officers were instructed to destroy all such as should be put up, and the one putting up the same was subjected to a fine of five shillings.

10. Two "tything men" were ordered to be appointed for every parish; these were empowered and instructed, after the usual manner, to execute these provisions. Whipping, twenty stripes or less, was the penalty for non-payment of a fine. (Acts and Laws of Conn., 1750 to 1772, p. 139-142.)

In 1761, in spite of all that had been done, traveling is declared to be a "growing evil," and all assistant justices of the peace are empowered to arrest, without a written warrant, any person traveling unnecessarily, and every sheriff, constable, grand juryman and tything man was empowered to take such persons into custody, "upon sight, or present information of others." Refusal to aid in any such arrest, when called upon, incurred the usual penalties. (Ib., p. 259.)

In 1770, an act was passed allowing all sober persons who conscientiously differed from the established worship and ministry of the colony, to meet together for worship without incurring the penalties provided for in the preceding law against such meetings, and against action from the recognized services. (Ib., p. 351.) Connecticut became one of the United States in 1788, and the Colonial Sunday Laws passed into the state government. They have been modified as to rigidity from that time to this.

The land of Roger Williams must of necessity have produced Sunday laws different from those of the other New England colonies. What these laws were will be clearly seen by the following extracts. The General Assembly, sitting at Newport, on the second day of September, 1673, enacted as follows:

"Voted, this assembly considering that the King hath granted us that not any in this colony are to be molested in the liberty of their consciences who are not disturbers of the civil peace, and we are persuaded that a most flourishing civil government with loyalty may be best propagated where liberty of conscience by any corporal power is not obstructed that is not to any unchasteness of body, and not by a body doing any hurt to a body neither endeavoring so to do, and although we know by man not any can be forced to worship God, or for to keep holy or not to keep holy any day; but forasmuch as the first days of the weeks it is usual for parents and masters not to employ their children or servants, as upon other days, and some others also that are not under such government, accounting it is a spare time, and so spending it in debaistness or tippling and unlawful games and wantonness and most abominably there practiced by those that live with the English at such times to resort to towns. Therefore, this Assembly, not to oppose or propagate any worship, but as by preventing "debaistness," although we know masters or parents cannot and are not by violence to endeavor to force any under their government to any worshiper, or from any worship, that is not debaistness, or disturbant to the civil peace, but they are to require them, and if that will not prevail, if they can, they should compel them not to do what is debasing or uncivil, or inhuman, not to frequent any immodest company or practices.

Therefore, by his Majesty's authority it is enacted, that on the first days of the weeks whoever be he that doth let any have any drink, that he or any other is drunk thereby, besides all other forfeitures, therefor, for every one so drunk, they shall forfeit six shillings, and for every one that entertains in gaming or tippling upon the first day of the week he shall forfeit six shillings, and by his Majesty's authority, thereby it is enacted, that for to prevent any such misdemeanors, if they are so guilty to discover them that every first day of the week, in every town in this colony, there shall be a constable's watch for every inhabitant fit to watch to take his turn that belongeth to the town, or pay for hiring of one, so for one or more to watch in a day as the Town Council judge necessary to restrain any "debaistness," or immodesty or concourse of people tippling or gaming or wantonness, that all modest assemblies may not be interrupted; especially all such that profess they meet in the worship of God; if some of them will be most false worshipers they should only be strove against, therefore with spiritual weapons if they do not disown that they should not be condemned, whoever they be that be unchaste with their bodies or with their bodies oppress or do violence to what is mortal of any man, but as they should be subject to such, to suffer for such trangressions, parents may thereof correct their children and masters their servants; and magistrates should be a terror to such evil doers. (R.I. Colonial Records, Vol. 2, pp. 503, 504.)

At a general assembly held at Newport, May 7, 1679, the following action was taken:

"Voted, whereas there hath complaint been made that sundry persons being evil minded, have presumed to employ in servile labor, more than necessity requireth their servants and also hire other men's servants and sell them to labor on the first day of the week; for the prevention whereof be it enacted by this assembly and the authority thereof that if any person or persons shall employ his servants or hire and employ any other man's servant or servants and set them to labor as aforesaid, the person or persons so offending shall upon proof thereof made pay for every offense by him or them committed five shillings in money to the use of the poor of the town or place in which the offenses are committed; which said five shillings if the person offending refuse upon conviction before one magistrate to pay a warrant under the hand of one magistrate directed to the sergeant of the town where the offense was committed, shall be his sufficient warrant to take by distraint so much of the estate of the offending party, together with two shillings for his service therein.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that if any person or persons shall presume to sport, game or play at any manner of game or games or shooting on the first day of the week as aforesaid, or shall sit tippling and drinking in any tavern, ale house, ordinary or victualing house on the first day of the week more than necessity requireth, and upon examination of the fact it shall be judged by one justice of the peace the person offending as aforesaid upon conviction before one justice of the peace shall by the said justice of the peace be sentenced for every of the aforesaid offenses to sit in the stocks three hours, or pay five shillings in money, for the use of the poor of the town or place where the offense was committed. (Ib., Vol. 3, p. 31.)

Various modifications or simple re-enactments of the Rhode Island Sunday laws were made in 1750 and 1784. In 1790 the colony became one of the United States, although the original charter of 1633 remained in force until 1843. No important change has taken place in its Sunday law since 1798. (See Public Laws of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Providence, 1798, pp, 577 to 579.)

There was no representative Government in what is now the state of New York until nearly a century after the first settlements were made within its limits. The records of the first half century of the existence of the Colony of New Netherlands, as it was called, are very meager. The government was administered by officers appointed in Holland. The religious views of the Hollanders made it impossible that such an observance of Sunday should obtain in New Netherlands as was common in New England.

In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant was made "Dictator" of the Colony. According to the statements of Mr. Broadhead, the social, civil, and religious affairs of the Colony were in a sad state of decline. The preceding administration of Kieft had been ruinous in many respects. On the arrival of Stuyvesant, says Mr. Broadhead,

"Proclamations were immediately issued with a zeal and rapidity which promised to make a "thorough reformation." Sabbath-breaking, brawling and drunkenness were forbidden. Publicans were restrained from selling liquors, except to travelers, before two o'clock on Sundays, "When there is no preaching," and after nine o'clock in the evening. (History of New Netherlands, first period, p. 466.)

Stuyvesant was a member of the Reformed church at home, and was probably more strict than the most of his countymen. In 1673, each town was empowered to make laws against Sabbath-breaking and other immoralities. (Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York, Vol. 2, p. 621.) The administration of Stuyvesant was the beginning of efforts at Sunday legislation. In 1691, a representative government was established under the English crown. In 1695, Oct.22d, the first Sunday law was passed by that Government. It was prefaced by the following preamble, which gives an idea of the state of the country at that time:

"Whereas the true and sincere worship of God, according to his holy will and commandments, is often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners in this province, who do not keep holy the Lord's-day, but in a disorderly manner accustom themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse-racing, frequenting of tippling houses and the using many other unlawful exercises and pastimes, upon the Lord's-day, to the great scandal of the holy Christian faith, be it enacted, etc."

These are the provisions of the law:

1. Six shillings fine for any of the above named crimes, or any manner of work or play.

2. Any justice of the peace might convict offenders, "on his own sight," "on their confession," or on the testimony of "one or more witnesses;" fines were to be collected by distraint, if necessary. In default of payment, the offender was to sit for three hours in the "stocks." If any master refused to pay the fine imposed upon a Negro or Indian slave or servant, said slave or servant was to be whipped "thirteen lashes." All complaint against offenders were to be made within one month.

3. It was lawful to travel any distance under twenty miles, for the privilege of attending public worship. It was also lawful to "go for a physician or nurse." These exemptions were not good in favor of unchristainized Indians. (Laws of New York from 1691 to 1773, large folio edition, Vol. 1, pp. 23, 24. New York, 1774.)

No other law concerning Sunday-observance appears until after the establishment of the state government, in 1777. A state law of 1778 contained the essential features of the present law.

The early Sunday laws of Pennsylvania were far less strict than those of the New England States. In 1700-1, a general law was passed, John Evans being Lieutenant Governor, under William Penn, of which the following is the substance:

1. All general servile work on Sunday was prohibited on pain of twenty shillings fine. The exceptions under this provision were quite numerous. They allowed the preparing of food in public houses, the dressing and selling of meat by butchers and fishermen during the months of June, July and August, the selling of milk before nine o'clock in the morning and the landing of passengers by watermen during the entire day.

2. No civil process was servable on Sunday.

3. Any person found "tippling" in public drinking houses was fined one shilling and six pence. Any dealer who allowed persons to drink and lounge about his premises was liable to pay ten shillings fine. "Taverns" were however allowed to sell to regular inmates and travelers "in moderation." (Acts of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1. pp. 19-21, folio edition. Phila., 1762.)

There were various minor changes and modifications of this law from time to time before the adoption of the State Constitution, 1776-78. The present state law has been in force since 1794.

Instructions to Captain Woodleaf.

"Ordinances, direccions and Instructions to Captaine John Woodleefe for the government of or men and servants in the Towne and hundered of Bearkley in Virginia given by us Sr. Willm Throkmorton Knight and barronet Richard Bearkley Esq; George Thorpe esq; and John Smyth gent whereunto our commission of the date hereof made to the said captaine Woodleefe hath reference, the fourth day of September 1619 Anno xvijo Jac. regis Angliae &c."

2. Item wee doe ordaine that the Lord's-day be keept in holy and religious order and that all bodily labour and vaine sports and scandalous recreations be refrained, and that morning and evening prayer (according to the English booke of common prayer) be Dayly read and attended unto and such other divine exercisses of preaching and reading to be on the said day used, as it shall please God to enable the minister for the tyme there being to perform. And that all such other fastivalls and holidayes be observed and keept which are authorised and appoynted by the laws and statutes of this realme of England, And the rites and ceremonies authorized perscribed or apoynted by the ecclesiasticall lawes or channons of this realm of England and booke of common prayer (established by authority) be in all things observed and kept, according as it is used in the church of England. (From Bulletin of the New York Public Library for May, 1899, Vol. 3, No. 5, in article "Virginia Papers," 1619, under caption "Instructions to Captain Woodleaf.")

The early laws of Virginia have some resemblance to those of New England.

Hon. R. W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy, in an address delivered in Washington, May 16, 1880, makes the following statement concerning a law made before the organization of the regular Assembly in 1619:

"The very first statute passed by the Cavaliers of Virginia provided that he who did not attend church on Sunday, should pay a fine of two pounds of tobacco. This was the first law ever enacted in the United States, and was passed in 1617, three years before the Puritans landed at Plymouth. (Sabbath Doc. No.45, p.15. New York.)

In 1623 a law was passed in these words:

"Whosoever shall absent himself from divine service any Sunday without an allowable excuse, shall forfeit a pound of tobacco; and he that absents himself for a month shall forfeit fifty pounds of tobacco." (Laws of Virginia, Statutes at Large, Hening, Vol. 1, p. 123. New York, 1823.)

In 1629 the authorities were ordered to take care that the above law was carefully executed, and to "see that the Sabbath-day be not ordinarily profaned by working in any employments, or by journeying from place to place." (Ib., p.144.)

In 1642, "church wardens" are bound by their oath of office to present to the civil authorities all cases of "profaning God's name, and his holy Sabbaths." In the same year it was "enacted for the better observation of the Sabbath that no person or persons shall take a voyage upon the same, except it be to church, or for other causes of extreme necessity upon the penalty of the forfeiture for such offense of twenty pounds of tobacco." (Ib., pp. 240 and 261.) In 1657-8 this law was extended so as to prohibit "traveling, loading of boats, shooting of game, and the like," and the penalty was increased to "one hundred pounds of tobacco," or a place in the "stocks." The execution of any ordinary civil process is also forbidden during this year. (Ib., pp. 434 and 457.) In 1691 the penalty was changed to "twenty shillings," and in 1696 to "thirty shillings or two hundred pounds of tobacco." In 1705 the specifications of the law were increased, and all general acts of profanation by working, playing drinking, etc., and also absence from church for one month, were included in one class, the penalty being "five shillings or fifty pounds of tobacco." In default of payment, the offender was subjected to "ten lashes." (Ib., Vol. 3, pp. 73, 138 and 361.) This law was in force when the colony, which took a prominent part in the Revolutionary War became a state, and a more elaborate code was adopted by the state in 1786.

Such was the Sunday Legislation during the Colonial period and in the leading colonies out of which grew the United States. The history of that period gives ample proof that the Sunday laws were not a dead letter. It would be tedious and useless to note every instance in which these laws were executed. The majority of the cases were, doubtless, disposed of by the common magistrates, and hence do not appear upon the records of the higher courts. A few representative instances are given.

October 6, 1636, John Barnes was found guilty of "Sabbath-breaking" by a jury, and fined "thirty shillings," and "made to sit in the stocks one hour." In 1637 Stephen Hopkins was presented for "suffering men to drink at his house upon the Lord's-day." Two years later, Web Adey was arraigned for working in his garden on Sunday. Before the year closes he repeats the offense and is "set in the stocks" and "whipped at the post." (Plymouth Colony Records, Vol. 1, pp. 44, 68, 86, 92.)

In 1649 John Shaw was set in the stocks for "attending tar pits" on Sunday, and Stephen Bryant was arrested, and "admonished," for carrying a barrel to the same pits on the same day. The next year, 1650, Edward Hunt was arrested for shooting at deer on Sunday, and Cowan White and Z. Hick were called to account for "traveling from Weymouth to Scituate on the Lord's-day." In 1651 Elizabeth Eddy was arrested for "wringing and hanging out clothes on the Lord's-day in time of service." Aurther Howland, for not attending church, and Nathaniel Basset and Joseph Pryor, for "disturbing the church of Duxburrow," were also called to answer the demands of the law. (Plymouth Colony Records, Vol. 2, pp. 140, 156, 165, 173, 174.)

In 1651-2, Abraham Pierce, Henry Clarke and Thurston Clarke, Jr., were arrested for lazily spending Sunday, and staying away from public service. Two or three years later, Peter Gaunt, Ralph Allen, Sen., and George Allen appeared to answer to a similar charge, and William Chase was called to answer for having driven a pair of oxen in the yoke "about five miles on the Lord's-day, in time of exercise." In 1658 Lieutenant James Wyatt was "sharpely reproved" for writing a business note on Sunday "at least in the evening somewhat too soon." At the same time, Sarah Kirby was "publicly whipped" for disturbing public worship, and Ralph Jones paid ten shillings fine" for staying at home when the authorities thought he ought to have been at church. (Plymouth Colony Records, Vol. 3, pp. 5, 10, 52, 74, 111, 112.) Similar cases might be quoted until many pages were filled, in which the reader would see that not only ordinary manual labor on Sunday was punished, but "whipping of servants," "playing at cards," "smoking tobacco," etc., were sharply dealt with. Those were times when laws were made to be executed. Duty was the central idea in the Puritan system, and zeal was ever on the alert to perform what conscience or law demanded. The "Blue-Laws" which exist in tradition, though sometimes exaggerated, and facetiously misrepresented, are an index to the rigid spirit of those days.

The compilations of the "Blue Laws" by Barber and Smucker are mainly, if not entirely, correct. At the time of the adoption of the state Constitutions, corporal punishment in the "stocks" and the "cage" and at the "whipping post" was becoming obsolete.

During the nineteenth century the enforcement of the Sunday laws in New England, and elsewhere in the United States, has been in name rather than in fact. The verdict of history declares that Sunday-keeping - and the same would be true of Sabbath-keeping - cannot be secured by civil legislation. On the contrary, history demonstrates that the introduction of civil legislation touching the Sabbath question has always borne the ultimate result of holidayism. The decline of regard for Sunday as a religious institution, and for Sunday laws, is now so nearly absolute that thoughtful men are beginning to consider the necessity, and therefore the wisdom, of removing civil legislation entirely and leaving the Sabbath question to be settled on religious grounds alone. For the last twenty-five years or more, every attempt to enforce even minor features of the Sunday laws has been set aside through failure and the pressure of public opinion, or, if the effort to enforce them has been temporarily successful, it has resulted in a direct modification of the laws through legislative action. The history of the past declares that but two courses are open for the future: one is to allow Sunday legislation to fall into complete disuse, by common consent. If this is not done, Sunday laws will be modified by legislative action, making them less and less stringent in proportion as they are enforced, until they cease to be.

THE same Divine hand which guarded the Sabbath through the dark centuries between the first great apostasy and the Reformation transferred it from England to America, the last battle ground whereon the great reforms of modern times are being carried forward. True Sabbath reform could not find a place among the masses until that second great error, the "Puritan Sunday," had borne its fruit, decayed in weakness, and crumbled from the hands of the church. This trial could best be made in America. Hence, guided by that divinity which shapes our ends, in l664 Stephen Mumford emigrated from England to Newport, Rhode Island. He brought with him the opinion that the Ten Commandments as they were delivered from Mount Sinai were moral and immutable, and that it was an anti-Christian power which changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. He united with the Baptist church in Newport, and soon gained several of its members to the observance of the Sabbath. This led to much discussion, and finally an open separation took place, and the first Seventh-day Baptist church in America was organized by these Sabbath-keepers in the month of December, 1671. (A full account of the formation of this church, with a complete account of the discussions and final separation, may be found in Vol. I of the Seventh-day Baptist Memorial, pp. 22 to 46.) William Hiscox was ordained its pastor, which office he filled until his death, in 1704. He was succeeded by William Gibson, a minister from London, who continued to labor as pastor until he died, in 1717. Joseph Crandall, who had been his colleague for two years, was selected to succeed him, and presided over the church until he died, in 1737. Joseph Maxson and Thomas Hiscox were evangelists of the church about this time, the former having been chosen in 1732; he died in 1748. John Maxson was chosen pastor in 1754, and performed the duties of the office until 1778. He was followed by William Bliss, who served the church as pastor until his death in 1808, at the age of 81 years. Henry Burdick succeeded to the pastorate of the church, and occupied that post until his death. Besides its regular pastors, the Newport church ordained several ministers, who labored with great usefulness, both at home and abroad. The church also included among its early members several prominent public men, one of whom was Richard Ward, Governor of the State of Rhode Island.

For more than thirty years after its organization, the Newport church included nearly all persons observing the Seventh-day in Rhode Island and Connecticut; and its pastors were accustomed to hold religious meetings at several places, for the better accommodation of the widely-scattered membership. In 1708, however, the brethren living in what was then called Westerly, R. I., comprehending all the south-western part of the state, thought best to form another society. Accordingly they organized a church, now called the First Hopkinton-Ashaway, R. I. - which had a succession of worthy pastors, became very numerous, and built three meeting-houses for the accommodation of the members in different neighborhoods. (See Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, pp. 40, 41, also Backus's History of New England, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 507.) In this last place Mr. Backus adds the following notice in connection with his list of the pastors of what he calls the "Third Church in Newport who keep the Seventh-day. Mr. Ebenezer David (who was first converted in Providence College, and took his first degree there in 1772) belonged to this church; and having been a chaplain, much esteemed, in our army, died therein, not far from Philadelphia, a few days after Mr. Maxson."

The agitation concerning the Sabbath which the early Seventh-day Baptists induced was not confined to Newport. Mr. Backus says (Hist. of New England, Vol. 1, p. 411) that the Baptists in Boston sent a kind letter to these Sabbath-keepers before their separation from Mr. Clarke's church, urging them not to chide, as apostates, certain ones who had left the Sabbath, and not to separate themselves from their church relations with the First-day Baptists.

In another place (Vol. 1, pp. 411, 412) Mr. Backus gives a long letter from Roger Williams to Mr. Hubbard, a member of the Newport Seventh-day Baptist church, who had called Mr. Williams's attention to the claims of the Seventh-day as the only Sabbath. Mr. Williams professes to have studied the subject carefully, but to be unable to agree with Mr. Hubbard's views concerning it. The following letter from a prominent Seventh-day Baptist in London, which was written because of the persecution of Sabbath-keepers in Connecticut, is a specimen of the correspondence on this question at the time:

"Peter Chamberlain senior doctor of both Universities, and first and eldest physician in ordinary to his majesty's person, according to the world, but according to grace, a servant of the Word of God, to the excellent and noble governor of New England; grace, mercy, peace and truth, from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; praying for you that you may abound in heavenly graces and temporal comforts."

The letter goes on to say that the first design of the men of New England was to establish a system of civil and religious liberty, a system to "suppress sin, but not to suppress liberty of conscience." He argues, showing great familiarity with the Scriptures, that "whatever is against the Ten Commandments is sin," and closes as follows:

"While Moses and Solomon caution men so much against adding to or taking from - Deut. 4: 2, Prov. 30:5,6 - and so doth the beloved apostle Rev. 22:18,19, what shall we say of those that take away of those ten words, or those that make them void, and teach men so! Nay, they dare to give the lie to Jehovah, and make Jesus Christ not only the breaker of the law, but the very author of sin in others, also causing them to break them. Hath not the "Little Horn" played his part lustily in this and worn out the saints of the Most High, so that they became "Little Horn" men also? If you are pleased to inquire about these things and to require any instances or informations be pleased by your letters to command it from your humble servant in the Lord Jesus Christ. PETER CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. Backus also notices a similar correspondence between Dr. Chamberlain and one Mr. Olney, about the same time. (Ibid.)

In Felt's Ecclesiastical History of New England is found the following under date of April 3, 1646:

"John Cotton writes an argument to Thomas Sheppard to prove that the first day of the week, and not the seventh, should be observed as the Christian Sabbath. This subject was much discussed by New England ministers against objectors. (Vol. 1, p. 569.)

On page 614 of the same volume is a similar notice of a letter from one Mr. Hooker to Mr. Sheppard on the same theme. Copies of a small book on the Sabbath, written by this same Thomas Sheppard and published at an early day in Connecticut, are still extant. These facts, and the one already referred to, that many prominent and learned men both in the colony of Rhode Island and in England were Seventh-day Baptists, show that the agitation, concerning the Sabbath was neither feeble in character nor meager in extent.

Such was the beginning of the Seventh-day Baptists in New England. Those who wish to read more concerning the foregoing points are referred to the different works quoted, especially the Seventh-day Baptist Memorial. (Vol. 1.)

The second branch of the Seventh-day Baptist church in America was also planted by emigration from England. About the year 1684, Abel Noble, a Seventh-day Baptist Minister from London, settled near Philadelphia. The following extract from a late work by the Rev. James Bailey (History of the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, pp. 11-15) gives the following:

"Able Noble arrived in this country about the year 1784, and located near Philadelphia. He was a Seventh-day Baptist Minister when he came. About this time a difference arose among the Quakers in reference to the sufficiency of what every man has naturally within himself for the purpose of his own salvation. This difference resulted in a separation under the leadership of George Keith. These seceders were soon after known as Keithian Baptists. Through the labors of Abel Noble, many of them embraced the Bible Sabbath and were organized into churches near the year 1700. These churches were Newton, Pennepeck, Nottingham and French Creek, and probably, Conogocheage. . . . The churches of Pennsylvania fraternized with the churches in Rhode Island and New Jersey, and counseled them in matters of discipline. Some of their members also united with these churches. Some of them with some members of the church of Piscataway, and others of Cohansey, near Princeton, emigrated to the Parish of St. Mark, S. C., and formed a church on Broad River in 1754. Five years later, in 1759, eight families removed from Broad River and formed a settlement and a church at Tuckaseeking, in Georgia. These churches have long since become extinct." (Traces of these Sabbath-keepers are still found in the South.)

Speaking again of the Pennsylvania churches, Mr. Bailey says:

"Rev. Enoch David was, for several years, connected with these churches as their preacher. . . . He was the son of Owen David, who emigrated from Wales. He lived some time in Philadelphia, and labored as a tailor. . . . The churches coming out from the Keithian Quakers, and known as the Keithian Baptists and Seventh-day Baptists, retained many of their former habits, and in a few years, by divisions and removals, ceased to exist as distinct churches. They were very numerous in their most prosperous days. There are, however, many of their descendants in connection with our Southern and western churches."

The third branch of the American Seventh-day Baptists originated from causes quite unlike those which gave birth to the two already mentioned. Edmund Dunham was the originator of this movement. He was a member of the First-day Baptist church, in Piscataway, Middlesex county, New Jersey. About the year 1700 he had occasion to rebuke one Mr. Bonham for laboring on Sunday. Mr. Bonham replied by demanding the divine authority for the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. Eager to answer this demand, Dunham began to search God's Word for that which he supposed could easily be found. His investigations led him to discard the Sunday and to embrace the Bible Sabbath. Others soon followed his example, and in 1705 the Piscataway Seventh-day Baptist church was organized; Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor and sent to Rhode Island, where he received ordination. At his death, his son Jonathan Dunham succeeded him in the pastorate. This church still flourishes at New Market, New Jersey; and several other churches have been formed from it directly and indirectly.

Previous to 1745 a flourishing Seventh-day Baptist church existed on the east coast of New Jersey, at Shark River, near the present town of Belmar. It was organized by emigrants from New England.

The Seventh-day Baptists have spread from these three points westward and southward, slowly but steadily. The odds against which their existence has been maintained has made them much stronger than their numbers indicate. Their existence has been perpetuated and their growth secured under the conviction that God has commissioned them to uphold the doctrine of fealty to his law, until the Christian church through its repeated failures to establish and maintain the sacredness of Sunday, either by the attempted transfer of the Fourth Commandment, or by the aid of the civil law, shall come to see that on God's law alone can either the idea of the Sabbath or the day of the Sabbath be maintained. They have foreign missions in China, Holland and Africa.

Theologically, the Seventh-day Baptists have always been known as "thoroughly evangelical." In matters of general reform, moral and political, they have always been at the front. In the work of higher education they have done more than the average of other denominations in proportion to their numbers. Sabbath-keeping is not the product of sectarian bigotry in their case, but the fruitage of a settled conviction that a return to the observance of the Sabbath is the only salvation from the morass of Sunday holidayism and dissipation. Time alone can test their faith, and that test they patiently await.

This body of Sabbath-keepers has arisen within the last fifty years. Although observing the Seventh-day, they differ from the Seventh-day Baptists in several respects. The advent movement of 1843-4, as believed and cherished by them, led to the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. That movement was based upon three leading ideas:

1. That the great outlines of prophecy in the books of Daniel and Revelation indicated the accomplishment of the long period of Gentile rule, and the immediate advent of Christ and the judgment.

2. That the prophetic periods which relate to the closing events of this dispensation, and especially the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, pointed to 1843-4 as the Year of their termination.

When 1844 had passed without the expected advent of Christ, the entire subject of the advent faith was re-examined and new questions were raised. Is the course of earthly empire as marked by Daniel and John just ready to expire? This appeared to the Adventists an undoubted fact. Is the millennium before or after Christ's advent? After that event, said they. Have the signs of Christ's second coming made their appearance? So the Adventists decided. Have the 2,300 days been rightly reckoned? Is the earth the sanctuary? Is the sanctuary to be cleansed by fire? Does the Saviour cleanse the sanctuary when he comes the second time, or does this take place before that event?

The conclusion was arrived at through this reexamination that the 2,300 days were ended, and that they indicated, not the close of human probation, but the commencement of the great work in the sanctuary which should bring the work of mercy to a final termination.

So the advent movement led directly to the heavenly sanctuary; and with equal directness to the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. For it was seen that the heavenly tabernacle with its sacred vessels was the great original after which Moses copied in making the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. Exod. 25; Heb. 9. It was further seen that the heavenly sanctuary had the same grand central object as the earthly, viz.: the ark of God's testament. Rev. 11:19; Exod.40:20, 21; Deut. 10:3,5. The ark containing the Ten Commandments, with the mercy seat for its top, was that over which the typical atonement was made; and hence the real atonement must relate to that law concerning which an atonement was shadowed forth. Lev. 16:15. And so the heavenly sanctuary contains the ark after which Moses patterned when he obeyed the mandate see that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." Heb. 8:5; 9 :23. And in that ark is the original of that law which the great Law-giver copied with his own finger for the ark of the earthly sanctuary. Exod. 20 24; Deut. 9:10. And this great fact clearly indicates that the Ten Commandments constitute the moral law to which the atonement relates; that they are distinct from the law of types and shadows; that they are unchangeable in their character, and of perpetual obligation; that our Lord, as high priest, ministers before a real law; that men in the gospel dispensation must obey the law of the Ten Commandments; and so the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment was found among the things which are as immutable as the pillars of heaven.

Thus the study of the heavenly sanctuary opened to their minds the Sabbath and the law of God. And so the ancient Sabbath of the Bible became with this people a part of the advent faith.

The Sabbath was introduced to the attention of the advent people first at Washington, N. H., by a faithful Seventh-day Baptist sister by the name of Preston.

A word relative to this woman may be in place. Rachel D. Harris was born in Vernon, Vt. When she was twenty-eight years of age she became a believer in the Bible Sabbath. She was faithful to her convictions of duty and united with the Seventh-day Baptist church of Verona, Oneida Co., N. Y. Her first husband bore the name of Oaks. Her second that of Preston. She and her daughter, Delight Oaks, were members of the Seventh-day Baptist church of Verona, N. Y., at the time of their removal to Washington, N. H. These sisters were faithful to the truth and were instrumental in raising up the first church of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, and from this church the light shone forth upon those who have been instrumental in turning thousands to the Sabbath. For further information concerning them and their work, address, Seventh-day Adventist Publishing House, Battle Creek, Mich.

IT is truly said that "men are often better than their creeds." It is equally true that formulas and statements remain in the written symbols of faith long after they have become dead letters. The reader must be left to decide how well the practice of the churches accords with their creeds as given below. We give, with little or no comment, the formulated faith of the representative denominations in the United States.

Concerning the "Rule of Faith," in general the Catholic church speaks as follows:

Q. What is the rule of our faith left us by Jesus Christ ?

A. The Christian world, as it stands at present, is divided into two great bodies in regard to this point. All, indeed, agree in this, that the Holy Scriptures, being dictated by the Holy Ghost, are truly the Word of God, and therefore are infallibly true in what they teach, both as to what we are to believe, and as to what we are to do in order to be saved. But, as the divine truths contained in them cannot be known without understanding the true sense of these sacred writings, hence the great question arises: How is the true sense of the Scriptures to be known? One of the two great bodies of Christians, to wit, the Protestants, affirm that the true sense of the Scriptures maybe sufficiently known in all things necessary to salvation, by every man of sound judgment who reads them with humility and attention; and therefore they hold that the rule left by Jesus Christ to man for knowing what we are to believe, and what we are to do in order to be saved, is the written Word alone, as interpreted by every man of sound judgment. The other great body of Christians, namely the Roman Catholics, affirm that the true sense of the Scriptures cannot be sufficiently known by any private interpretation, but only by the public authority of the Church; and, therefore, they hold that the rule left us by Jesus Christ is the written Word as interpreted by the Church. (The Sincere Christian Instructed, etc., by Right Rev. Doctor George Hay, chap. 11, pp. 119, 120, Boston edition.)

The same writer defines the commands of the church as follows:

Q. What do you mean by the commands of the Church?

A. The commands of the Church, in general, signify all those laws, rules and regulations which the pastors of the Church have made, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edification of the body of Christ; but what is meant in particular by the commands or precepts of the Church, are six general laws, which are of more eminent note in the Church, both on account of their antiquity (having been observed, as to their substance, from the very first ages) and on account also of their universality, as obliging every member of the Church without exception whom they concern. (Ibid., chap. 15, pp. 168, 169.)

Q. What is the first command of the Church?

A. To hear mass on Sundays and holidays, and to rest from servile work. . . .

Q. Are these holidays of God's appointment under the old law binding upon Christians under the gospel?

A. By no means; they were instituted in memory of the particular temporal benefits bestowed on the people of Israel, and were binding on them alone; and, like the rest of the exterior of their religion, which was all a figure of the good things to come under the gospel, they were figures of the Christian holidays, which were to be ordained by the church of Christ, in memory of the spiritual benefits bestowed by him on Christians, and therefore were fulfilled and done away when the Christian religion was established. By whom are the Christian holidays appointed?

A. By the church of Christ; which also, by the authority and power given her by her Divine Spouse, ordained the Sunday or first day of the week, to be kept holy, instead of Saturday, or the seventh day, which was ordained to be kept holy among the Jews by God himself. . . .

Q. In what manner does the Church command these holidays to be kept ?

A. In the same manner as the Sundays; by abstaining from all unnecessary servile works, and employing such a portion of the day in the exercises of piety and devotion, that we may be truly said to keep the day holy, and particularly to assist at the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Q. Why are the holidays commanded to be kept the same way as Sundays?

A. Because (1) the intention of instituting both Sundays and holidays is the same. (2) God commanded the holidays of the old 1aw to be kept in the same way as the Sabbath; and as these were only figures of the Sundays and holidays of the new law, if this was done in the figure, where only temporal benefits were commemorated, much more ought it to be done in the substance, which regards the great spiritual benefits of our redemption. (The Sincere Christian Instructed. etc., chap. 15, sec. 1, pp. 170, 171.)

Such is the basis of Sunday-observance in the Roman Catholic church. This "Ecclesiastical" theory is prominent in all the reformed churches on the continent of Europe, and underlies all other theories of Sunday-observance among Protestants. The earlier laws of the Church of England made the same classification, placing Sunday with the other holidays. The present theory of that church, is defined by one of its most scholarly writers on the Sabbath question, Dr. Hessey, is a modified form of Romish theory, but yet resting on an ecclesiastical basis. He says:

"We are warranted then, I think, in concluding that so far as her fully authorized documents are concerned, the Church of England does not pronounce in favor either of the purely Ecclesiastical, or of the Sunday Sabbatarian view of the Lord's-day. Not of the former, for the day is of divine institution. Not of the latter, for though she presents the parable of the Jewish law as a reminder that the Sunday is of divine institution, she does not assert that the Sabbath is continued. So far as those documents are concerned we seem to be justified in "standing in the ways and seeing, and asking for the old paths, where is the good way, and walking therein," if happily thereby we "may find rest for our souls." (Sunday, Lee. 7, pp. 195, 196.)
 

This church in America rests upon the same doctrinal basis as the Church of England. In a "Catechism on the Doctrines, Usages and Holy Days of the Protestant Episcopal Church," we find a number of questions and answers which form a sort of Puritan theory on an ecclesiastical basis. So far as these refer to the early history of Sunday, especially during the patristic period, they are remarkable for the ignorance they evince concerning the latest investigations in that department, or else for their indifference to the results which those investigations have reached. The following are some of the questions:

What day of the week does the Christian Church keep holy?

A. The first day of the week, called Sunday.

Q. What authority have we for the change of this day from the seventh to the first day?

A. The authority and practice of the Holy Apostles, and the Church in all ages.

Q. Why was Sunday made the great day for Christian rest and worship?

A. Because the resurrection of Christ took place on the first day of the week.

Q. Would the Apostles have changed the day if Christ had not instructed them to do so?

A. No, they acted under his inspiration and by his authority.

Q. When did Jesus instruct his disciples? Acts 1:2,3.

A. In the three years of his ministry, and also during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension, when he gave commandments to the Apostles whom he had chosen, and spake of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Q. Did Christ claim to control the Sabbath ? Luke 6:5.

A. Yes, he declared "the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."

Q. Have Christians always kept the first day since our Saviour's time?

A. Yes, they have, in all ages of the Church, and this universal observance of the first day proves that it must have been so ordered by Christ and his Apostles.

Q. What happened on the first Lord's-day ?

A. Jesus Christ arose from the dead, and on the evening of the same day appeared to his disciples, and gave them their commission. John 20: 21,20.

Q. What happened on the next Sunday? John 20: 27.

A. Jesus appeared to the disciples again, when he gave St. Thomas the proof he required to confirm his faith.

Then follow the usual references to the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:4; also the reference to Acts 20:7 and Rev. 1:10. (Catechism, as above, pp. 8-11, Church and Book Society, New York.)
 

The Westminster Confession forms the basis of the doctrines of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist branches of the church, which have been developed from the Puritan stock in England, Scotland, and America. The general modifications which have been made in the creed have not materially affected its statements concerning the Sabbath question. Chapter 21 treats of "Religious worship and the Sabbath-day." Sections 7 and 8 are as follows:

"As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so in his Word, by a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him (Ex. 20:8,10,11; Isa. 56:2,4,6,7), which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week (Gen. 2:2,3; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts 20:7), which in Scripture is called the Lord's-day (Rev. 1:10), and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath. (Ex. 20:8,10, with Matt. 5:17,18.)

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations (Ex. 20:8; 16:23,25,26,29,30;31; Isa. 58:13; Neh. 13:15-22), but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy. Isa. 58:13; Matt. 12:1-13. (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3, pp. 648, 649.)

Those branches of the church which have sprung from the "Continental" stock, and have found a home in America, are less positive and rigid in their Sunday creeds. The Reformed Church in America (Dutch) accepts the "Heidelburg Catechism" and the "Canons of the Synod of Dort" as doctrinal standards. The catechism, as issued by the Board of Publication, New York, varies slightly from the text as given by Dr. Schaff, (Creeds. etc., Vol. 3, p. 345) and adds references to the Scriptures which are assumed to support the statements made in answer to the 103d question. The following is from the American edition:

"Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth command?

A. First; that the ministry of the gospel, and the schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the Sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, to hear his Word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call on the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the poor, as becomes a Christian; secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath."

In the "Canons of Dort" and in the "Belgic Confession" as accepted by this church in America, no reference is made to the observance of Sunday.

The Lutheran Church, accepting the "Augsburg Confession," teaches the ecclesiastical theory. Witness the following:

"What shall we think, then, of the Lord's-day and church ordinances and ceremonies? To this our learned men respond, that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances, that things be done orderly in the church; not that we should purchase by them remission of sins, or that we can satisfy for sins, or that consciences are bound to judge them necessary, or to think that they sin who without offending others break them. . . .

Even such is the observation of the Lord's-day, of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holy days and rites. For they that judge that by the authority of the Church, the observing of Sunday, instead of the Sabbath-day, was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. The Scripture points and grants that the keeping of the Sabbath-day is now free, for it teaches that the ceremonies of Moses' law, since the revelation of the gospel, are not necessary. And yet because it was needful to ordain a certain day that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the church did appoint Sunday, which day, as it appears, pleased them rather than the Sabbath-day, even for this cause, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping and observance of either Saturday, or any other day, is not necessary.

There are wonderful disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from a false persuasion and belief of men, who thought that there must needs be in the Church an honoring of God, like the Levitical law, and that Christ committed to the apostles and bishops authority to invent and find out ceremonies necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not clearly taught. Some dispute that the keeping of the Sunday is not fully, but only in a certain manner, the ordinance of God. They prescribe of holy days, how far it is lawful to work. Such manner of disputations, whatever else they be, are but snares of consciences. (The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, pp. 174, 175, New York, 1850.)
 

The "Articles of Religion," as put forth by the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, contain no reference to the Sunday question. (See Schaff, Creeds, etc., Vol.3, p.807, seq.) Among its denominational publications are several tracts on the Sabbath question. Two of these - one entitled "The Proper Observance of the Sabbath as taught in the Scriptures," and the other "The American Sabbath" indicate that their views thus expressed are of the modified Puritan or Anglo-American school. Two others put forth, one in 1878 and one in 1880, are especially intended to defend the Sunday against the Sabbath. The utterances of this church in its various organic forms are also in favor of the religious, orthodox observance of Sunday. So that although the creed per se does not affirm anything directly concerning the question under consideration, it is just to catalogue the Methodist Episcopal Church with those who believe in the Sabbatic observance of Sunday, on the general basis of the "Westminster" platform.

The Baptist Church has already been classified with those branches which accept the Westminster platform concerning Sunday. The views of the "Regular" Baptists are put forth in detail in the following extracts from the "Directory," by Dr. Hiscox:

"We believe the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the Lord's-day or Christian Sabbath and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes; by abstaining from all secular labor and sinful recreations, by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both private and public; and by preparation for that rest that remaineth for the people of God.
 

1. Acts 20:7, On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them. Gen. 2:3; Col. 2:16,17; Mark 2:27; John 20:19; 1 Cor. 16:1,2.

2. Exod. 20:8, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Rev. 1:10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day. Psa. 118:24. This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it.

3. Isa. 58:13,14, If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob. Isa. 56:2-8.

4. Psa. 118:15, The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous.

5. Heb. 10:24,25, Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is. Acts 11:26, A whole year they asssembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. Acts 13:44, The next Sabbath-day, came almost the whole city together, to hear the Word of God. Lev. 19:30; Exod. 46:3; Luke 4:16; Acts 17: 2,3; Psa. 26:8; 87:3.

6. Heb. 4:3-11, Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest. (Baptist Church Directory, by E. T. Hiscox, D.D., pp. 171, 172.)

Very slight analysis is needed to show that all these theories are based on the parent theory of the Romish church, which was the first theory promulgated concerning Sunday-observance. It was not essentially modified until the Puritan movement, at the close of the sixteenth century. That movement added the claim that the Fourth Commandment had been, or might be, transferred to Sunday. But since candor and intelligence are forced to admit that the Scriptures do not authorize such a transfer, the Puritan theory only changes the place, and keeps the pain, and fails to lift Sunday-keeping above the level of human authority. The battle must still be kept in array around this vital issue, VIZ.: ARE THE SCRIPTURES, GOD'S WORD, THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE SABBATH, OR SHALL THESE BE SET ASIDE, AND THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH AND THE CIVIL LAW BE ACCEPTED IN THEIR STEAD?

The undeniable fact that the Sabbatic observance of Sunday has become a thing of the past to so great an extent in the United States shows that the loose and indefinite creeds put forth by the churches have little power over the lives of those who assert them. Such disastrous results, must always come when men cut loose from the Word of God, or compromise between the demands of his law and their own theories.

AN analysis of the creeds examined in the preceding chapter shows that they are all based on a common theory, which was at first a combination of no-Sabbathism and of church-authority. This theory found its earliest full expression and its permanent development in the Roman Catholic Church. No-Sabbathism is self destruction, since it removes the elements of authority and obligation without which neither religious convictions nor religious institutions are possible. Hence it was a logical necessity that the doctrine of church-authority, as embodied in the Roman Catholic Church from the fifth century forward, should be added to the doctrine of no-Sabbathism. Otherwise no form of Sabbath-keeping could have continued. In so far as the creeds held by Protestant churches partake of the no-Sabbath elements they contain the seeds of self-destruction. It is because of this logic of events as wrought out in the history of the Sabbath question that regard for Sunday has decayed, and that holidayism has gained the field in the United States in much the same way that it has always held the field in Europe.

The Puritan movement in England adopted essentially the position held by the English Seventh-day Baptists. It attempted to restore the element of authority by claiming the right to transfer the Fourth Commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week. The result of this re-introduction of divine authority gave a marked vigor and a temporary sacredness to Sunday-observance wholly unknown before. The development of that theory has gone forward mainly in the United States; but the illogicalness and unscripturalness of the attempted transfer of authority made the Puritan theory inherently weak and self-destructive. In spite of the conscientious regard which Puritanism developed at first, and in spite of the rigid civil legislation which enforced this conscientious regard, Sunday has fallen into decline steadily and hopelessly. Certain conclusions are therefore unavoidable in the light of history, the progress of which marks the unfolding of fundamental facts and principles, that no human theories can counteract or set aside.

l. The element of divine authority must be restored, and the whole Sabbath question must be left to religious convictions for adjustment.

2. Civil legislation must be eliminated from the Sabbath question. Whatever legislation is necessary to prevent immorality and disorder on Sunday or on any other day as a holiday should be continued, especially in connection with the liquor traffic; but such legislation should be entirely distinct from the Sabbath idea, and whether men engage in ordinary business or recreations on any day of leisure must be left wholly to religious convictions. If it be necessary to protect employed persons against the greed and injustice of employers, civil law may grant to each employed person one day of rest in each week, but the time of resting should be agreed upon mutually between the employer and those whom he employs. Aside from these demands which the verdict of history makes, the present disastrous results of enforced leisure on Sunday, which make it a prominent support of the liquor traffic, demand such legislation as we here suggest.

3. The Sabbath question for the future must be decided in accordance with the broad interpretation which Christ made of the Sabbath law and of Sabbath duties. This will bring the church again to the religious basis and to the Sabbath as a Christian institution in contrast with the Sabbath as it had become perverted among the Jews at the time of Christ. Christ's treatment of the Sabbath indicates the only genuine and true "Christian Sabbath." The fundamental error of disregarding the Sabbath and putting Sunday in its place must give way to the larger issue which is now at hand; namely, a return to the Sabbath as Christianized by Christ, or the loss of all Sabbathism through the tide of holidayism which now floods the world.

The Sabbath question is larger in its fundamental relations to religious life than men are wont to think. It is a vital issue in connection with all forms of religious life. As connected with Judaism, it has a history reaching back to the earliest times, and the present developments in the United States indicate an important struggle touching the Sabbath and its observance among the Jews of modern times. The Roman Catholic Church, so long dominant in the Christian world, and still the strongest politico-religious organization in the world, is also directly involved in the larger issues of the Sabbath question. Protestants, whose nominal creed is "the Bible and the Bible only" as the standard of faith and practice, are yet more closely and seriously involved in the Sabbath problem. The success or failure of public religious services and worship, and therefore of religious culture, is a prominent part of the Sabbath problem. It is not strange that thoughtful men are constantly saying that the life of the church and of the nation rises or sinks with the Sabbath question. In an age of intense commercialism like the present, the necessity not only for physical rest, but for devotion and spiritual culture, is doubly important and imperative. Even if holidayism secures the necessary physical rest, the higher elements of spiritual and religious culture are lost unless the sanctions of religion become imperative in connection with Sabbath-observance.

Thus it is that intensely practical and supremely important truths are forced upon our attention by the history which has been detailed in the preceding chapters. What we have said in this book is far more than a compilation of interesting facts and historic summaries. These facts, and the results associated with them, compel every thoughtful man to recognize in Sabbath Reform a fundamental religious issue, which cannot be safely set aside, nor successfully ignored. Whatever conclusions the reader may adopt as he lays down this book will have an important bearing upon his own religious life and upon the great religious problems of the day.

A.

Acts of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania. Folio: 356-357.

Acts and Laws of Connecticut. Folio: 1715 & 1737, A. D. 346-350.

Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. 337-339.

Allix, Rev. Pierre. Ancient Piedmont Church. 197, 204.

Ancient Syrian Documents. 167, 168.

Andrews, Bishop Lancelot, On the Ten Commandments. 28.

Andrews, Rev. J. N. Testimony of the Fathers: 70, 71.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: 47, 48, 49, 50, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168.

Apostles, The Teaching Of. 43, 44.

Apostolic Constitutions. 16o-166.

Archelaus, Disputation with Manes. 102.

Athanasius. Letter to Sarapion. 136. Letter for Easter 334 A.D. 136.

Augustine. Commentary on Psalms 92, 140, 141,142. On the Gospel of John: 142, 143.

Augsburg Confession. 231, 232, 234, 383, 384.

B.

Bakus, Rev. Isaac. History of New England. 336, 367, 368.

Bailey, Rev. James. History of the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference. 369, 370.

Bampfield, Rev. Francis. Observations on the Seventh-day Sabbath. 310. The Seventh-day Sabbath, etc. 310.

Bampfield, Rev. Thomas. The Fourth Commandment, etc. 314.

Barnabas. Catholic Epistle. 14,15.

Baronius, Works. Tome II: 34, 35.

Bell, Table Talk of Lutlier. 229, 230.

Basil the Great. Letter Ninety-Three. 91.

Benedict, Rev. David. History of the Baptists. 192, 196, 200, 201, 202.

Beza. On Songs of Solomon. Homily 30. 247.

Bingham, Rev. Dr. Joseph. Antiquities of the Christian Church. 88, 89, 110, 112, 125, 145, 147.

Blair. History of the Waldenses. 201.

Bownde, Rev. Nicholas. Doctrine of the Sabbath, etc. 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280.

Brabourne, Rev. Theophilus. On the Sabbath. 305.

Brerewood, Rev. Edward. Treatise on the Sabbath. 110.

Broadhead. History of the Netherlands. 354.

Brooks. Lives of the Puritans. 304.

Bryennios. Teachings of the Apostles. 39-43.

Buchannan, Rev. Claudius. Christian Researches in Asia. 217, 218, 234, 235.

Bullinger, Rev. Heinrich. Sermons. Second Decade. 246, 247.

C.

Calamy, Rev. Edmund. Non-Conformists' Memorial. 310-314.

Calvin, Rev. John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 22, 78, 79, 80, 237, 241. Commentary on Gal. 241, 242. Sermons on Deuteronomy, 242. Commentary on Col. 243. Commentary on Acts. 244.

Carlow, Rev. George. The Truth Defended, etc. 314, 315.

Cassian, John. Institutes. 116.

Catechism of Protestant Episcopal Church. 380, 381.

Cave, Rev. William, D.D. Primitive Christianity. 112-114.

Chambers' Cyclopaedia. 297.

Chrysostom. Homily Twelve Concerning the Statutes. 138, 139, 140.

Clement, of Alexandria. Stromata. 73-76.

Clement, of Rome. Epistle to Corinthians. 8,9.

Codex Justinian. 123, 124.

Coleman, Rev. Lyman. Ancient Christianity Exemplified. 13, 22, 91, 92, 108, 109, 215, 216, 219.

Colonial Records of Connecticut from 1665 to 1677, A.D. 343-346.

Constantine the Great. Sunday Edict. 123.

Cornthwaite, Rev. Robert. Reply to Dr. Wright on the Sabbath. 316, 317.

Cox, Robert. Sabbath Literature. 59, 77, 78, 85, 86, 132, 133, 301, 302, 303, 305, 317. Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties. 252.

Crantz, Rev. David. History of the United Brethren. 193.

Cranmer, Rev. Thomas. Catechism. 256. Confutation on Unwritten Verities. 257.

Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. 12, 18, 19.

Cyprian. Epistle Fifty-Eight. 83.

Cyril. Catechetical Lectures. 137-139.

D.

Dellon, The Martyr. Account of the Inquisition at Goa. 225, 226.

Dionyssius, Bishop of Corinth. Letter to Soter. 53, 54.

Domville, Sir William. An Examination of the Six Texts. 13, 20, 30, 32, 51, 57, 59.

E.

Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles. 166.

Edwards, Rev. Justin. Sabbath Manual. 56.

Edwards, Rev. Jonathan. History of Redemption. 194.

Encyclopaedia Britanica. 152, 153, 158.

Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge. 14.

Erasmus. De Amabili Ecclesia Concordia. 198.

Eusebius. Church History. 12. De Vita Constantina. 89, 90. Commentary on Ninety-Second Psalm. 132.

F.

Felt, --. Ecclesiastical History of New England. 368.

Fortesque, E. F. K. The American Church. 222.

Frythe, Rev. John. Declaration of Baptism. 255, 256.

Fuller,--. Church History. 304.

G.

Geddes, Rev. Michael. Church History of Ethiopia. 212,213.

Gibbon, Edward. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 129, 212.

Giesler, Prof. J.C.I. Church History, Apostolic Age. 115.

Gilfillan, Rev. James. Sabbath. 26, 27, 297.

Gobat, Rev. Samuel. Journal of Three Years' Residence in Abyssinia. 208, 209, 210, 211.

Grant, Dr. Ashael. History of the Nestorians. 219, 220.

Gregory the Great. Epistle to Roman Citizens. 116-118.

Grovenor, Prof. E. A. Article on Teaching of Apostles, in Independent. 39-43.

Gully, W. S. The Valdenses. 203.

Gurney, Rev. John. Brief Remarks on the Sabbath. 27.

H.

Hackett, Prof. H. B. Commentary on Acts. 12.

Hallam, Sir Henry, Constitutional History of England. 271, 272.

Hase, Rev. Dr. Charles. History Christian Church. 114.

Hay, Right Rev. George. The Sincere Christian Instructed, etc. 376-379.

Hefele, Right Rev. Charles Joseph. History of Church Councils. 153, 154, 155, 156.

Hengstenberg. The Lord's Day. 177.

Hermas, Allegory of. 9.

Hessey, Rev. Dr. James Augustus. Bampton Lectures on Sunday. 19, 20, 85, 148, 149, 150, 151, 159, 169, 172, 219, 220, 228, 229, 235, 236, 245, 250, 252, 256, 262, 269, 270, 294, 295, 379.

Heylyn, Rev. Dr. Peter. History of the Sabbath. 90, 91, 109, 145, 146, 147, 148, 173, 174, 175, 176, 235, 248, 249, 252, 257, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 301.

Hitchcock, Rev. Dr. Roswell. Origin and Growth of Episcopacy. 22, 23.

Hilgenfeld. Article on the Teaching of the Apostles. 39.

Hiscox, Rev. Dr. E. T. Baptist Church Directory. 386, 387.

Hoveden, Roger de. Annals. 182, 187. (These Annals were formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris.)

Hutchinson, Rev. Thomas. History of Massachusetts. 326.

I.

Ignatius. Epistle to Magnesians. 16, 18,105, 106.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Interpolated Epistle of. 59-60. Against Heresies. 61, 101, 102.

J.

John, Bishop of Lincoln. Writings and opinions of Clement. 73.

Jones, Rev. William. History of the Waldenses. 195, 199. History Christian Church. 199, 200.

Jortin, Rev. John. Ecclesiastical History. 194.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. 46,47. Dialogue with Trypho. 47, 48, 49.

Kaye, Bishop. Ecclesiastical History of Second and Third Centuries. 68, 69.

Killen, Prof. W. D. The Old Catholic, Church. 13. History of the Ancient Church. 13, 21.

King, Rev. Peter. Primitive Church. 109, 110.

L.

Lardner, Rev. Nathaniel. Credibility of the Gospel History. 58. Laws of New York from 1691 to 1773. Folio, 355, 356.

Laws of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. 336.

Laws of Virginia. 359, 360.

Lewis, Rev. A.H. History of Sunday Legislation. 150,181, 295.

Luther, Rev. Martin. Works. 231. Table Talk. 229, 230.

M.

Massachusetts Bay Colony Records. 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335.

Massie, J. W. Continental India. 216.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis. A Book on the Lord's -- . 54.

Michelt, Prof. Karl Ludwig. Life of Luther. 229.

Milner, Rev. Joseph. Church History. Vol. 1. 12.

Millman, Rev. Henry Hart. History of Christianity. 125, 126. Historical Commentaries. 130.

Morer, Rev. Thomas. Dialogues on the Lord's-day. 177, 178, 179, 180.

Mosheim, Rev. John Lawrence. Church History. Vol. I. ii. Historical Commentaries. 11, 12. Ecclesiastical History. 202.

N.

Neal, Rev. Daniel. History of the Puritans. 253, 254, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 293.

Neal, Edward V. Feasts and Fasts. 126, 127.

Neale, Rev. John Mason. History of Holy Eastern Church. 222.

Neander, Rev. Dr. John Augustus William. Church History of the First Three Centuries. 10, 11, 62, 92, 115.

New Haven Colony and Plantation Records. 340, 341, 342.

Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. First Series. 12, 15, 139, 140, 141,142, 143.

Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. Second Series. 91, 106, 108, 116, 118, 136, 137, 139.

O.

Ockford, Rev. James. Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment. 306.

Origen. Twenty-Third Homily on Numbers. 77, 78. Opera Omnia. 80. Against Celsus. 80, 81. Commentary on John. 81, 82.

Outlook and Sabbath Quarterly. 35, 38.

P.

Papias. Fragments. 10.

Paggitt, Ephraim. Church Herisiography. 299, 300.

Perkins, Rev. Justin. Residence of Eight Years in Persia. 221.

Pliny. Letter to Trajan. 24, 25.

Plymouth Colony Records. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 360, 361, 362.

Polycarp. Epistle to Philippians. 9, 10.

Public Laws of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 354.

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Prior to 1665, A.D. 342, 343.

Purchas, Rev. Samuel. Pilgrimages. 202.

R.

Robertson, Rev. Cragie. Church History. 114.

Rhode Island Colonial Records. 350-353.

Ross, Rev. Alexander. View of all Religions. 198.

S.

Sabbath Document, Number, 45. 349.

Schaff, Rev. Dr. Phillip. History Christian Church. 14, 114, 115, 120, 123. Creeds of Christendom. 382, 383, 385.

Sellers, Rev. William. Reply to Dr. Owen on the Sabbath. 309.

Seventh-day Baptist Memorial. 365-369.

Sleidan, Rev. John. History of the Reformation. 197.

Socrates. Ecclesiastical History. 106, 107,

Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History. 90, 108.

Stanley, Dr. Arthur P. History Eastern Church. 131, 207, 208, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219.

Stennet, Rev. Edward. The Royal Law Contended For. 307-309.

T.

Tertullian. An Answer to the Jews. 62-65. On Idolatry. 65-66. On the Crown. 67. On Prayer. 67-68. Against Marcion. 70, 103, 104.

Thompson, Hon. R. W. Address, etc. 358.

Twisse, Rev. Dr. William. Morality of the Fourth Commandment. 110.

Tyndale, Rev. William. Reply to Sir Thomas Moore. 254-255.

U.

Uhlhorn, Rev. Dr. Gerhard. Conflict of Heathenism with Christianity. 94, 95, 96, 123.

V.

Virginia Papers, etc. 357, 358.

W.

Waddington, Dean. Church History. 193.

White, Bishop Francis. Treatise on the Sabbath, etc. 203, 303, 304.

Westminster Confession. 381.

Y.

Yeates. East Indian Church History. 217

Z.

Zwingle. Works. 236.