The Bible Sabbath

THE following articles and extracts are a careful selection from the
publications of the Seventh-day Baptists. We send out this choice
work with the expectation that those, who "delight in the law of God,"
will be much instructed and blest in reading the clear, comprehensive
and irrefutable arguments which it contains. Though the Sabbath is
one of the most simple truths of the Bible, yet we are thankful for the
comfort and strength which we have received from the publications of
the "American Sabbath Tract Society," especially their "History of the
Sabbath."

We trust that this work will be the means, with the blessing of God, of
leading many to observe ALL of the commandments of God, and no
longer violate the fourth by treading down the Bible Sabbath.

JAMES WHITE.

Paris, Maine, January, 1851.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

When was the Sabbath Instituted? ......................1

What day of the week do the Scriptures designate as the
Sabbath? ..................................................3
Has the Sabbath been changed from the Seventh to the
First day of the Week? ....................................5
The Sabbath: Authority for the Change of the Day .....14
What day of the week was observed by the Apostles and
Primitive Christians? ....................................22
What was the Practice of Christians after the Apostles?
23
History of the Sabbath. The Sabbath from the Time of
Constantine to the Reformation ...........................26
The Sabbath Since the Reformation. ...................38
The True Issue .......................................45
A Christian Caveat ...................................48
Misuse of the Term "Sabbath." ........................51
The Fourth Commandment ...............................55
 The Royal Law Contended For ..........................57

When was the Sabbath Instituted?

Some have contended that the Sabbath was not instituted until the law was
given to Moses at Mount Sinai. But there are serious difficulties in the way of this
belief. In the second chapter of Genesis, after having given an account of the
creation, the sacred historian says: "On the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Now, if any part of
this narrative is to be construed literally, the whole of it must be; and if we may
not venture to deny or explain away the account which Moses has given of the
creation, then we may not deny or explain away this unequivocal statement
respecting the original institution of the Sabbath in Paradise. The blessing and
sanctifying of the seventh day is mentioned in connection with the first seventh
day in the order of time, and it is so mentioned as most forcibly to impress the
reader that the Sabbath was then instituted. God's resting on the day is given as
the reason for its sanctification; and it cannot be supposed that
2
this reason existed two thousand five hundred years before the institution. We
conclude, therefore, that the Sabbath was enjoined immediately after the close of
the work of creation.
This opinion is corroborated by some facts recorded in the Scriptures. There
are frequent and early notices of reckoning by sevens. Noah observed a period
of seven days in sending the raven and dove from the ark; the term week is used
in the contract between Jacob and Laban; Joseph mourned seven days for his
father; and Job and his friends observed the term of seven days.
Nor is it in the sacred volume or among the Jews alone that such facts are
found. Nearly all the nations of antiquity were acquainted with the weekly division
of time. The Assyrians, Egyptians, Indians, Arabians, and, in a word, all the
nations of the East, have in all ages made use of a week of seven days. And we
find that these nations not only divided time thus, but that they regarded as holy
the very day which had been sanctified as a Sabbath, although they had
forsaken the true worship of God. Homer, Hesiod, and Callimachus, say, "The
seventh day is holy." Theophilus of Antioch says, respecting the seventh day,
"The day which all mankind celebrate." Josephus asserts that, "no city of Greeks
or barbarians can be found, which does not acknowledge a seventh day's rest
from labor." And Philo says, that "the Sabbath was a festival not peculiar to any
one people or country, but so common to all mankind, that it might be called a
public and general feast of the nativity of the world." These authors, who lived in
different ages and were of different nations, cannot be supposed to have written
thus in order to please the Jews, who were generally despised and persecuted;
and this universal reverence for the seventh day cannot be accounted for upon
any other supposition than that the Sabbath was instituted at the close of
creation, and handed down by tradition to all the descendants of Adam.
 If additional proof of this early institution of the Sabbath is needed, it may be
drawn from the manner in which it was revived in the wilderness. Before the
children of Israel came to Mount Sinai we find them voluntarily making provision
for the Sabbath, by gathering on the sixth day a double portion of manna. "And
all the rulers came and told Moses. And he said unto them, this is that which the
Lord hath said; to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." "And it
came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day to
gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, how long refuse ye
to keep my commandments and my
3
laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you,
on the sixth day, the bread of two days." The rebuke, how long refuse ye to keep
my commandments and my laws? implies the previous appointment of the
Sabbath; and the positive assertion, the Lord hath given you the Sabbath ought
to settle the question in any mind disposed to understand the sacred historian.

What day of the week do the Scriptures designate as the Sabbath?

To this question, it might be supposed that every person who has any
acquaintance with the subject would readily reply - The seventh. We are aware,
however, that efforts are made to render this a difficult point to determine. We
shall, therefore, make a few remarks upon it.
It is plainly recorded that the Creator, after laboring the first six days, in which
he completed the work of creation, rested the following day, which was the
seventh in the order of creation. This particular day God therefore sanctified and
blessed. "And God blessed the seventh day." When the law was given at Mount
Sinai, the observance of the seventh day was commanded; and the manner in
which the fourth commandment is expressed, shows beyond a doubt, that one
particular and definite day was known to Israel by this name. Consequently, they
needed no instruction as to which day was intended. This is observable in Ex.xvi,
22, where the sixth and seventh days of the week are mentioned by their ordinal
names, as a subject with which the people were familiarly acquainted. In this
place, also, the seventh day is declared to be the Sabbath. There can be no
reasonable doubt but that the day which in the time of Moses was known as the
seventh day, was the same in its weekly succession with that which is called the
seventh day in Gen.ii,3. If the seventh day mentioned in the fourth
commandment was not the same day of the week mentioned in Gen.ii,3, as
some profess to think, it must be perfectly inexplicable, that no intimation is given
in the history of those events that another seventh day was intended in the fourth
commandment than the one mentioned in the institution of the Sabbath,
especially since both are recorded in the same appellation in a direct series of
events. But what removes all obscurity from the subject is, that God has
positively declared that the day which he commanded to be observed in Ex.xx, is
the same on which he rested at the close of the creation. "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep
4
it holy." "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "For in six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on
the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
This language is definite; and while it assures us that the day here commanded
to be observed is the same in its weekly returns with the day on which God
rested, it assures us against any derangement of the week, or loss of time which
might have been produced in the long lapse of time from the creation, by the
general apostasy from the true worship of God. Had the true Sabbath been lost,
it was certainly restored; and the day then known as the seventh day received
the divine sanction. The same remark is applicable to the subject during the
succeeding history of the Jewish nation. Had the weekly Sabbath fallen into total
neglect, and the day of its regular recurrence been forgotten, our Lord Jesus
Christ, by giving his divine example in favor of the day known by the Jewish
nation as the proper seventh day of the decalogue, has settled the question
conclusively, down to that time: so that the day known in the New Testament as
the Sabbath, was the seventh day in regular succession from the creation of the
world. A perfect uniformity among all the nations in the known world, as to the
days of the week, both before and since the advent of Christ, is a further
testimony, that no derangement of the days of the week has ever taken place.
Indeed, it will not be pretended that the account of time has been lost since the
introduction of Christianity. Since that period, the Jews as a people have
maintained a perfect uniformity in the observance of the ancient Sabbath, though
scattered through every nation of the globe; and the Christian church, in all its
divisions, has been known to observe either the seventh or the first day of the
week; and for a considerable length of time, both of these days. So that we are
as certain that the day now known as the seventh day of the week, is the same
with that enjoined in the fourth commandment, as we are of any fact, for the
knowledge of which we are dependent on the testimony of mankind.
In this connection, we would remark, that the sabbatical law does not appoint
a seventh day, but the seventh day. It is but a flimsy subterfuge to pretend that
the fourth commandment enjoins only a seventh part of our time to be kept holy.
The people of Israel never so understood the law of the Sabbath; and their
uniform conduct ever since shows that they understood it to mean the last day of
the week, and that only. It will be admitted, that had the Jews, in the days of
Moses, profaned the
5
rest of the seventh day, under the pretext that they had rested on one of the
preceding six days, they would have paid dearly for their presumption. If, then,
their sense of this precept was correct, no person in any age has a right to
understand it in a different sense, for a law cannot have a contrary or a double
meaning. While the terms of that precept remain the same, its meaning must
continue the same. It is true that the law which enjoins the observance of the last
day of every seven, does as a consequence enjoin the seventh part of our time;
but it is still the seventh day in its order that it requires, and not merely a seventh
part. And it should be remembered, that Christ hath said, "not one jot or tittle shall
in any wise pass from the law;" and that the most awful penalty is denounced on
him who dares to explain away its proper meaning. It is obvious, also, that if a
seventh day, or any one day after six of labor, be all that is required by the law of
the Sabbath, the seventh or last must still be that day, from the fact, that to
change it without divine authority would be to change the length of the week, and
violate God's established order. And as in the first instance it would be sin, time
would never change the character of that act. A wrong never will become a right
by our persisting in it. As it could not be changed without sin, so the sin must ever
remain until repented of and retracted. It should be remembered, likewise, that by
an admission that a seventh day or a seventh part of our time only is required, all
argument for a change is effectually silenced; for if any good reason existed for
one day more than another, the mere seventh part must be abandoned.

Has the Sabbath been changed from the Seventh to the First day of
the Week?

This question involves matters of such importance that it should not be

answered without a candid and thorough examination. If the Sabbath has been
transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, it must be great impiety
to neglect that day or to appropriate any part of it to secular purposes. If, on the
other hand, the law requiring the sanctification of the seventh day of the week
remains in force, then to neglect that day is an act of equal impiety, and exposes
the offender to the most awful consequences. The Scriptures should contain the
account of it, if the Sabbath has been changed by divine authority. And as the
precept requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain and positive, nothing
less than this should satisfy an inquirer in regard to the claims of the first day.
6
The method commonly pursued by the advocates for a change of the
Sabbath, is to impress their readers, 1. That the Jewish prophets predicted such
a change; 2. That there was a necessity for the change in order to commemorate
the completion of the work of redemption, which was finished by the resurrection
of Christ; 4. That on this day of the week Christ frequently met with his disciples
after his resurrection; 5. That from that time the Apostles and primitive Christians
religiously observed the first day in memory of this event, and as a substitute for
the Sabbath; 6. That the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended, was
the first day of the week; 7. That by "Lord's day," (Rev.i,10,) the first day of the
week was intended.
As these are the chief arguments advanced in support of the change, they
should be fairly considered, and compared with the Word of God. "To the law and
the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them." Let us examine them separately.
1. Did the prophets predict a change of the Sabbath? - The first and principal
text cited in proof of this is Psalm cxviii,24 "The stone which the builders refused
is become the headstone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in
our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in
it." In order to make any use of this text, the main points in the argument are
assumed. First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming the head of the corner
refers to the day of his resurrection; whereas there is no conclusive evidence that
it refers to this rather than to the day of his birth, or of his entrance on his public
ministry, or of his final ascension into heaven. Next, it is assumed, that the day
spoken of is a natural day of twenty-four hours; whereas this word is often used
to designate an indefinite period of time - particularly the gospel era (John viii,56)
- and is very probably so used here. Again, it is assumed, that the day mentioned
is the first day of the week; whereas there is nothing which designates this rather
than any other, allowing that a natural day is referred to. Of course no confidence
ought to be placed in conclusions drawn from such premises.
Reference is sometimes made to Isaiah xi,10. "In that day there shall be a
root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the
Gentiles seek; and his rest shall be glorious." This "rest" is referred to the
Sabbath, and the expression "in that day" is supposed to show that it was to be
changed by Christ. But whoever reads the following verses
7
will see that the rest here spoken of is not the Sabbath, but that season when the
Lord shall have "set up an ensign for the nations, and assembled the outcasts of
Israel, and gathered together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the
earth." Such a rest may well be called "glorious."
There is one prophetic allusion, however, which some have, not without
reason, referred to the change of the Sabbath. This is found in Daniel vii,25,
where in describing the papal anti-christ, the prophet says, "he shall wear out the
saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be
given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time." The "times
and laws" here referred to cannot be those of the Mosaic ritual, since they were
abolished at the death of Christ, and it could be no sin to suppress them. But if
we allow that the decalogue, with its laws and time of rest, was to continue by
divine authority, we are compelled to consider this as an allusion to the Sabbath
and the moral code with which it is connected. And the history of the change of
the Sabbath together with the idolatries and sins of the papal church, show how
literally this prophecy has been fulfilled.
2. Is it necessary to change the Sabbath in order to commemorate the
completion of the work of redemption? It is said the work of redemption is greater
than that of creation; hence the necessity for a change of the day of the Sabbath.
In reply to this we remark, the Scriptures are entirely silent respecting the
comparative greatness of these two works; and while they give us no information
on this point, we are not warranted in making our own suppositions the ground of
practice, to the neglect of a positive injunction. But supposing the work of
redemption to be greater than that of creation, is it therefore necessary to
celebrate it on a different day? Both these works were conceived by the same
mind and wrought out by the same hand. And since God has seen fit to make the
seventh day a time to commemorate the completion of his creative work, why not
gather together all his merciful works for us, and celebrate them on one and the
same day? The greatness of redemption, therefore, instead of being a reason for
a change, is a reason why the Sabbath as originally given should be doubly dear
to us.
 Again, supposing that a change of the day is required in order to celebrate the
completion of the work of redemption, what day shall be chosen as most
appropriate? Shall it be the day of the crucifixion, or of the resurrection, or of the
ascension? If the time of Christ's greatest display of love for mankind and his
greatest labor for them should be selected, then we should
8
celebrate the day of his crucifixion. This is the day on which, (if on any particular
day,) the work of redemption may properly be said to have been completed,
according to the testimony of the Savior himself, who said on the cross, "It is
finished." This is the day and the event in which the Apostle Paul eminently
gloried; and it was to the passion of Christ that he constantly directed the minds
of his brethren as the ground of hope and source of encouragement. But if we
would have the day of Christ's highest exaltation to be the day for celebrating the
completion of his work, then certainly we must fix upon the day of his ascension,
rather than of his resurrection. The Scriptures say it was "when he ascended on
high" that "he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Then it was that "all
power" was given to him "in heaven and in earth." Then it was that God "highly
exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow." If then, a day were to be selected as a weekly
Sabbath, which was "validly the day of redemption," it seems most proper to
select the day of Christ's death, which was the end of his temptation and conflict
with the powers of darkness, and the severest test of his obedience; or the day of
his final ascension. These things are not said to prove that any sanction is given
to those days above others, since only a divine institution will weigh with us; but
to show the absurdities into which they are led who pretend to honor the
resurrection while neglecting the law of God.
It is evident from such considerations as these, that the argument for a
change of the Sabbath from its necessity to commemorate the work of
redemption, is not supported by reason or Scripture. It rests alone upon man's
authority, and acknowledges a principle which would justify all the innovations
and extravagances of Popery.
4. Christ's meeting with the disciples after the resurrection. It is common for
the advocates of a change of the Sabbath to lay great stress upon Christ's
meeting with his disciples, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week. We
will examine these different appearances, and see if they afford any proof of the
change they are brought to show.
On the day he was first seen after the resurrection, Christ appeared three
times to different persons and at different places. His first appearance was to
Mary, while she was alone at the sepulchre, John xx,16. There is nothing,
however, in the circumstances connected with this meeting which indicate that
the least sacredness is to be attached to the time when it occurred.
9
His second appearance was to two of his disciples as they journeyed to
Emmaus, Luke xxiv,13-35. He accompanied them to that place, and both they
and he returned to Jerusalem the same day, making a distance of about fifteen
miles. There is no indication that this journey was undertaken for religious
purposes; and as our Lord did not rebuke the disciples, or instruct them to do
differently in future, it is reasonable to suppose he approved of their traveling on
that day. Of course, then, this circumstance, instead of indicating a regard for the
first day, gives us the example of Christ and the Apostles for traveling upon it. His
third appearance was in the evening of the same day, when the disciples were
together, probably at their own house; for we find the eleven not long after this
occupying a chamber in Jerusalem. (Compare John xx,10 with Acts i,13.) There
is not the least intimation here that the disciples have been during the day, or
were now, together for worship. On the contrary, the absence of Thomas affords
presumptive evidence that this was not a meeting generally agreed upon. And
the fact that most of them were not satisfied that Jesus had risen, shows the
impropriety of representing this meeting as proof of a regard for the day on
account of the resurrection. It was important that the earliest information of the
resurrection should be afforded for the consolation of the desponding disciples,
and for a testimony to the truth of the Saviour's prediction, that he would rise after
three days; and there is nothing in these several appearances which seems
intended for any other purpose.
The next and only other meeting of Christ with his disciples, which is held to
have been on the first day of the week, is mentioned in John xx,26 - "And after
eight days again his disciples were within and Thomas with them." Now had this
interview been on the following first day it could afford no strength to its claim for
religious regard, since it is not noticed as a meeting designed for worship. Mark,
(ch.xvi,14,) in noticing one appearance of Christ, says "He appeared unto the
eleven as they were at meat," i.e. eating a common meal. There is nothing which
gives to the meeting a religious character, or indicates regard for the day. But it is
by no means certain that the expression "after eight days" means just a week:
Who can say that it was not on the ninth day after his first appearance?
Other appearances of the Saviour are recorded, which no one will claim as
having occurred on the first day. He appeared to the disciples when they were
fishing at the sea of Tiberius, (John xxi,13,) and was seen of them forty days
before his ascension,
10
(Acts i,3.) Now, if the appearance of Christ on the first day proves it to be the
Sabbath, then his appearances on other days prove them to be Sabbaths, since
as important business was transacted, and as much mention made of the
Sabbath, in one case as in the others. And if this be allowed, then we have the
example of Christ and the Apostles for traveling, fishing, or doing any other
business on the Sabbath. To such results would consistency drive us in applying
the principle that example, without precept, is to regulate our practice. But the
claims of the seventh day rest upon no such authority. God enjoined it, and then
added to the precept his own example of resting upon it. No argument, therefore,
drawn from example without precept can justly weigh against it.
5. Regard of the Apostles for the first day. Another argument for the change of
the Sabbath, is the supposed apostolic practice of meeting on the first day of the
week for public worship and the breaking of bread. It is often confidently affirmed
that the keeping of the first day instead of the seventh is sanctioned by apostolic
usage. The proof of this position rests mainly on two passages. Let us examine
them.
The first is Acts xx,7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." But is there any thing in this
transaction, or the attendant circumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves
an apostolic example in favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the
week, in any manner, as a substitute for the former institution? Surely there is
not. The passage does not so much as prove that the practice of meeting for
worship on the first day of the week was then common and general. But if it did, it
would not determine the change contended for. There is nothing said in the
narrative which characterizes the day of this meeting as a Sabbath. Assembling
for public worship is proper on any day of the week, and so is the breaking of
bread. The supper was first administered on one of the six working days; and
there is nothing in the Scriptures which restricts its subsequent administration to
a particular day - not even to the authorized Sabbath. Besides, in this case, the
breaking of bread was deferred until after midnight. Of course, according to
Jewish reckoning of time, it was attended actually on the second day; and this
must have been the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among
observers of the first day, commencing the day at midnight. It seems, therefore
that the Apostle and his brethren were not very precise in regard
11
to its being done on the first day. Let the most be made of this passage, and it
lacks a divine designation of the first day as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it
is entirely wanting as to the requisite evidence of a change in the sabbatic law.
Surely, if there had been such a change, and this, with one more instance of
meeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the evidence for all after
generations, we should have been informed of the fact. Something would have
been said to determine that the first day of the week was regarded as a Sabbath,
and that it had taken the place of the seventh. But there is nothing of this. The
record is perfectly silent in regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the
original Sabbath continued to be observed throughout the entire period of New
Testament history. This is so plain a fact, that no one who gives the subject a
candid examination will deny it. This shows the opinion of a new Sabbath -
observed, as it must have been, in connection with the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment, and without a word being said on the subject, or the least
objection, stir, query, or excitement whatever being raised - to be perfectly
preposterous. Such is the result of this reasoning from a supposed apostolic
example, giving the passage its widest possible scope, as implying a common
practice of meeting for public worship on the first day of the week. But in reality
there is nothing in this text which proves or implies that such a practice was
common at that period. For aught appears, it might have been an occasional
meeting, appointed merely in consequence of Paul's being about to depart on the
morrow. Therefore, to adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon
such vague, uncertain, and inadequate testimony - especially when, in order
thereto, we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God respecting the
observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as the completion of the
creation - is unreasonable in the extreme.
Another passage quoted in proof of an apostolic example of keeping the first
day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the opinion that the Sabbath is
changed, is 1Cor.xvi,2. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by
him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I
come." This passage, like the others, does not imply that the first day was then
commonly and generally regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does
not necessarily imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for "every one to
lay by him in store," for the benefit of the poor saints at Jerusalem, "on the first
day of the week," necessarily amounts to no
12
more than an appointment of this day to make up their bounty at home, so that it
might be sure to be ready when the Apostle should come. But if it be understood
to imply any thing more, it is simply that they should bring their donations
together publicly on the first day of the week, so as to be prepared in the fullest
manner for the Apostle's visit. Therefore, according to this view of the case, it
proves no more than an occasional meeting on this day for the purpose of a
public contribution for an important object of benevolence. But even if it could be
so construed as clearly to imply that it was then a common and general practice
to meet for public worship and instruction on this day, it would not thereby be
pointed out to us as the Christian Sabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day,
seeing that it contains no information to that effect, and that no divine warrant
appears on any part of the New Testament records for the supposed change.
Meetings for public worship, taking up of collections, and even breaking of bread,
do not constitute a Sabbath. To sabbatize is to rest from our own secular labors,
and keep a season to God. These proofs for a change of the Sabbath, therefore,
which are unquestionably the best that can be produced, are utterly deficient,
and the argument therefrom, as generally presented, is deceptive, and unworthy
of confidence.
6. Descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. - Much has been said
respecting the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost. It is urged that
this was the first day of the week, and that this circumstance was an intimation
that God designed to bestow upon the day in its weekly returns a special honor.
This opinion, however, is supported only by assumption. The day on which that
remarkable event occurred, is known only as the day of Pentecost, an annual
feast of the Jews, fifty days from the feast of the Passover, which was held on the
fourteenth day of the first month. It might, therefore, occur on the first, or on any
other day of the week. This year it probably came on the fifth or seventh day. But
the fallacy of the argument we here oppose, is apparent from the fact, that it is
founded in the presumption that they began to count the fifty days from the
morrow after the weekly Sabbath, whereas they counted from the annual
passover Sabbath. See Lev.xxiii. The descent of the Holy Spirit at this time could
not be considered as rendering famous any other day than the Jews' feast of
Pentecost. But we have no evidence that God intended by the event to bestow a
special honor upon any day. It was the fulfillment of an important promise that the
disciples should be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
13
7. "Lord's Day." - An argument for the change of the Sabbath is founded on
the supposed application of the title "Lord's day," to the first day of the week. The
only passage referred to for the purpose of sustaining it, is Rev.i,10. "I was in the
spirit on the Lord's day." But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first
day of the week, is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as
proved. It is not in fact probable that this is the day referred to. If these words be
understood to refer to a natural day, it is more likely to be the seventh day, which
God had blessed and sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The
seventh day is called by Him "my holy day," and "the holy of the Lord" - phrases
very similar to the one in this passage. This was also the Sabbath which was
made for man, and of which Christ says he is Lord. And since it was observed up
to the close of the New Testament history, it would be perfectly natural for John to
speak of it as "the Lord's day." Further, there is no evidence that the first day of
the week was denominated the Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one writer
mentions the expression till towards the close of the second century; and the
reputed author of this passage, when speaking, in his Gospel, (which was written
some years later than the Apocalypse,) of the resurrection of Christ, and the first
day of the week, never intimates that the day should be called by any other
name. The learned Morer, though an advocate for the first day, in mentioning the
different days to which this phrase may be applied, acknowledges the entire
uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says, "It is very likely that the more
solemn and public use of the words was not observed until about the time of
Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's command, it became an injunction." It is
evident, therefore, that this passage cannot justly be used as proof that the
Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week.
We have now examined the texts commonly adduced to prove a change of
the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly insufficient and deceptive.
Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, without alteration,
are fully sustained. The advocates for the first day are aware that if an abrogation
or change of the original Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is still
the true Sabbath. Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following admission: "If we
cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof of the abrogation of the
original day, or the substitution of a new one, the seventh day undoubtedly
remains in full force and obligation, and is now to be celebrated by all the race of
Adam." [From Sab. Vindicator.]

The Sabbath: Authority for the Change of the Day

It being clear from the Scriptures, that the seventh day was instituted by
divine authority for a weekly Sabbath, and religiously regarded throughout the
times of the Old Testament, those who now relinquish its observance, and keep
the first day of the week, take the ground that the Sabbath was either abrogated
and a new institution introduced in its room, or that the time of its observance
was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, in commemoration of
the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be consistent with themselves,
therefore, they are bound to evince one or the other of these positions. The
burden of proof evidently lies on their part. For unless it can be shown, that the
fourth commandment, which requires the sanctification of the seventh day, has
been abolished, or amended by the substitution of the first for the seventh day of
the week, it is clear that the original appointment remains obligatory and is now
binding on the entire human family. And to substantiate either of these points, the
proof must be clear and decisive. It will not do to rest upon doubtful deductions.
We have an unquestionable right to demand that divine warrant, in either case,
which pertained to the institution as originally delivered.
We will therefore first examine the proofs adduced in favor of the abrogation
of the former weekly Sabbath and the introduction of a new institution.
To sustain this position, the broad ground is taken by some, that the
Decalogue itself, in which the law of the Sabbath is contained, was abrogated;
and that, under the new dispensation, no part of it is binding but what is newly
enjoined or expressly recognized, either by Christ or his Apostles.
The perpetual obligation of the Decalogue implies, of course, the perpetual
obligation of the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth commandment. But if that was
abrogated, the Sabbath which it enjoined was also abrogated; and, consequently,
it ceases to be binding, unless renewed under the new economy. What, then, is
the proof here relied upon? One of the principal passages in which this proof is
supposed to be contained is 2Cor.iii,7,8,13. "But if the ministration of death,
written and engraven on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could
not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which
glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious? . . . And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children
of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." It is
argued from this passage, that the clauses "which
15
glory was to be done away," and "to the end of that which is abolished," refer to
the whole law, moral as well as ritual, because mention is made of "that which
was written and engraven in stones," which is an evident allusion to the
Decalogue. But, on careful examination, it will be found that "that which was to be
done away," was not the Decalogue itself, but "the ministration of it," which was
then appointed - the same being emblematically illustrated by the glory of Moses'
countenance, which was merely temporary. This clause refers expressly to the
glory of his countenance, and not to the glory of the law itself. So also the clause
"that which is abolished," does not refer to the Decalogue, but to the ministration
of Moses, including the appended rights and usages, the priesthood and its
sacrifices, which were useful merely for the time being. It cannot be supposed
that the Decalogue was abolished, without expressly contradicting Christ's
testimony, Matt.v,17-19, as well as many other representations of the Scriptures.
The abolishment spoken of, therefore, evidently respected no other than what the
Apostle calls in another place "the law of commandments contained in
ordinances," inclusive of the entire ministration of Moses. There is
unquestionably a reference in this chapter to the Decalogue, but not as
abolished. It was merely the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of
teaching, illustrating, and enforcing it, which was abolished, to be succeeded by
a new ministration of the same law by the Spirit. For it is written, "I will put my
law" - (the very law of the ten commandments) - "in their inward parts, and write it
in their hearts." Again, "We are not without law to God, but under the law of
Christ." What law but the Decalogue is here referred to? Evidently none. For
surely we are not under the Mosaic ritual. Again, "Do we make void the law
through faith? . . Yea, we establish the law." The same, no doubt, which was
contained in the Decalogue. Hence, the Apostle James says, "If ye fulfil the royal
law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do
well." Here the title "the royal law," is given by way of eminence to the
Decalogue; and its permanent obligation is manifestly recognized; for the precept
alluded to is a summary of the last six commandments of this code, and the
allusion is so made as to imply the continued obligation of the first four, which are
summed up in supreme love to God. Again, the Apostle John testifies, "Hereby
do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." And again,
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." In
16
both these passages reference is evidently had to the precepts of the Decalogue,
as the essential and permanent rule of obedience for Christians. The doing away
or abolishment, therefore, spoken of in the above passage, cannot refer to the
Decalogue or the moral law itself, but to the Mosaic dispensation or ritual.
Another of the proofs alleged for the abrogation of the Decalogue, and
consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians ii,14-17. "Blotting out the hand-writing
of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the
way, nailing it to his cross; and, having spoiled principalities and powers, he
made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore
judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ."
By "the hand-writing of ordinances," is most evidently meant the ceremonial
law - not the Decalogue, or the moral law. This is never characterized as "the
hand-writing of ordinances." Therefore, the "blotting out," "taking away," and
"nailing to the cross," spoken of, have no reference to this law, but to the Mosaic
ritual. This is particularly distinguished from the Decalogue, and fitly described as
"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." It was this, and this only,
which was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross." As, therefore, the reference
made by the Apostle is expressly to this law, it follows, by a fair inference, that
"the sabbath days" alluded to, or, strictly rendered "sabbaths," are those which
were contained in this law, or among these "ordinances," and do not include the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment. There were, besides the weekly Sabbath,
various other sabbaths appointed, which belonged to that ritual, and not to the
Decalogue. Accordingly, these were expressly included in "the hand-writing of
ordinances," and like the rest were "a shadow of things to come," and ceased to
be obligatory at the death of Christ. There is evidently no authority in this
passage for including any sabbaths but what properly belonged to the Mosaic
ritual. This view of the matter is corroborated by a more literal rendering of the
17th verse, viz: "Let no one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in a part or
division of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths." The sabbaths alluded to
are obviously those which are found in the same place with meats and drinks,
festivals and new moons, and which were of the same general character. The
weekly Sabbath, therefore, is not affected at all by their abrogation, but remains
in full force, as does every other precept of the Decalogue.
17
We find the same distinction as to the law which was abolished, in Ephesians
ii,14,15. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down
the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself
of twain one new man, so making peace." Here the middle wall of partition
between Jews and Gentiles, called "the enmity," is expressly defined, as before,
to be "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." This, and this only,
therefore, was abolished, leaving the Decalogue, or the moral law, in its original
character and obligation. This is the language of the whole Bible. There is no
proof in any of these passages, that the law of the ten commandments was
abolished, or that the Sabbath enjoined therein was done away.
Nor is there such proof in Romans xiv,5,6. "One man esteemeth one day
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord;
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that
eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks: and he that eateth not, to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." This passage is frequently adduced
as proof that the obligation to keep the ancient Sabbath has ceased, and that
under the Gospel dispensation there is no divinely authorized distinction in the
days of the week; that there is no one constituted holy in distinction from the rest;
and consequently that every one is left at his own liberty to keep a Sabbath or
not. It will be easily perceived, that if this argument has any weight in reference to
the seventh day as the Sabbath, it operates equally against the obligation to
keep the first day, either as a substitute for the seventh, or as a memorial of the
resurrection, seeing it places all distinctions whatever as to days on the same
ground with the confessedly obsolete rites of the Mosaic ritual. According to this
view of the passage, we have under the Gospel dispensation no Sabbath at all -
not so much as an authorized memorial of the resurrection. He who claims the
least authority for the observance of the first day of the week for any purpose,
takes a course which completely overthrows the argument based upon this
passage. But, in reality, this text has nothing more to do with the subject before
us, than either of those which have been examined. It respects merely the
distinctions which formerly existed in regard to the six working days of the week -
some of them being appointed in the Mosaic ritual as sabbaths, others as days of
atonement and purification, and others as festivals. Some
18
of the early Christians thought these distinctions still binding, as also the
distinctions in regard to meats and drinks; others thought they were not. Hence
the exhortation which is subjoined to mutual forbearance. That the distinctions
referred to as to days, were those noted in the Mosaic ritual, and did not include
the one contained in the fourth commandment, is manifest from the whole scope
of the chapter. There is particular reference made to one's freely eating all things,
while another would eat only herbs; and accordingly the following rule, to be
respectively observed, is laid down: "Let not him that eateth, despise him that
eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath
received him." This quotation clearly evinces that the Apostle was treating of
ritual distinctions, and not of that distinction of days which was constituted by the
ancient law of the Sabbath.
Again, the abrogation of the Decalogue is supposed to be taught in Romans
vii,4,5,6. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the
body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised
from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the
flesh, the motions of sin which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring
forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
oldness of the letter." But if the term law here includes the moral as well as the
ceremonial law, it is manifest that believers are not said to be delivered from it,
considered in any other light than as a covenant of works. Certainly they are not
delivered from it as a rule of obedience. To suppose this, is inconsistent with
Christ's sermon on the mount, before alluded to, and many other decisive proofs
of the perpetual obligation of the Decalogue. It is probable the Apostle had
special reference to the deliverance of believers from the curse of the moral law.
This is reasonably inferred from the clause, "that being dead wherein we were
held." If any thing more pertaining to this law be intended, it must be its original
character when given to Adam as a covenant of works or of life. For surely we
are not and cannot be delivered from it as a rule of obedience, so long as God is
what he is, and we are what we are. Seeing that as long as the relation
constituted by his character as Supreme Ruler, and by ours as moral subjects,
exists, we shall be bound to love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves,
which is the fulfilling of this law. And to suppose that this law, as a rule of
obedience, was actually annulled, and that those precepts only
19
are now to be considered obligatory, which are enacted or published anew under
the Gospel, is to suppose that God, at a certain time, actually rescinded the rule
requiring supreme love to him, and to our neighbor as ourselves, which is
palpably inconsistent, and contrary both to the current of Scripture and the nature
of things. It would be maintaining that to be changed which is manifestly
unchangeable. It would imply that, for the time being, the obligation recognized
by the law did not exist; that the tie by which God and moral beings are united,
was sundered, not by rebellion on the part of his subjects, but by his own act of
abrogation. Can this be admitted?
 But if it were admissible, and if no part of this law is binding on Christians but
what is newly enacted or particularly recognized under the Gospel dispensation,
the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not in this way be set aside;
because its continued obligation is plainly taught in the New Testament. It is
altogether a mistake, that we have no express recognition of this precept under
the Christian dispensation. It is plainly recognized by the Saviour in Matt.v,17-19,
where he says, that he "came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill;" that "one jot or
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" and that "whosoever
shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach
them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." If any commandment of
this law is binding, the fourth is binding of course, even if it should be called the
least. It is also recognized in the following declaration of Christ, Mark ii,27 - "The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The word man is
here obviously used for the entire race - not for a part - not for the Jews in
distinction from the Gentiles - not for those who lived under the Old Testament
dispensation, or till the time of Christ's death; but for man in his protracted
existence during all future periods of time, i.e. for mankind in general. This is the
plain import of the declaration. And if we render the original with the article, it is
still more evident that the entire race is included. "The Sabbath was made for the
man," i.e. for Adam, the original parent of man, including, of course, his posterity.
But, according to either rendering, the entire human race is manifestly included in
the term. The Sabbath, then, was as truly made for the Gentiles as for the Jews;
and for those who should live after the crucifixion, as for those who lived before;
which is an explicit recognition of its perpetual obligation.
20
The same recognition also appears from its continued observance under the
ministry of the Apostles, and there being not the least hint or stir in reference to
its abrogation, or to the substitution of another day in its room. The weekly
Sabbath is frequently mentioned in the Apostolic records, as a part of practical
duty, and it was unquestionably the seventh day. Thus we have the continued
obligation of the Sabbath sanctioned by Apostolic example. If, therefore, a new
edition, or an express recognition of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment be
considered necessary, to bind the consciences of men under the new
dispensation, the foregoing considerations will show that we have such an edition
or recognition, as truly as we have of the other precepts of the Decalogue. So
that nothing is gained in regard to setting aside the seventh day of the week, by
attempting to show the abrogation of the Decalogue. If those precepts of that law
which require that we should have no other gods before the Lord - that we should
not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal - are newly enjoined or expressly
recognized under the present dispensation, and, consequently, universally
binding; the same is true of the fourth commandment, which requires the keeping
of the seventh day.
Again, an attempt is made to prove the abrogation of the original Sabbath, by
showing that the entire Decalogue was peculiar to the Jewish nation, constituting
a national covenant, which, at the coming of Christ, was annulled, and a new
covenant introduced. But admitting that it was delivered immediately to them, in
the form of a national covenant, this does not in the least imply that it was not
equally binding, as a rule of obedience, upon other portions of the human family.
We might as well argue that the New Testament belonged merely to the primitive
Christians, because it was delivered directly to them, and constituted the rule of
their conduct and the basis of their hopes. Yea, we might as well suppose that no
nation except the Jews were bound not to have any other gods before the Lord,
not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, as to
suppose that the Decalogue was purely of a national character, and binding
merely on that people during their continuance as a national church. And, as the
Decalogue was not merely national as a whole, so there was nothing national in
the fourth commandment. It belonged, equally with the other nine, to the entire
family of man, inasmuch as the essential reasons of all and of either of the
commandments, were of universal obligation.
Again, that the original Sabbath was peculiar to the Jews, and consequently
abrogated by the introduction of the new dispensation,
21
is argued from its being specially urged upon them by the consideration of their
deliverance from Egypt. But this argument is of no force, because the same
reason is urged in the preface to the entire Decalogue.
For the same purpose, also, an argument is founded upon the fact that the
fourth commandment was enforced with a deadly penalty. But this argument also
fails; because a similar penalty was annexed to the breach of the other precepts
of this law. The truth of the case is, that these penalties belonged not to the
Decalogue itself as first promulgated, any more than they belong to it now under
the milder dispensation of the Gospel. They were added in the Mosaic ritual, and
constituted a part of the political arrangements for the time being. Their
abrogation, therefore, affects not the original law. Though there be no civil power
now given to the church to enforce obedience to this precept by temporal
punishments, as formerly, the sacredness and obligation of the institution are not
thereby at all affected. The sin of disobedience will be visited in God's own time.
Again, some have inferred the abrogation of the former Sabbath, or at least
its change, from our Lord's vindication of the act of the disciples, in plucking the
ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands, as they passed through the corn-
fields on the Sabbath day, and from his saying, that "the Son of Man is Lord also
of the Sabbath day," Mark ii,23-28. But there is evidently nothing in this narrative,
or in this declaration, to justify such an inference. It must be admitted on all
hands, that the fourth commandment was obligatory, as originally given, till the
death of Christ, if no further; and therefore Christ, who "was made under the law,"
was bound to obey it in its original strictness. Admitting that he possessed the
right, in a given instance, to intermit its obligation, it is not consistent to maintain
that he did it; because he came to render perfect and universal obedience.
Hence he affirmed that one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass from the law
"till all be fulfilled." His whole life was a perfect comment on the requirements of
the law. Had he failed in the least particular, he would have been inadequate to
the great purposes of our salvation. It is obvious, therefore, that the transaction
alluded to was not, under the circumstances, a breach of the fourth
commandment, but in perfect accordance with its prescriptions - the labor implied
by the act of the disciples being a matter of urgent necessity. "It is lawful," said
he, "to do well on the Sabbath day." Neither does the declaration, that "the Son of
Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day," imply that he abrogated or changed it, but
rather that he
22
was bound and engaged to protect it as a divine institution, and to enforce an
enlightened and strict obedience to its requirements.
The foregoing being the principal proofs adduced for the abrogation of the
Decalogue, and the original Sabbath, it is evident that this view of the subject
cannot be sustained. It is not sanctioned by any plain scriptural evidence. It is,
therefore, palpably absurd to rest so important a matter upon so slender a basis.
It is laying violent hands on a code of moral and immutable precepts, given by
God, and promulgated under peculiar and terrible signs of purity and majesty, to
vindicate a practice which was introduced long after the commencement of the
Christian era. [From Sabbath Tract No. 3.

What day of the week was observed by the Apostles and Primitive
Christians?

The practice of the Apostles and early Christians is justly admitted to have an
influence in determining how we should understand and discharge our religious
duties. For this reason, the strongest efforts are made to show that they regarded
the first day of the week as the Sabbath. But the Scriptures afford no evidence of
this. On the contrary, there is the fullest proof that they religiously observed the
seventh day - the only day which is called Sabbath in the New Testament. In
confirmation of this statement, we notice the distinction that is constantly made in
the writings of the Apostles between the Sabbath and the first day of the week.
The seventh day is uniformly called the Sabbath, and the first day is mentioned
only as such. Had the writers of the New Testament adopted any other day for
the Sabbath than the one commonly called by that name, their manner of
speaking of these days is both mysterious and deceptive, as it is directly
calculated to mislead us respecting a religious duty. No person who regards the
first day for the Christian Sabbath, will apply this name to the seventh day;
neither will one observing the seventh day, style the first day of the week the
Sabbath. The reason is obvious. Such a course would be contrary to his
understanding of truth, and it would lead others to misunderstand his sentiments.
For this reason the Apostles would not do it.
In addition to this custom of calling the seventh day the Sabbath, we find it
was the custom of those early Christians to assemble for divine worship on the
Sabbath day. The manner in which the Sabbath and the first day following our
Lord's crucifixion
23
were observed, sufficiently proves what the sentiments and practice of the
disciples were at that time. It is said of them, that "they rested the Sabbath day
according to the commandment," and on the first day they "traveled and went
into the country." In the 13th chapter of Acts, we are told that Paul and his
company went to a place of worship in Antioch on the Sabbath day; and we have
a sketch of the sermon preached by Paul on that occasion. By the request of his
Gentile hearers, he preached the ext Sabbath, when nearly the whole city came
to hear him. In Philippi, Paul and his company, on the Sabbath, resorted to the
river side where prayer was wont to be made. At this time Lydia was converted
and baptized. In the 18th chapter of Acts, it is said of Paul, who was associated
with certain disciples in Corinth, that "he reasoned in the synagogues every
Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks;" and this practice he continued in
their city a year and a half. At Ephesus, Paul went into the synagogue and
reasoned with the Jews, which is also admitted to have been on the Sabbath
day. In Thessalonica, there was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as his
manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out
of the Scriptures; Acts xvii,2. - These quotations are sufficient to show that the
Apostles and primitive Christians observed the ancient Sabbath. In Acts xxviii,17,
Paul, in reply to the slanderous reports of his enemies, declares that he had
committed nothing against the customs of the fathers. Now, was it the custom of
the fathers to keep the seventh day for the Sabbath? And was it contrary to their
custom to keep the first day? If so, then Paul kept the seventh day of the week,
and not the first, for the Sabbath. In this thing there was a perfect agreement
among all the Christians of the apostolic churches. The Jews, who were ever
ready to accuse them, and render them despicable in the eyes of their nation,
never upbraided them with a violation of the weekly Sabbath, which with them
was a crime worthy of death. These facts are sufficient to prove that the Apostles
and their associate Christians religiously observed the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment.

What was the Practice of Christians after the Apostles?

With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice of what are called the
Christian Fathers, have not authority sufficient to direct him either in devotion or
in duty, when their testimony is not supported by the Scriptures. It has, however,
been
24
generally alleged, by the advocates of the first day of the week that the united
testimony of the earliest Christian writers prove that they observed this day as
the Christian Sabbath, to the exclusion of the seventh day. This is the more
frequently admitted, on account of so few possessing the means of investigating
the subject for themselves, and from the confidence had in the integrity of those
who have assorted it. But, for the honor of Christianity, it is to be hoped that this
declaration is made more for want of information and consideration than from a
thorough knowledge and recollection of what the Fathers have written on the
subject. To aid the reader in forming or correcting his opinion on this subject
agreeably to facts, we briefly notice the grounds on which the advocates of the
first day have erred, in stating that those early Christians kept this day as the
Sabbath. As vital piety declined in the church, after the days of the Apostles,
outward ceremonies and unscriptural observances were made to supply its
place; and under a pretence of doing honor to Christ, the Virgin Mary, the
Apostles and Martyrs, a multitude of days were eventually introduced to religious
notice, and urged upon the Christians by their teachers. Among others were Ash
Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, etc. The first day of the week, or
Sunday, on which it was supposed Christ rose from the dead, was urged upon
them as a festival in honor of the resurrection, and as such only it appears to
have been used for a long time; and it appears not to have been originally
intended to supersede the religious regard universally paid by Christians to the
weekly Sabbath. Agreeably to this view of the subject, the learned Morer, though
an advocate for the first day, states that in St. Jerome's time, who was born as
late as A. D. 544, the Christians, after divine worship on the Lord's day, followed
their daily employment; and St. Jerome represents Paula, a devout lady, with the
virgins and widows attending her, after coming home from worship on the Lord's
day, as sitting down to their daily tasks, which consisted in making garments for
themselves and others. Chrysostom, Gregory, Augustine, and Jerome, not only
connived at but recommended and enjoined this labor upon the Lord's day, from
the consideration that only a small part of the day was occupied in divine
worship. The following authorities will shed more light on the subject.
Athanasius, A. D. 340, says - "We assemble on Saturday, not that we are
infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.
Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 412, says, "Touching
25
the communion there are sundry observations and customs, for almost all the
churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and receive the holy mysteries
every Sabbath; yet the Egyptians adjoining Alexandria, together with the
inhabitants of Thebes, of a tradition, do celebrate the communion on Sunday."
"When the festival meeting throughout every week was come, I mean the
Saturday and the Sunday upon which the Christians are wont to meet solemnly
in the church," etc.
Eusebius, A. D. 325, as quoted by Dr. Chambers, states that in his time "the
Sabbath was observed no less than Sunday."
Gregory expostulates thus - "With what eyes can you behold the Lord's day,
when you despise the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and
that in slighting one you affront the other?"
Sozomen says - "Most of the churches carefully observed the Sabbath."
Grotius, whose learning and candor eminently qualified him for a witness in
this case, observes - "The Christians kept the holy Sabbath, and had their
assemblies on that day, in which the law was read to them, which custom
remained to the time of the council of Laodicea, about A. D. 355, who then
thought meet that the gospel should also be read on that day. These things
considered, refute those who pretend that the first day of the week, or Lord's day,
is substituted in the room of the Sabbath."
 M. de la Roque, a French Protestant - "It evidently appears, that before any
change was introduced, the church religiously observed the Sabbath for many
ages; we of consequence are obliged to keep it."
The authors here quoted are resorted to by our opponents, whenever they
have occasion for their testimony, and we have never heard their veracity
questioned. From their statements it is very evident, that the introduction of the
first day of the week to religious notice was the effect of superstition; that it was
at first but partially observed, and that by but few as a festival; afterwards by
more; and finally by the greater part of professing Christians, who still observed
the seventh day as the Sabbath. It was by ecclesiastical councils and imperial
decrees, that it finally superseded the Sabbath as a national and church holy day
in most Christian countries. - Sab. Vindicator.
--------The reader will observe that some of the historical facts found on this,
and the preceding page, are repeated in the four following pages. In selecting
this matter from different authors, we have found it difficult to avoid some
repetition. W.

History of the Sabbath. The Sabbath from the Time of Constantine to

the Reformation

WE here see how the matter stood until the commencement of Constantine's
career. The Sabbath was generally observed, while Lord's day was regarded as
a festival of no greater importance or authority than Good Friday or Holy
Thursday. No text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree of council, could be
produced in its favor. But from this time forth may be found emperors and
councils combining to give importance to the Lord's day and to oppose the
Sabbath.
An important change was undoubtedly produced upon the regard paid to the
first day, soon after the accession of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, in
the early part of the fourth century. When he became master of Rome, he soon
gave himself up to the guidance of the Christian clergy. "He built places of public
worship. He encouraged the meeting of synods and bishops - honored them with
his presence, and employed himself continually in aggrandizing the church. He
was scrupulously attentive to the religious rites and ceremonies which were
prescribed to him by the clergy. He fasted, observed the feasts in
commemoration of the martyrs, and devoutly watched the whole night on the
vigils of the saints," i 1 and showed great anxiety for uniformity in the doctrines
and observances of religion in the church. He was, therefore, exactly suited to
the wishes of the Roman bishop and clergy, in establishing, by his imperial
authority, what they had no Scripture to support, and what their influence had
hitherto been unable to effect, viz. a uniformity in the celebration of Easter and
the first day. In 321, Constantine first published his edicts enjoining upon his
subjects these superstitious celebrations which he had been taught to perform.
Eusebius says, ii 2 "He appointed as a suitable time for prayers the dominical
day, which then was an especial day, and now is undoubtedly the very first. His
body guard observed the day, and offered in it prayers written by the Emperor.
The happy prince endeavored to persuade all to do this, and by degrees to lead
all to the worship of God; wherefore he determined that those obeying Roman
power should abstain from every work upon the days named after the Saviour,
that they should venerate also the day before the Sabbath, in memory, as seems
to me, of the events occurring in those days to our common Saviour."
27
He says again, "An edict also, by the will and pleasure of the emperor, was
transmitted to the Prefects of the provinces, that they thenceforth should
venerate the dominical day; that they should honor the days consecrated to the
Martyrs, and should celebrate the solemnities of the festivals in the churches, all
of which was done according to the will of the emperor." And as quoted by
Lucius, he says, that he admonished his subjects likewise that those days which
were Sabbaths should be honored or worshipped.
Sozomen says, iii 1 "He (Constantine) also made a law that on the dominical
day, which the Hebrews call the first day of the week, the Greeks the day of the
Sun, and also on the day of Venus, (i.e. Friday,) judgments should not be given,
or other business transacted, but that all should worship God with prayer and
supplications, and venerate the dominical day, as in it Christ rose from the dead;
but the day of Venus, as the day in which he was fixed to the cross."
Dr. Chambers says, iv 2 "It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for
the observance of Sunday, and who, according to Eusebius, appointed that it
should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman Empire. Before him, and
even in his time, they observed the Jewish Sabbath as well as Sunday; both to
satisfy the law of Moses, and to imitate the Apostles, who used to meet together
on the first day." He adds, "Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lord's day
mentioned in the Apocalypse, is our Sunday; which they will have to have been
so early instituted." "By Constantine's laws, made in 321, it was decreed that for
the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he
allowed the country people to follow their work. In 538, the Council of Orleans
prohibited this country labor."
To give the more solemnity to the first day of the week, Sylvester, who was
bishop of Rome while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday,
giving it the more imposing title of Lord's Day. v3
It is not to be doubted, that the laws of Constantine made the first day more
conspicuous throughout the empire, as all public business was forbidden upon it.
They changed its character from a special day, in which, as a weekly festival, all
kinds of business and labor were performed in city and country, to be, as
Eusebius says, the very first. This imperial favor for the first
28
day was oppressive to all who conscientiously regarded the Sabbath from
respect to the fourth commandment, in obedience to which the seventh day had
always been observed; and if it had produced a general abandonment of its
observation, it would not have been very surprising, considering the influence of
court example and the general ignorance and darkness of the age. Yet this does
not appear to have been the case. The Sabbath was still extensively observed;
and to counteract it the Council of Laodicea, about A. D. 350, passed a decree
saying, "It is not proper for Christians to Judaize and to cease from labor on the
Sabbath, but they ought to work on this day, and put especial honor upon the
Lord's day, as Christians. If any be found Judaizing let him be anathematized."
Yet this did not produce any material change, for Socrates, a writer of the fifth
century, who resided at Constantinople, makes the following remarks upon the
celebration of the Sabbath, at the time he wrote, A. D. 440. He says, "There are
various customs concerning assembling; for though all the churches throughout
the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath day, yet the
Alexandrians and the Romans, from an ancient tradition, refuse to do this; but the
Egyptians who are in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and those inhabiting
Thebeis, indeed have assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not participate in the
mysteries, as is the custom of the Christians. At Caesarea, Cappadocia, and in
Cyprus, on the Sabbath and dominical day, at twilight, with lighted lamps, the
Presbyters and Bishops interpret the Scriptures. At Rome they fast every
Sabbath." vi 1
This account of the manner of celebrating the Sabbath in the fifth century, is
corroborated by Sozomen. vii 2 He says, "At Constantinople, and almost among
all, the Christians assemble upon the Sabbath, and also upon the first day of the
week, excepting Rome and Alexandria; that the ecclesiastical assemblies at
Rome were not upon the Sabbath, as in almost all other churches of the rest of
the world; and that in many cities and villages in Egypt, they used to commune in
the evening of the Sabbath, on which day there were public assemblies."
In regard to fasting on the Sabbath at Rome, here referred to, it ought to be
said, that from the earliest times to the fourth century, the practice had been to
observe the Sabbath as a holiday. But the Church of Rome, in its opposition to
the Jews, made it a fast day, that the separation might be marked and strong. In
the eastern churches they never fasted upon the Sabbath, excepting
29
one Sabbath in the year, which was the day before the Passover. But in the
western churches they celebrated a fast every week. It was in reference to this
that Ambrose said, "When I come to Rome, I fast upon the Sabbath; when I am
here, I do not fast." Augustine also said concerning this, "If they say it is sinful to
fast on the Sabbath, then they would condemn the Roman Church, and many
places near to and far from it. And if they should think it a sin not to fast on the
Sabbath, then they would blame many eastern churches, and the far greater part
of the world." This Sabbath fasting was opposed by the eastern church; and in
the sixth general Council held at Constantinople, it was commanded that the
Sabbath and dominical day be kept as festivals, and that no one fast or mourn
upon them. The practice of fasting, therefore, was chiefly in the western
churches, about Rome.
It is perhaps difficult to determine exactly the relative importance attached to
the seventh and first day of the week, at this time. Sufficient may be found,
however, to assure us, that the Sabbath was observed, and that no one regarded
Sunday as having taken its place. This is shown by the provision of the Council
of Laodicea, A. D. 365, that the Gospels should be read on that day. It is shown
by the action of a Council in 517, (mentioned in Robinson's History of Baptism,)
which regulated and enforced the observance of the Sabbath. It is shown by the
expostulation of Gregory of Nyssa, "How can you look upon the Lord's day, if you
neglect the Sabbath? Do you not know that they are sisters, and that in despising
the one you affront the other?" And as sisters we find them hand in hand in the
Ecclesiastical Canons. Penalties were inflicted by the councils both of Laodicea
and Trull, on clergymen who did not observe both days as festivals.
How the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was observed in the early part of
the fifth century, we may learn from the words of St. Jerome. In a funeral oration
for the Lady Paula, he says: "She, with all her virgins and widows who lived at
Bethlehem in a cloister with her, upon the Lord's day, repaired duly to the church,
or house of God, which was nigh to her cell; and after her return from thence to
her own lodgings, she herself and all her company fell to work, and every one
performed their task, which was the making of clothes and garments for
themselves and for others, as they were appointed."
St. Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, "recommended to his audience,
after impressing upon themselves and their
30
families what they had heard on the Lord's day, to return to their daily
employments." viii1
Dr. Francis White, Lord Bishop of Ely, speaking of this matter, says, "The
Catholic Church for more than six hundred years after Christ, permitted labor,
and gave license to many Christian people to work upon the Lord's Day at such
hours as they were not commanded to be present at the public service by the
precepts of the church."
In the sixth century efforts were made to prevent this labor. The following
promulgation of a synod held by command of King Junthran, of Burgundy, will
show the condition of things, and the means used to improve them: "We see the
Christian people, in an unadvised manner, deliver to contempt the Dominical day,
and, as in other days, indulge in continual labor." Therefore they determined to
teach the people subject to them, to keep the dominical day, which, if not
observed by the lawyer, he should irreparably lose his cause, but if a countryman
or servant did not keep it, he should be beaten with heavier blows of cudgels. ix 2
The council of Orleans, held 538, prohibited the country labor on Sunday, which
Constantine, by his laws, permitted. This council also declared, "that to hold it
unlawful to travel with horses, cattle and carriages, to prepare food, or to do
anything necessary to the cleanliness and decency of houses or persons, savors
more of Judaism than Christianity. x 3 In another council held at Narbonne in
France, in the seventh century, they also forbid this country work. xi 4
Early in the 7th century, in the time of Pope Gregory I., the subject of the
Sabbath attracted considerable attention. There was one class of persons who
declared, "that it was not lawful to do any manner of work upon the Saturday, or
the old Sabbath; another that no man ought to bathe himself on the Lord's day, or
their new Sabbath." xii 5 Against both of these doctrines Pope Gregory wrote a
letter to the Roman citizens. Baronius, in his Councils, says, "This year (603) at
Rome, St. Gregory, the Pope, corrected that error which some preached, by
Jewish superstition, or the Grecian custom, that it was a duty to worship on the
Sabbath, as likewise upon the dominical days; and he calls such preachers the
preachers of Antichrist." Nearly the same doctrine was preached again in the
time of Gregory VII., A. D. 1074, about five hundred years after what we are now
speaking of. This is sufficient to show that the Sabbath was
31
kept until those times of decline which introduced so many errors in faith and
practice. Indeed, it is sufficient to show, that wherever the subject has been
under discussion, the Sabbath has found its advocates both in theory and in
practice.
According to Lucius, Pope Urban II., in the eleventh century, dedicated the
Sabbath to the Virgin Mary, with a Mass. xiii 1 Binius says, "Pope Innocent I.,
constituted a fast on the Sabbath day, which seems to be the first constitution of
that fast; but dedicating the Sabbath to the Virgin Mary was by Urban II. in the
latter part of the eleventh century." xiv 2 About this time we find Esychius teaching
the doctrine that the precept for the observance of the Sabbath is not one of the
commandments, because it is not at all times to be observed according to the
letter; and Thomas Aquinas, another Romish ecclesiastic, saying, "that it seems
to be inconvenient that the precept for observing the Sabbath should be put
among the precepts of the Decalogue, if it do not at all belong to it; that the
precept, 'Thou shalt not make a graven image,' and the precept for observing the
Sabbath, are ceremonial."
The observance of the first day was not so early in England and in Scotland
as in most other parts of the Roman Empire. According to Heylyn, there were
Christian societies established in Scotland as early as A. D. 435; and it is
supposed that the gospel was preached in England in the first century by St.
Paul. For many ages after Christianity was received in these kingdoms, they paid
no respect to the first day. Binius, a Catholic writer, in the second volume of his
works, gives some account of the bringing into use the Dominical day [Sunday] in
Scotland, as late as A. D. 1203. "This year," he says, "a council was held in
Scotland concerning the introduction of the Lord's day, which council was held in
1203, in the time of Pope Innocent III.," and quotes as his authority, Roger
Horeden, Matth. Paris, and Lucius' Eccl. Hist. He says, "By this council it was
enacted that it should be holy time from the twelfth hour on Saturday noon until
Monday."
Boethus (de Scottis, p. 344) says, "In A. D. 1203, William, king of Scotland,
called a council of the principal of his kingdom, by which it was decreed, that
Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should be holy; that they should do no
profane work, and this they should observe until Monday."
Binius says that in A. D. 1201, Eustachius, Abbot of Flay, came to England,
and therein preached from city to city, and from place to place. He prohibited
using markets on Dominical
32
days; for he said that this command underwritten concerning the observation of
the Dominical day, came from heaven. The history of this singular epistle, entitled
A holy command of the Dominical day, the pious Abbot stated to be this: "It came
from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found on St. Simon's tomb in Golgotha. And
the Lord commanded this epistle, which for three days and three nights men
looked upon, and falling to the earth, prayed for God's mercy. And after the third
hour, the patriarch stood up; and Akarias the archbishop stretched out his mitre,
and they took the holy epistle of God and found it thus written."
[We will give some extracts from this epistle, partly as a matter of curiosity,
and partly to show the credulity of our ancestors, and by what means they were
awed into what was to them a new religious observation.]
"I, the Lord, who commanded you that ye should observe the Dominical day,
and ye have not kept it, and ye have not repented of your sins, as I said by my
gospel, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away; I
have caused repentance unto life to be preached unto you, and ye have not
believed; I sent pagans against you, who shed your blood, yet ye believed not;
and because ye kept not the Dominical day, for a few days ye had famine; but I
soon gave you plenty, and afterwards ye did worse: I will again, that none from
the ninth hour of the Sabbath until the rising of the sun on Monday, do work any
thing unless what is good, which if any do, let him amend by repentance; and if
ye be not obedient to this command, Amen, I say unto you, and I swear unto you
by my seat, and throne, and cherubim, who keep my holy seat, because I will not
change any thing by another epistle; but I will open the heavens, and for rain I
will rain upon you stones and logs of wood, and hot water by night, and none
may be able to prevent, but that I may destroy all wicked men. This I say unto
you, ye shall die the death, because of the Dominical holy day, and other
festivals of my saints which ye have not kept. I will send unto you beasts having
the heads of lions, the hair of woman, and tails of camels; and they shall be so
hunger-starved that they shall devour your flesh, and ye shall desire to flee to the
sepulchres of the dead and hide you for fear of the beasts; and I will take away
the light of the sun from your eyes; and I will send upon you darkness, that
without seeing, ye may kill one another; and I will take away my face from you,
and will not show you mercy; for I will burn your bodies and hearts of all who
keep not the Dominical holy day. Hear my voice, lest ye
33
perish in the land because of the Dominical holy day. Now know ye, that ye are
safe by the prayers of my most holy mother Mary, and of my holy angels who
daily pray for you. I gave you the law from Mount Sinai, which ye have not kept.
For you I was born into the world, and my festivals ye have not known; the
Dominical day of my resurrection ye have not kept; I swear to you by my right
hand, unless ye keep the Dominical day and the festivals of my saints, I will send
pagans to kill you."
Provided with this new command from heaven, "Eustachius preached in
various parts of England against the transgression of the Dominical day, and
other festivals; and gave the people absolution upon condition that they hereafter
reverence the Dominical day, and the festivals of the saints." The time appointed
as holy, was from the ninth hour on the Sabbath until Monday morning at sunrise.
And the people vowed to God, that hereafter they would neither buy nor sell any
thing but food on Sunday.
 "Then," says Binius, "the enemy of man, envying the admonitions of this holy
man, put it into the heart of the king and nobility of England, to command that all
who should keep the aforesaid traditions, and chiefly all who had cast down the
markets for things vendible upon the Dominical day, should be brought to the
king's court to make satisfaction about observing the Dominical day." Binius
relates many miraculous things that occurred on the Sabbath to those that
labored after the ninth hour - i.e. after three o'clock in the afternoon of the
seventh day, or Saturday. He says, upon a certain Sabbath, after the ninth hour,
a carpenter, for making a wooden pin, was struck with the palsy; and a woman,
for knitting on the Sabbath, after the ninth hour, was also struck with the palsy. A
man baked bread, and when he broke it to eat, blood came out. Another grinding
corn, blood came in a great stream instead of meal, while the wheel of his mill
stood still against a vehement impulse of water. Heated ovens refused to bake
bread, if heated after the ninth hour of the Sabbath; and dough left unbaked, out
of respect to Eustachius's new doctrine, was found on Monday morning well
baked without the aid of fire. These fables were industriously propagated
throughout the kingdom; "yet the people," says Binius, "fearing kingly and human
power, more than divine, returned as a dog to his own vomit, to keep markets of
saleable things upon the Dominical day."
Mr. Bampfield says, xv1 "The king and princes of England, in
34
1203, would not agree to change the Sabbath, and keep the first day, by this
authority. This was in the time of King John, against whom the popish clergy had
a great pique for not honoring their prelacy and the monks, by one of whom he
was finally poisoned."
Binius (Councils, Cent. 18) states that King John of England, in 1208, in the
tenth year of his reign, for not submitting to popish impositions upon his
prerogatives, was excommunicated by the Pope, and his kingdom interdicted,
which occasioned so much trouble at home and abroad, that it forced him at last
to lay down his crown at the feet of Mandulphus, the Pope's agent. After he was
thus humbled by that excommunication and interdiction, the king, in the fifteenth
year of his reign, by writ, removed the market of the city of Exon from Sunday, on
which it was held, to Monday. xvi 1 The market of Lanceston was removed from
the first to the fifth day of the week. In the second and third years of Henry III.
many other markets were removed from the first to other days of the week, which
King John would not permit to be done. xvii2 He also issued a writ which permitted
the removal of markets from the first day to other days without special license.
The parliament of England met on Sundays until the time of Richard II., who
adjourned it from that to the following day.
In A. D. 1203, "A council was held in Scotland to inaugurate the king, and
[concerning] the feast of the Sabbath: and there came also a legate from the
Pope, with a sword and purple hat, indulgences and privileges to the young king.
It was also there decreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should be
holy." xviii 3 The Magdeburgenses say, this Council was about the observation of
the Dominical day newly brought in, and that they ordained that it should be holy
from the twelfth hour of Saturday even till Monday. xix4
 Binius says, "A synod was held in Oxford, A. D. 1223, by Stephen, Archbishop
of Canterbury, where they determined that the Dominical day be kept with all
veneration, and a fast upon the Sabbath. xx5
The first law of England made for the keeping of Sunday, was in the time of
Edward VI., about 1470. "Parliament then passed an act, by which Sunday and
many holy days, the feasts of all Saints, of holy Innocents, were established as
festivals by law. This provided also, that it should be lawful for husbandmen,
35
laborers, fishermen, and all others in harvest, or any other time of the year when
necessity should require, to labor, ride, fish, or do any other kind of work, at their
own free will and pleasure, upon any of the said days." xxi1
By such means as these, the observation of the first day was gradually but
forcibly urged upon the people, wherever they owned allegiance to the Pope as
head of the church, and in England and Scotland, as late as the thirteenth
century, and the Sabbath was as gradually brought into contempt and disuse.
The process by which the change was effected appears to be this: By first
obtaining an annual celebration of the first day at the close of the Passover in
honor of the resurrection; then a partial observation of the day weekly, it being
then generally so observed among the heathen; then obtaining for it the support
of civil laws, ecclesiastical canons, and penalties, and by giving it the title of
Lord's day; then by requiring the consecration of the entire day. To abate and
ultimately eradicate all respect for the Sabbath, it was first turned into a fast, then
it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, resting upon it stigmatized as Judaism and
heresy, and the preaching of it called Antichrist; and finally, pronouncing the
fourth commandment ceremonial, and abstracting it from the Decalogue. And
thus, so far as the Roman church was concerned, the point was gained, and thus
probably she performed her part in the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, (vii,
25,) "He shall think to change TIMES and LAWS; and they shall be given into his
hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
The cause of the Sabbath must also have been seriously affected by the rise
of the Ottoman empire in the seventh century, and the success of the
Mahometans in conquering the eastern division of the church. Mahomet, as he
professed, formed the plan of establishing a new religion; or, as he expressed it,
of replanting the only true and ancient one professed by Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, and the prophets; by destroying idolatry, and weeding out the
corruptions which the later Jews and Christians had, as he supposed, introduced.
He was equally opposed to both Jews and Christians. To distinguish his disciples
the more fully from both, he selected as their day of weekly celebration, the sixth
day, or Friday. And thus, as a writer of the seventeenth century remarked, "they
and the Romanists crucified the Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the
Lord of the Sabbath, between two thieves, the sixth and the first day of the
week."
36
We have thus traced the history of the Sabbath in the Roman church down to
the thirteenth century; and we see that through the whole of this period, the
seventh day every where retained at least the nominal honor of being called the
Sabbath, and that no other day had ever borne that title; and that not until the
remarkable letter found on St. Simon's tomb, had it been asserted by any one
that the observation of the first day, Lord's day, or Sunday, was enjoined by the
authority of Jesus or his apostles, nor any example of theirs plead in its favor.
Even then it was not pretended that the Scriptures suggest its observation.
There are some traces of the Sabbath found among those Christians who
separated from the Catholic communion, or were never embraced in it. Among
these is the Greek church, which separated from them about the middle of the
eleventh century, and had a larger extent of empire than the papists now have.
According to Brerewood's Enquiries, p. 128, this church solemnizes Saturday
festivals, and forbids as unlawful to fast on any Saturday except in Lent; retaining
the custom followed before their separation. The same author states that the
Syrian Christians, who composed a numerous body in the East, celebrate divine
worship solemnly on both the Sabbath and first day, continuing the custom of the
Roman church at the time they separated from that community. Sandy's Travels,
p. 173, speak of a Christian empire in Ethiopia that celebrate both Saturday and
Sunday, "that they have divers errors and many ancient truths." The Abyssinian
Christians are another numerous body, whose principal residence is in the
empire of Abyssinia, in Central Ethiopia. They are represented as being similar in
some respects to the Papists. Purchase speaks of them as "subject to Peter and
Paul, and especially to Christ, as observing the Saturday Sabbath." xxii 1 They are
also mentioned by Brerewood. Mosheim mentions a sect of Christians in the
twelfth century in Lombardy, called Pasaginians, charged with circumcising their
followers, and keeping the Jewish Sabbath. Mr. Benedict considers the account
of their practicing the bloody right a slander charged on them on account of their
keeping the Jewish Sabbath. xxiii 2 Binius says that in 1555 there were Christians
in Rome who kept the Sabbath, and therefore called Sabbatarii, and are
represented as differing in other respects from the Romanists.
37
this. He says, "Their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of
the Bible. Besides this, they maintain the solemn observation of Christian
worship throughout our empire on the seventh day." xxiv 1 If the author used the
phrase in its usual and Scripture sense, he has added a numerous body of
Christians to those who have retained the ancient Sabbath.
There has probably not existed a class of Christians since the Apostles' time,
who could more justly claim to be apostolic than the Waldenses, who were
formerly a numerous people living in the valleys of Piedmont, whither they
retired, says Mr. Burnside, on the promulgation of Constantine's laws for the
observation of the first day, in the fourth century; where they remained, according
to Scaliger and Brerewood, in the time of Elizabeth of England, i.e. the latter part
of the sixteenth century. xxv 2 They adhered firmly to the apostolic faith, and
suffered severe persecutions from the Catholics, who were their most bitter
enemies. Mr. Robinson, in his History of Baptism, says, "they were called Sabbati
and Sabbatati; so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the
Saturday for the Lord's day." They were also called Insabbatati, because they
rejected all the festivals, or Sabbaths, in the low Latin sense of the word. The
account the Papists gave of their sentiments in 1250, is briefly this: That they
declared themselves to be the apostolic successors, and to have apostolic
authority; that they held the church of Rome to be the 'Whore of Babylon;' that
none of the ordinances of the church which have been introduced since Christ's
ascension, ought to be observed; that baptism is of no advantage to infants,
because they cannot actually believe. They reject the sacrament of confirmation,
but instead of that, their teachers lay their hands upon their disciples. Mr. Jones
says, because they would not observe saints' days, they were falsely supposed
to neglect the Sabbath also. Another of their enemies, an Inquisitor of Rome,
charged them with despising all the feasts of Christ and his saints. Another, a
Commissioner of Charles XII. of France, reported to him, "that he found among
them none of the ceremonies, images nor signs of the Romish church, much less
the crimes with which they were charged; on the contrary, they kept the Sabbath
day, observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive church, and
instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith and commandments
of God.
38
the Waldenses, that they rejected all the traditions and ordinances of the church
of Rome as being superstitious and unprofitable, and that they made light of the
whole body of clergy and prelates; on which account, having been expelled their
country, they dispersed themselves in different places, viz. Piedmont, Calabria,
Dauphiny, Provence, Languedoc, Bohemia, England, and elsewhere." xxvi 1

The Sabbath Since the Reformation.

With the commencement of the Reformation a new spirit of religious inquiry

was awakened. Nearly every item of Christian practice was brought under
consideration, and not dismissed until either approved or rejected. Among the
subjects for discussion we find the Sabbath early introduced and thoroughly
examined. There were three leading views then maintained by different classes
of the Reformers, which deserve particular notice.
1. One class of Reformers there was, who, dwelling alone on the sufficiency
of faith, and the freeness of the Gospel, trembled at the thought of imposing rules
upon men, and seemed to fear the term law. These declared that the law of the
Sabbath was abolished; that Sunday was no Sabbath, only a festival of the
church, which had been appointed, and might be altered at her pleasure. That we
may not be thought in error here, as well as to give a fuller understanding of the
opinions of that time, we will present the assertions of some of these men.
Bishop Cranmar's Catechism, A. D. 1548, says: - "The Jews were
commanded in the Old Testament to keep the Sabbath-day, and they observed it
every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we Christian men are not
bound to such commandments in Moses' law, and therefore we now keep no
more the Sabbath, or Saturday, as the Jews did, but we observe the Sunday and
some other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient."
William Tindal says, in his answer to More, chap. 25: "We be lords over the
Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other day, as we see need. Or
may make every tenth day holy-day, only if we see 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 difference
between us and the Jew,
39
and lest we should become servants to the day after their superstition."
Bullinger, on Rev.i,10, says: - "Christian churches entertained the Lord's day
not upon any commandment from God, but according to their free choice."
Melanethon says: - "The Lord's day from the Apostles' age, hath been a
solemn day: notwithstanding, we find not the same commanded by any Apostolic
law; but it is collected from hence that the observation thereof was free, because
Epiphanius and St. Augustine testify that on the fourth and the sixth days of the
week church assemblies were held, as well as upon the Lord's day."
The Augustan Confession, drawn up by Melancthon, and approved by Luther,
says: - "We teach that traditions are not to be condemned which have a religious
end, . . . . . . namely, traditions concerning holy-days, the Lord's day, the feast of
the nativity, Easter, etc."
These passages distinctly do away with the Sabbath, and place the
observation of Lord's day on the ground of human authority. In the books of some
early authors who adopted these views, may be found frequent references to a
difficulty which drove them to deny the perpetuity of the Sabbath. Bishop White,
in 1635, says: - "If the fourth commandment, concerning the keeping of the
seventh day, is moral and perpetual, then it is not such in respect to the first and
eighth day; for this precept requireth the observance of that one only day which it
specifieth in that commandment." In speaking of Lord's day, he says: - "Every
day of the week and of the year is the Lord's; and the Sunday is no more the
Lord's by the law of the fourth commandment, than the Friday; for the Lord's day
of that fourth commandment is the Saturday."
In each of these quotations it seems to have been felt to be inconsistent to
allow the perpetuity of the Sabbath, without keeping the seventh day. But to
come back to this ancient day, and keep it in company with Jews, seemed too
great a change. Hence the abrogation of the institution was asserted, as the
easiest way of escaping from the dilemma. John Milton, speaking of this difficulty,
says: - "If we under the Gospel are to regulate the time of our public worship by
the prescriptions of the Decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe the
seventh day, according to the express command of God, than on the authority of
mere human conjecture, to adopt the first."
Another influence which led to the rejection of the Sabbath by these men, was
the view of it which was held by the Roman
40
Church. When the leaders of the Reformation separated from that church, it was
claimed that all her festival days, including Sunday, were holier than other days,
not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural and inherent
holiness wherewith they thought them to be invested. In addition to this, many
and hurtful restraints had been imposed upon the consciences of God's people,
until these were days of punishment rather than holy pleasure and profit. Seeing
the days perverted from their real design, and made the means of strengthening
papal power, it is not surprising that they were discarded together. Anxious to
escape one error, they embraced another equally dangerous.
2. But another class of Reformers, (probably somewhat fearful of the
consequences of those lax notions to which we have just referred,) considering
that the Sabbath was given in Paradise, rehearsed at Sinai, and placed among
the precepts of the Decalogue, declared that it must be moral in its nature, and
perpetually binding. But having allowed its perpetuity, and having rested its
claims upon the fourth commandment, the way of explaining and enforcing the
change of the day, presented an obstacle to the spread of this view. How this
was removed, let their own words answer. Dr. Bound, in 1595, says, "The fourth
commandment is simply and perpetually moral, and not ceremonial in whole or in
part." Richard Byfield, 1630, says, "The fourth commandment is part of the law of
nature, and thus part of the image of God, and is no more capable of a ceremony
to be in it than God is." Afterwards he says, "The institution of the Lord's day is
clearly in the work of Christ's resurrection; as the institution of the seventh day
was in the work of finishing the creation." "The resurrection applieth and
determineth the Sabbath of the fourth commandment to the Lord's day." Such
was the course of reasoning adopted by this class of persons. Having
established the morality and perpetuity of the Sabbath by means of Scripture,
and brought the sanctions of the word of God to sustain them, they apply all this
to the support of an institution, the existence and time of keeping which is
inferred from Christ's resurrection. It is easy to see what must have been the
consequence.
3. A third class may be found among the disputants about the Sabbath, who
endeavored, by strict adherence to the Scriptures, to escape the difficulties and
inconsistencies into which others had been led. They contended for the early
institution of the Sabbath, for its morality and perpetuity as inferred from its being
placed in the Decalogue, and for the seventh day of the week,
41
as an essential and necessary part of the commandment. Theophilus Brabourne,
in 1628, says: - "1. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue is a divine
precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing legally ceremonial, in
whole or in part, and therefore the weekly observation thereof ought to be
perpetual, and to continue in full force and virtue to the world's end. 2. The
Saturday, or seventh day of the week, ought to be an everlasting holy-day in the
Christian Church, and the religious observation of this day obligeth Christians
under the Gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ. 3. The Sunday,
or Lord's day, is an ordinary working day; and it is superstition and will-worship to
make the same the Sabbath of the fourth commandment." These opinions were
vindicated by Brabourne, in two volumes, which appeared, one in 1628, and the
other in 1632. They have never been answered to the satisfaction of many
candid minds. It is true, an answer has been attempted. But this answer, laboring
as it did mainly to prove that such doctrine "is repugnant to the public sentence of
the Church of England, and to the sentence of divines who lived at the beginning
of the Reformation," could not satisfy one who believed the Scriptures to be a
sufficient rule of faith and practice. To these volumes might be added others,
which appeared soon after, and to the results of which, living witnesses have
testified from that day to this. It was while the discussion just referred to was yet
in progress, that King James, in 1618, published his Book of Sports for Sunday,
in which is set forth, that "by the preciseness of some magistrates and ministers
in several places in this kingdom, in hindering people from their recreations on
the Sunday; the papists in this realm being thereby persuaded that no honest
mirth or recreation was tolerable in our religion," wherefore, it pleased his
majesty to set out his declaration, "that for his good people's lawful recreation,
his pleasure was, that after the end of divine service, they should not be
disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreation, such as dancing,
either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such
harmless recreations; nor from having of 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 let of divine
service." This was designed in part, probably, to counteract what was then called
the puritan notion, and may be regarded as expressing the opinion of the English
Church at that time in regard to the sacredness of the day. The same was re-
published
42
in 1636, by Charles, with how much real effect upon the practices of men it is not
easy to determine.
It is evident that a reaction in favor of the institution had already commenced;
and the earnestness of Puritanism on this subject, joined to the influence of
Sabbatarianism, has affected almost the whole body of the English Church.
Puritanism and Sabbatarianism deserve the credit of having preserved to that
country a regard for the day of rest, which raises them infinitely above many
other Protestant countries. Had they taken Scripture ground, the result can hardly
be predicted.
By what has here been said in regard to the observation of the Sabbath, after
the Reformation, it is not to be supposed that there are no traces of it since the
Christian era until that time. It is believed that there have been Christians in every
age who have kept holy the seventh day. During the first three centuries of the
Christian Church, the Sabbath seems to have been almost universally kept. It
was kept generally in the Eastern Church for six hundred years. And from that
time onward to the present, frequent traces of Sabbath-keepers may be found,
either in the history of individuals, or in the acts of Councils against those who
kept it. These notices extend to the time of the Reformation; and are as frequent
as are the references to the first day of the week under the title of Lord's day.
When we enter upon that period of Reform, we find that Sabbath-keepers
appear in Germany late in the fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century,
according to Ross's Picture of All Religions. By this we are to understand that
their ministers were such as to lead to organization, and attract attention. A
number of these formed a church, and emigrated to America in the early
settlement of the country. There were Sabbath-keepers in Transylvania, among
whom was Francis Darinis, the chaplain to the Court of Sigismund, the prince of
that kingdom, and afterwards superintendent of all the Transylvanian countries.
In France, also, there were Christians of this class, among whom was M. de la
Roque, who wrote in defence of the Sabbath, against Bossuet, the Catholic
Bishop of Meaux. But it is difficult to determine to what extent this day was
observed in those countries.
In England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. Dr. Chambers says: "They
arose in England in the sixteenth century," from which we understand that they
then became a distinct denomination in that kingdom. They increased
considerably in the seventeenth century; and we find that towards the close of
that century there were eleven flourishing churches in different
43
parts of the country. Among those who held this view are some names of
distinction. Theophilus Brabourne was called before the Court of High
Commission, in 1632, for having written and published books vindicating the
claims of the seventh day. One Traske was about the same time examined in the
Starr Chamber where a long discussion about the subject seems to have been
held. Nearly thirty years after this, John James, preacher to a Sabbath-keeping
congregation in the east of London, was executed in a barbarous manner, upon a
variety of charges, among which was his keeping of the Sabbath. Twenty years
later still, Francis Bampfield died in Newgate, a martyr to non-conformity -
especially as one who could not conform in the matter of the Sabbath. It is
needless to mention other names, or to speak particularly of Edward, Joseph, Dr.
Joseph and Dr. Samuel Stennett, John Maulden, Robert Cornthwaite, and others,
who have written and suffered in proof of their attachment to this truth.
But the Sabbath found great opposition in England, being assailed both from
the pulpit and the press, by those who were attached to the established church.
Many men of learning and talent engaged in the discussion on both sides of the
question. It is evident that the opposers of reform felt unable to defend
themselves against the strength of talent and Scripture brought against them.
Therefore, as in similar cases, they excited the civil powers to check the progress
of the Dissenters by passing the famous Conrenticle Act. By this law, passed in
1664, it was provided that if any person above sixteen years of age was present
at any meeting of worship different from the Church of England, where there
were five persons more than the household, for the first offence he should be
imprisoned three months, or pay five pounds; for the second, the penalty was
doubled; and for the third he should be banished to America, or pay one hundred
pounds sterling. This act was renewed in 1669, which, in addition to the former
penalties, made the person preaching liable to pay a fine of twenty pounds; and
the same penalty was imposed upon any person suffering a meeting to be held in
his house. Justices of the Peace were empowered to enter such houses, and
seize such persons; and they were fined one hundred pounds if they neglected
doing so. These acts were exceedingly harassing to those who observed the
Sabbath. Many of their distinguished ministers were taken from their flocks and
confined in prison, some of whom sunk under their sufferings. These
persecutions not only prevented those who kept the Sabbath from assembling,
but deterred some who embraced their
 44
opinions from uniting with them, and discouraged others from investigating the
subject. At present the Sabbath is not as extensively observed in England as
formerly. But the extent of Sabbath-keeping cannot be determined by the number
and magnitude of the churches, either there or in other countries. For many
persons live in the observation of the seventh day and remain members of
churches which assemble on the first day; and a still greater number
acknowledge its correctness, who conform to the more popular custom of
keeping the first day.
At what time the Sabbath became the subject of attention on this side of the
Atlantic we cannot definitely say. The intolerance of the first settlers of New
England was unfavorable to the Sabbath. The poor Christian that may have been
banished to this country for its observance could find no refuge among the
Pilgrim Fathers. The laws of Rhode Island were more tolerant, and observers of
the Sabbath first made their appearance in Newport, in that State, in 1671. The
cause of the Sabbath has gradually gained strength in this country from that
period; but it has found much to oppose its progress, even in Rhode Island. It
was in opposition to the general practice of Christians, on which account an
odium was put upon it, and those who have kept the Sabbath have been
reproached with Judaizing and classed with Jews. Besides this, they have been
subjected to great inconvenience in their occupations, especially in cities and
towns. In Connecticut the laws were intolerant and oppressive to the Sabbath
cause.
At no time does there appear to have been in this country any general
excitement on this subject. The friends of Sunday have avoided as far as
possible its dissension; so that those who have observed the Sabbath have had
but little encouragement as they have supposed, to try to extend their
sentiments. But the propagation of their opinions has not exclusively depended
on their efforts. The common English version of the Bible has been found in
many instances a sufficient means of converting men to the Sabbath. Churches
observing and assembling on the Sabbath, have been founded in Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina,
Georgia, and in most of the new States, embracing as is supposed, a population
of forty or fifty thousand. - Sabbath Tract No. 4.

The True Issue

One of the greatest difficulties which we who observe the seventh day have
ever found in the Sabbath controversy, is to make our opponents understand
what is the real question at issue. So long have their thoughts, feelings and
habits, been moulded under one particular view of the subject, that it seems
almost a miracle if one is found who can disregard all foreign matter, and look at
the precise point in debate long enough to come to any certain and intelligent
conclusion about it. But it is evident, that if an opponent is suffered to raise false
issues, or to be continually striking off into the discussion of some point which
does not affect the final question, we may prolong the controversy ad infinitum.
 Let us then endeavor to state distinctly what is and what is not, the issue
between us and the observers of the first day of the week.
1. The issue is not whether the first day of the week was observed at a very
early period by Christians. We admit that it was. We admit that its observance
may be traced up to very near the borders of the apostolic age. What more can a
generous, conscientious opponent, who scorns any other aid than what the truth
will give, ask? He knows in his own soul that this is the very utmost that can be
produced from any of his histories. Let him ransack his old musty volumes all the
way backward, till he fancies he can almost talk to the "beloved disciple" face to
face, and what more can he find? Verily, nothing.
But when you have got this admission from us, then we have another
question to ask. How - don't dodge the question - HOW was the day observed by
the early Christians? We admit the observance of it; but that is not the issue. The
issue respects the manner of observing it. You, if you are consistent, will say that
the early Christians observed it not only by public worship, but by abstaining from
labor. We, on the other hand, deny that they abstained from labor. We admit that
they held public worship; but - we repeat it - we deny that they abstained from
labor. We deny that they regarded it as a Sabbath, "resting according to the
commandment." Now with the issue thus fairly stated, we put the laboring oar
into your hands, and challenge you to prove your position. Bring proof, if you can,
that the early Christians regarded the first day of the week as any thing else than
a religious festival; between which and the Sabbath there is a very important
difference, the latter requiring
46
abstinence from labor, the former merely requiring public worship in honor of the
event commemorated, and allowing the remainder of the day to be spent in labor
or amusement.
2. When it is once settled, that in a very early period of the church the first day
was observed as a festival; when our opponents have fairly jaded themselves to
a "weariness of the flesh," in their "much study" of the old fathers, to find proof of
it; though we never called it in question; - then the issue is, whether this festival
was ordained by Christ? - whether the New Testament furnishes inspired
example of such festival? Our opponents affirm: we deny. We maintain that in
every passage of the New Testament, where the first day of the week is
mentioned, the context furnishes a sufficient reason why it is mentioned, without
the least necessity of supposing it to have been a festival season. No exception
can be made to this, unless in regard to 1Cor.xvi,2. The reason why the Apostle
in this place specifies the first, rather than any other day of the week, does not so
clearly appear from the context; but the peculiar phraseology employed, "let each
one of you lay by him." [himself,] is against the idea of any public meeting: and if
no public meeting, of course no festival season. As every allusion to the first day
of the week is sufficiently explained by other circumstances noticed in the
context, the inferential proof of its festival character is thereby destroyed. As for
clear, positive proof of it, such as express precept or command, no person of
modesty pretends it. Still less is there any proof of its Sabbatic character.
 3. Another point wherein we are necessarily at issue with great numbers of
Christians, is whether the institution of the Sabbath is separable from the
particular day to be observed. They affirm; we deny. We maintain that God's
blessing and sanctifying a particular day is the very thing in which the institution
consists. To render this plain matter yet more plain, we invite close attention to
the wording of the fourth commandment; premising, however, that the word
Sabbath is not translated from a Hebrew word, but is the Hebrew word itself
anglicized, just as baptism is an anglicized Greek word. The proper translation of
the word is Rest. Now let the word Rest be substituted for Sabbath, and how
clear it becomes -
"Remember the Rest day to keep it holy." [Surely some particular day is
denoted; for it is THE Rest day, not A Rest day.] Six days shalt thou labor, and do
all thy work; but the seventh day is the Rest of the Lord thy God. [Is it any where
historically recorded as a fact that God rested on THE seventh day?
47
It is. Gen.ii,2. 'On the seventh day God rested from all his work which he had
made.' Who does not see that that day on which God rested, was the last of the
seven which constituted the first week of time?] In it - [in WHAT? why, in the
seventh day, the last day of the week; for the pronoun it can have no other
antecedent] - thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor
thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is
within thy gates. [WHY must no work be done on that particular day, the seventh
or last day of the week? The reason follows.] For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and RESTED on the seventh
day, [as the record in Gen.ii,2 proves. See also Heb.iv,4.] Wherefore the Lord
blessed the Rest day and sanctified it."
The conclusion is irresistible, that the Rest day spoken of is the particular day
on which God rested from his work, which, as before shown, was the last day of
the week. That very day, and no other, God blessed and sanctified. The only
reason assigned why he sanctified it, is "because that in it he had rested from all
his work which God created and made." Gen.ii,3. The Rest day, then, which we
are required to observe, is "the Rest of the Lord thy God:" which does not mean
the rest which the Lord thy God has appointed, though it is true that he has
appointed it: nor does it mean a rest which becomes the Lord's by reason of our
appropriating it to him: but "the rest of the Lord thy God" means THE REST
WHICH THE LORD THY GOD OBSERVED.
Now from all this we think it must be evident, that whoever observes any
other Rest day than the seventh day of the week, does not observe the Rest -
Sabbath - "of the Lord thy God." He may, it is true, appropriate it to the Lord his
God, and in that sense call it the Lord's; he may ignorantly suppose that Christ in
the Gospel has appointed it, and in that sense also call it the Lord's; but it can by
no means be called "the Rest of the Lord thy God" in the sense of that
expression in the fourth commandment. Hence, irresistible is our conviction, that
he does not obey the commandment. O brother Christian, why will you persist in
maintaining that your Sunday keeping is an act of obedience to the law of the
Sabbath? - Sabbath Tract No. 8.
 A Christian Caveat

TO THE OLD AND NEW SABBATARIANS. BY EDWARD FISHER, ESQ.

The following article is taken from the fifth edition of a work with the above
title, printed in London, 1653. The book was written in defence of the "orthodoxal
doctrine of the Church of England," respecting festivals, against the "Sabbatarian
novelties," as they were called, of the Puritans. While it demolishes the claims set
up on behalf of Sunday or Lord's Day, it fully establishes the claims of the
Sabbath or Seventh Day. And it is worthy of note here, that it is not possible to
refute any of the erroneous views in regard to the Sabbath and Lord's Day,
without taking positions which necessarily lead to the observance of the Seventh
Day. How much easier it would be to fasten the claims of the Sabbatic institution
upon the consciences of men, if we were satisfied to take the fourth
commandment as it reads and enforce it by "Thus saith the Lord."
"The third opinion is of the new Sabbatarians, who dream of a middle way
betwixt a Jew and a Christian; and this they usually lay down in two propositions.
The first is, That the Lord's Day, or first day of the week, namely Sunday, may be
called the Sabbath; the next is, That the observation of the Lord's Day is a moral
duty, enjoined by God himself, and declared both by the doctrine and practice of
Christ and his apostles. The first appearance of this kind of teachers was in the
year of our Lord 1595, near the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth: and
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
wrestings of God's holy word, as upon scanning their proofs will be manifest to
the meanest capacity.
"For their first proposition, they allege two reasons why the Lord's Day may
be called the Sabbath. One is because the Sabbath signifies a rest; and
therefore the Lord's Day being a rest, may be called the Sabbath. But to this we
answer, it is false that the Sabbath signifies a rest; for when by custom of speech
a common name is restrained to a particular place, thing, or person, it then
becomes a proper name, and so losing its community, does signify that only
particular, unto which by custom of speech it is applied; as for instance, the
temple is a common name, signifying the Church; yet in London, where by
custom of speech this name, The Temple, is restrained to an Inns of
49
Court, it is false and absurd to say you were at the Temple and mean the Church
of St. Giles. In like manner the Sabbath is a common name, signifying the rest;
yet in the Christian Church, where by custom of speech, according to God's holy
phrase throughout the Old and New Testament, this name, the Sabbath, is
restrained to the Jewish weekly festival, it is false and absurd to speak of the
Sabbath, and mean the Lord's Day. Their other reason why the Lord's Day may
be called the Sabbath, is, because the Lord's Day succeeded in the room of the
Sabbath. But if this argument be good, then may baptism be called circumcision,
the Lord's Supper the Passover, and King James Queen Elizabeth.
 "As for the second proposition, wherein they assert the morality and divine
institution of the Lord's Day, we shall here notice only three of their reasons. The
first is, because Adam, according to God's command, kept the Sabbath in the
state of innocency. . . . . But what is the sanctification of the Sabbath spoken of
by Moses in the second chapter of Genesis, to our observing the Lord's Day?
That was appointed to be kept on the seventh and last day of the week; this is
kept on the first day of the week: that was the day in which God rested from his
work of creation; this is the day in which God began to create the heavens and
the earth: that was our Saturday; this is our Sunday. Their second proof for the
morality of the Lord's Day, is from the fourth commandment, where they seek to
corrupt the very text, and would persuade us that for the seventh day, we must
read a seventh day; as if God did not there set apart a certain day of the week,
but left it to man to keep which of the seven he pleased. Unto which we answer,
that this conceit is not only against the letter of all our translations, but even
repugnant to the sense of the commandment; for the words are express that God
blessed and hallowed the Sabbath day; that Sabbath day was the seventh day;
that seventh day was the day in which God rested from his six days' work of
creation. Nay, grant it were true (as these men would have) that this special
precept does exactly oblige us, and that no particular day of the seven was by
God appointed to be kept holy, then we may set apart Monday, or Tuesday, or
any other day to God's service, as well as Sunday; and so, by their own
argument, the Lord's Day is no more moral than any other day of the week. Their
third proof is from the title or name, Lord's Day, which (say they) cannot be for
any other reason, but because it is of the Lord's institution. We answer, this is
false; for the Lord's Day was not so called because it was instituted by the Lord,
but because
50
it was dedicated to the Lord; as we commonly say, Saint Mary's Church, or Saint
Peter's Church; which no man did ever imagine were built or founded by Saint
Mary or Saint Peter."
Near the close of his book, after having examined each of the positions here
referred to, he comes directly to his design, and says:-
"In vain, therefore, it is, and most absurd, for you our opponents to charge us
with befooling and misleading the people. Your own practice, your own doctrines,
shall bear witness betwixt us.
"You who say one while, that God did not appoint the seventh day, the day on
which he rested, to be kept holy, but a seventh day, and so one day in seven be
observed, no matter which of them; another while, that by this commandment
God enjoins us to keep holy the first day of the week on which he began his work
of creation - Do you not befool and mislead the people?
"You who (forgetting your own doctrine of the fourth commandment) do teach,
that the keeping holy the first day of the week, or Lord's Day, was appointed and
practiced by Christ and his apostles, yet cannot produce so much as one
example for it, much less a precept - Do you not befool and mislead the people?
"You who infer, because St. Paul, and the disciples at Troas, spent the whole
night of the first day of the week in praying, preaching, and heavenly conference,
in regard he was to leave them and depart on the morrow; therefore, St. Paul and
the disciples at Troas met that night to keep holy the day past; therefore the
disciples at Troas met every first day of the week, to keep that day holy; therefore
the Church at Philippi, the Church in Cilicia, and all Christian Churches, did then
keep holy the first day of the week; therefore all the apostles did constantly keep
holy that day; therefore Christ and his apostles appointed the first day of the
week to be forever celebrated, instead of the Sabbath - Is not this pitiful logic? Do
you not befool and mislead the people?
"You who tell stories of an old Sabbath and a new Sabbath, a Jewish Sabbath
and a Christian Sabbath, a Sabbath of the seventh day and a Sabbath of the first
day of the week; that so you may slyly fix the name Sabbath on the Lord's Day,
and then persuade the simple and ignorant that all those texts of Scripture
wherein mention is made of the Sabbath day, are intended of the Lord's Day;
when indeed to call the Lord's Day the Sabbath, is as senseless as to call
Sunday Saturday, or first day the last day of the week; when throughout the Old
51
and New Testament we have not the least intimation of any other weekly
Sabbath, save the old, Jewish, seventh day Sabbath; when you yourselves
confess that the name Lord's Day, is more proper and particular, and less
obvious to exception, than the name Sabbath; and that the name Sabbath is in
dignity inferior to both Lord's Day and Sunday - Do you not befool and mislead
the people?
"You that condemn the yearly observance of Christ's birthday as heathenish,
yet acknowledge this feast to be a constitution of the ancient primitive Church -
Do you not befool and mislead the people?
"Take ye heed; these are not small matters; consider well with yourselves
what it is to stand guilty before God of belying Christ and his apostles, and
willfully wresting the Holy Scriptures. Be advised; take time while time is to repent
of those notorious slanders wherewith you have aspersed the ancient approved
ways of God's worship; and let the sincerity of your repentance appear by the
speedy abandoning of your unchristian practices and principles; lest the heavy
judgment of seducers, to wax worse and worse, fall upon you, and God in the
end deliver you up to such strong delusions that you should believe your own
lies." - Sabbath Tract No. 5.

Misuse of the Term "Sabbath."

It is quite common, in these days, to hear the term Sabbath used to designate
the first day of the week or Sunday. But such a use of the term is not only
unscriptural, but calculated to mislead the people. Throughout the Bible, there is
but one sacred day of weekly occurrence called the Sabbath, and that is the
seventh or last day of the week. When, therefore, men talk about a Christian
Sabbath, and a Jewish Sabbath - a first-day Sabbath, and a seventh-day
Sabbath - so that they may slyly fix the term Sabbath upon the first day, and then
persuade people that all those texts of Scripture which speak of the Sabbath day
are meant for the first day, they pursue a course which is unauthorized, and
deserve to be sharply rebuked. There are circumstances, however, which many
persons seem to regard as justifying the common practice of calling the first day
by the name Sabbath. Let us examine some of them.
1. It is said that the term Sabbath signifies rest; therefore the first day being
commonly observed as a day of rest, may properly be called the Sabbath. In
reply to this, it may be said, that when by custom and common consent, any term
is
52
used to express a particular place or thing, it then becomes a proper name for
that thing, and signifies only that thing to which it is applied. For instance, a
tabernacle means a place of worship. Yet, in New York, where this name is used
to express a particular and well-known place of worship, it would be absurd and
false to say you were at the Tabernacle, and mean the Church of the Messiah.
So with the term Sabbath; although the word strictly means rest, yet after the
Scriptures throughout the Old and New Testaments have used this term to
express a particular rest, which occurred on the seventh day, it would be foolish
and deceptive to speak of the Sabbath and mean the first day of the week. It may
be farther said, that if this argument be good for calling the first day the Sabbath,
and if the fact of its being a rest-day makes it the Sabbath, then may the
Mohammedans properly call the sixth day the Sabbath, and the fact that they rest
upon that day makes it the Sabbath. Yes, and those Mexican Indians, whom
Cortes found keeping the fourth day, may properly call that day the Sabbath, and
directly it is made such. Even those people in Guinea, whom Purchase describes
as having a rest-day, but which, says he, "they observe not upon our Sunday, nor
upon the Jews' Sabbath day, but hold it upon Tuesday, the second working day
of the week," may properly call that day the Sabbath, and straightway it becomes
such. Are the observers of the first day ready to rest upon such ground for calling
that day the Sabbath, or to continue to call it Sabbath when there is no better
ground? We hope not. And we feel bound, as those who respect the Bible, and
dare not charge the Author of that Book with folly in calling the seventh day only
the Sabbath, to protest against such abuse of the language of Scripture.
2. The second reason frequently urged, is, that the first day comes in the
room of the seventh day, and may therefore properly be called the Sabbath.
Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say not a word about a substitution of the
one day for the other, it may be said in reply, that if the argument be good, then
the Lord's Supper may be called the Passover, and King Solomon may be called
King David.
3. A third reason alledged for calling the first day the Sabbath, is, because it
has long been the practice of Christians to call it so. In answering this assertion,
it may be worth while to inquire what has been the practice of Christians in this
matter. Few will deny, that wherever, in the New Testament, the word Sabbath
refers to a weekly religious day, it is the seventh day. When the first day of the
week is spoken of, it is under
53
its appropriate title. For nearly the whole of the first century, then, we have the
testimony of Scripture that the name Sabbath belonged exclusively to the
seventh day. During the succeeding four hundred years, there were large
numbers, both in the Eastern church, about Constantinople, and in the Western
church, about Rome, who kept the Sabbath. And when ecclesiastical councils, in
the fourth and fifth centuries, began to enact laws against them, they condemned
Sabbath-keeping altogether. From this it is apparent, that the idea of calling the
first day the Sabbath had not then entered their minds. What day was meant
when the term Sabbath was used for five hundred years later still, the learned Dr.
Peter Heylyn has told us in the following words:- "Wherever for a thousand years
and upwards, we meet with Sabbattum, in any writer, of what name soever, it
must be understood of no day but Saturday." Indeed, if we search all the books
which have been written on this and kindred subjects up to the time of the
Reformation, we shall not find that the first day was to any considerable extent
regarded as the Sabbath or called by that name. Dr. Richard Whately,
Archbishop of Dublin, in a late work on the subject of the Sabbath, says, "in fact,
the notion against which I am contending, [viz., that the fourth commandment
binds Christians to hallow the first day of the week, and that it may properly be
called the Sabbath,] seems as far as I can recollect, to have originated with the
Puritans, not much more than 200 years ago, and to have been for a
considerable time confined to them, though it was subsequently adopted by
some members of our church."
So far is it from being true, then, that the first day has been universally called
the Sabbath among Christians, that even now, by the best authorities upon such
subjects, it is not called Sabbath at all. The Records of England up to the present
time invariably call the seventh day the Sabbath. In the Journals of the House of
Lords, whatever is entered as having been done on the seventh day, or Saturday,
is under the date, Die Sabbati, upon the Sabbath day. The same is true of the
House of Commons. The Rules and Records of the King's Bench, and the Latin
Records in the Court of Exchequer and in Chancery, do likewise call the seventh
day the Sabbath. These things may be known by any who will take the trouble to
examine; and they show how groundless and erroneous is the supposition to
which we are replying. Indeed, in many languages the seventh day is called by a
name which indicates its sabbatic character. In Low Dutch it is called rust-dagh,
the day of rest. In English,
54
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it has its
right name, the Sabbath, the day of rest.
Now let us look at some of the consequences of calling the first day by the
name of the Sabbath. It has given occasion for Papists to charge Protestants
with neglecting the Scriptures to follow their traditions. The Papists claim, that the
change of the Sabbath is the work of their own church, and that the Scriptures
nowhere warrant the keeping of the first day, much less the calling it by the name
of the Sabbath. Who will deny this latter position? Again, it has led some earnest
and pious men to charge the teachers of religion with "befooling and misleading
the people." Proof of this may be found to any extent in books written on the
subject in the seventeenth century. The charge is there distinctly and frequently
made, of designedly using deceptive arguments.
 We will not undertake to say, that those who are accustomed to speak in a
manner so likely to deceive, design to do that. But we will say, that such would be
the natural effect of their language. It would leave upon the minds of many an
impression, that they were not only bound to pay peculiar respect to the first day
of the week, but that the fourth commandment required of them such respect. For
a religious teacher knowingly to make this impression, is to be guilty of directly
fostering error. Nay, more; if he should call the first day the Sabbath, and refer to
the fourth commandment as inculcating the duty of observing that day; or should,
without direct reference to that law, express himself in such a way as to leave his
hearers to suppose that it required the observance of the first day, he would be
wanting in faithfulness to the truth, and exposed to the denunciation of those who
add to or take from it.
No doubt many will think, that at a time when the prevailing tendency is to
disregard all sacred seasons, it were better not to say these things, but to leave
men under an impression that the law of God requires the observance of the first
day of the week, and sanctions calling that day the Sabbath. But this prevailing
disregard of the day of rest, is an important reason for urging an examination of
the foundation upon which the Sabbath rests. Common prudence, to say nothing
of Christian sincerity, would require us, in such circumstances, to place the duty
upon its true ground. If it will not stand there, it will stand nowhere. Sabbath Tract
No. 12.

The Fourth Commandment

FALSE EXPOSITION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

THE Fourth Commandment has been variously expounded by its professed
friends. Among these expositions, none has been more injurious than that which
represents it as requiring the observance, not of the Sabbath, and the seventh
day, but of a Sabbath, and a seventh day - not of a certain and well-known time,
but of an uncertain and varying time. Yet this is the exposition of it which is given
both by commentators and writers on the subject of the Sabbath. It will be found,
however, that this view is generally presented in order to prepare the way to
introduce the first day of the week, under the specious name of Lord's Day, into
the place of the Sabbath. Thus some are made to think, that the name Sabbath
may as well be applied to the first day of the week as to the seventh. But to such
an exposition there are several serious objections:-
1. It is a perversion of the original text itself. In every place where the weekly
Sabbath and the seventh day are spoken of, the Hebrew article is uniformly
used. This article is often used like our demonstrative this - but more commonly
like our definite article the - never as our indefinite article a or an; and Gesenius,
in answer to the question whether it may be used indefinitely, says, "The definite
article cannot rightly be said to stand indefinitely." To this opinion agree all our
translators, both ancient and modern, who have rendered the terms, both in the
fourth commandment and all other places of the Scripture, by the Sabbath and
the seventh day.
 2. It makes the Fourth Commandment to be indefinite and absurd. If that
commandment only requires the observance of a Sabbath or rest, and that on a
seventh day, then one man might keep the seventh day, another the third day,
and another the fifth day, yet all obey the commandment. What confusion would
thus result from carrying out this exposition to its legitimate results! But God's
commandment is not yea and nay after this manner. It says, "the seventh day is
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." That man will not be held guiltless who
misinterprets and misrepresents it, for however pious a purpose he may do so.
3. It is contrary to the teachings of the very men who give this exposition; for
they affirm, that the fourth commandment required the keeping of the seventh
day until Christ came. Now, if the Jews before Christ, were bound to keep a
certain and definite day, and that the seventh day, then the commandment
56
required a certain and definite day, and that the seventh day.
From these considerations it is evident, that those who represent the fourth
commandment as requiring the observance of only a Sabbath, and that upon
some one day of the seven indefinitely, are guilty of a false exposition of the
commandment, and of handling the word of God deceitfully. They make a plain
passage of Scripture to signify one thing for some thousands of years, and then
ever afterwards to signify another thing. Thus do they make void the
commandment of God, that they may keep their own traditions.
Now let us turn to a consideration of some of the consequences of this kind of
exposition. Among these we will mention only three.
1. It overturns all certainty in explaining the Scriptures. If a man in translating
from a Latin or Greek author, should pervert his author's meaning in this manner,
by using words in a different sense from that in which they were intended, he
would be cast out and despised. But yet when a preacher represents the term
the Sabbath as meaning simply a rest, that so he may call the first day of the
week a rest, and therefore the Sabbath, he deals worse with the Scriptures than
the translator just mentioned does with his profane author. Instead, however, of
being cast out and despised, his speculations are allowed to go for truth. Thus
unbelievers are encouraged in their infidelity; and occasion is given for them to
say, that the Bible is interpreted by its friends to mean just what they please to
have it. It is dangerous for men to use their wits thus to blind the eyes of their
fellows.
2. It abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, and makes the Fourth Commandment to
be a mere cipher. First, it abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, because it teaches that
the observance of the seventh day, on which God rested, and which he
introduced into the commandment as one with the Sabbath, is not at all binding,
but the day may be spent in any kind of labor. Is not this to abolish the Lord's
Sabbath? Second, it makes the fourth commandment a cipher, because it takes
away the time, which is the seventh day, and the event commemorated, which is
God's resting from his creative work. Now read the commandment, as these
expounders would have it, bereft of the time and the event commemorated. It
then commands only a rest, without any precept or example as to its length or
frequency. One person, therefore, may rest one hour in each day; another one
day in a month; and a third one month in a year; and each
57
may call this keeping the Sabbath. Does not this make the fourth commandment
a mere cipher.
3. It abuses God's Word, and misleads his people. It abuses his word by
representing that the Word teaches what it does not teach, and that it fails to
teach what it attempts to teach. It misleads his people, on one side, by pressing
the fourth commandment to sustain the first day of the week, which it says
nothing about, thus laying a yoke upon the people, requiring them to observe a
day, in regard to which they will finally be asked, Who hath required this at your
hands? On the other side, it misleads the people, by encouraging them to neglect
a day which God hath sanctified, and commanded them to keep holy. [Sabbath
Tract No. 9.

The Royal Law Contended For

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. BY EDWARD STENNET. [Printed 1658.]
1. The matter of the ten commandments was written in the heart of Adam
before his fall, as doth appear in Gen.i,27. God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him; also in Eccl.vii,29, God hath made man
upright, but they have sought out many inventions. And the Apostle plainly
asserts, that the Gentiles which had not the law, (in the letter of it,) did by nature
the things contained in the law, which showeth the work of the law written in their
hearts. Rom.ii,14,15. Now if the Gentiles had the word of the law written in their
hearts in their sinful state, doubtless they had it in more perfection in their state of
innocence, as considered in Adam; for the letter of the law was added, because
of transgression. Gal.ii,19. Now if there was transgression before the letter of the
law was added, that implies that there was a law before then; in that the letter of
the law is said to be added, it implies that the matter of it was in being before, but
much worn by sin; and that is one reason why the Lord was pleased to add the
letter.
Let it be considered, how it can stand with Scripture or right reason, that
Jesus Christ should abrogate this law. Did Christ blot out this law from the hearts
of all men by his death? Then all men have not the law of nature to guide them;
for we cannot
58
be so gross as to imagine that the law is put into their hearts upon a new
account, for that were to bring all men under the new covenant.
2. God spake all these commandments unto the people, and they heard his
voice, (Deut.v,22-24,) with great majesty and glory, and he added no more; and
he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and delivered them unto Moses - all of
which holds forth their perpetuity; they are spoken by God, they are written by
him in tables of stone; so was never any ceremony. Job desired that his words
might be graven with a pen of iron and lead in a rock of stone forever. Job xix,24.
3. Afterward the first tables were broken, which I suppose did signify the
Israelites' breaking of the first covenant; for Moses broke them on account of
their having made a golden calf, and so had broken the covenant. Whereupon
Moses was then commanded to hew two tables like the first, and God wrote the
same words again upon them, (Deut.x,1-4,) and they only of all the laws were put
into the ark, and when the ark is set in its proper place between the cherubim
there is nothing in it but the two tables. 1Kings viii,9. . . . . See Jer.xxxi,33, where
God promises to put his law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Now
what law is this that must be put into the heart, when the law of sacrifice is
abolished? Compare Heb.x,6-9, with Psalm xl,6-8. That this is the law that is here
spoken of is manifest if we consider how proper and suitable it is for the heart of
a believer. Paul calls it the law of his mind in Rom.vii,23, and in verse 22 he
professeth he delights in the law of God after the inward man; and God saith he
will put the law in his heart and write it there; both which phrases hold it forth to
be the same law that was written by God and put into the ark. Man's heart is the
tables, and God himself is the writer; the matter written is the law. Hear what
Wisdom saith to this: My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments
within thee; keep my commandments and live, and my law as the apple of thine
eye; bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart. Prov.vii,
1-3. Now what laws are these but the table laws? And Wisdom's son is to have
them written upon the fleshy tables of his heart.
4. When God promiseth to exalt his first born higher than the kings of the
earth, and that his covenant should stand fast with him, and that his seed should
endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven, (Ps.lxxxix,28,29,) yet he
saith, If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break
my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I
59
visit their transgression with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless,
my loving kindness will I not utterly take away, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
Verses 30-32. Mark it, this covenant was with Christ, (though with David in the
type,) in behalf of all the seed; and the chastisements must be the portion of the
seed if they break the law of God, though his covenant stand fast. Now as this
covenant reaches all the seed, so doth the law and the punishments for the
breach of it; and if so, then what law is it that reaches all the seed, if not the law
of the ten commandments, with those laws which are comprehended in them.
5. These commandments are eminently distinguished and marked out from all
the ceremonial laws, both to show their eminency and perpetuity; they are said to
be the work of God, in Exod.xxxii,16, and the Psalmist saith, The works of his
hands are verity and judgment. And these works are called, all his
commandments, Ps.cxi,7, and they are ten. Deut.iv,13.
They are distinguished from the ceremonial ordinances, and called all the
commandments, to set forth their number, as before said, and their eminency;
and therefore they are so frequently called in the Scripture, the commandments
of God, distinct from the other laws, which were shadowy in the time of the law of
shadows, (as these places of Scripture, besides many others, do show, viz.,
Deut.v,31; vi,11; vii,11; viii,11; xi,1; xxx,16; 1Kings ii,3; viii,58; 2Chron.xix,10;
Neh.i,7. and x,29, etc.,) and distinct from the testimony of Jesus in clear gospel
times. In Rev.xii,17, note that the dragon's war is with the remnant of the
woman's seed which kept the commandments of God and the testimony of
Jesus. And again, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus. Rev.xiv,12. And when the man would know what he should do to
be saved, Christ told him that he knew the commandments. A cloud of witnesses
would come in, if need were, for the confirmation of them. But farther observe
what the Scripture saith to their duration. The Psalmist saith, All his
commandments are sure, they stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth
and uprightness. Psalm cxi,7,8. Note it; all his commandments, which are the
works of his hands, as aforesaid, stand fast forever and ever; that is not only in
the time of the ministration of the letter, which was in a sense for ever, but for
ever and ever, that is under both ministrations, that of the letter and that of the
spirit, in Old Testament times and in the New. Search and see if you can find any
word that doth speak of any thing that is said to
60
abide or stand fast for ever and ever, which comes short of the time aforesaid.
And when God hides his face from the house of Jacob, then is the time that the
testimony is bound up and the law is sealed among the disciples, (Isa.viii,16,17,)
clearly relating to the time that the Jews rejected the gospel, and the disciples
are commanded to make use of the law as well as the testimony to try the
doctrines of others by Isa.viii,20. All which shows the perpetuity of this law of
God, which will farther appear if we consider Deut.vii,9. Our Lord saith in Matt.v,
17,18, Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to
destroy, but to fulfill. But the question will be, what law is this? To me it appears to
be the law of the ten commandments; for these reasons:
1st. Because this comes in as the motive to provoke his disciples to let their
light shine in the world, that men might see their good works and glorify their
father which is in heaven. Matt.v,16. Therefore it must be such a law as the doing
of it holds forth good works to public view.
2nd. It is such a law as Christ professes he came not to destroy; but the
ceremonial law he destroyed in this very sense, so that none are to be in the
practice of it; he blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us,
and contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
3rd. Destroying of the law is here put in direct opposition to fulfilling of it; to
destroy is to take out of the way or to blot out as before; but to fulfill the law is to
do that which is contained in the law; therefore saith Christ to John, when he
went to be baptized, It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness, (that is, to perform
it.) Matt.iii,15. And the Apostle saith, that love is the fulfilling of the law. What law?
Why this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal,
etc. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Rom.xiii,8-10. So that to fulfill the law of the ten commandments, is not to blot
them out or make them void; that were to destroy them, which Christ came not to
do, but on the contrary, to do the things contained in them, which he did exactly
in his life, and so was offered up a Lamb without spot.
4th. This is such a law as must stand in force, every jot and tittle of it, till
heaven and earth pass away. Matt.v,19. But heaven and earth are not yet passed
away; therefore this law stands firm. But because it is said in the text, Till all be
fulfilled, hence some affirm that all was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and this
fulfilling of it holds forth the abrogating of it.
61
But did heaven and earth pass away then? or did Christ, by his taking upon
him all that guilt which was due to us, and by his perfect fulfilling of it in his walk,
take us from our obedience? God forbid. Because Christ fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, must we not fulfill it? The Apostle saith that for this end
Christ died. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned
sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Rom.viii,3,4. But what is the fulfilling of the
righteousness of the law, but to do the righteous things contained in the law? And
in this sense every true believer doth fulfill the law, though his completeness be
in Christ; for love is the fulfilling of the law, (Rom.xiii,10,) so that the commanding
power of the law is such a just measure, that every one that loves acts his part
towards the fulfilling of it.
5th. It farther appears to be the ten commandments, by the use Christ makes
of what he had before asserted: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven." Matt.v,19. That is, forasmuch as that law must stand till
heaven and earth pass away, and I came not to destroy it, therefore beware of
breaking it, for whosoever you are that break any part of it, and shall teach men
so, you shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; "but whosoever shall
do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." To
prevent farther mistake, he repeateth the law in many particulars, and gives the
sense, showing how far their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of
the scribes and pharisees. By all of which it plainly appears, that this law, which
Christ came not to destroy, is the law of the ten commandments, or the laws that
were comprehended in them.
6. The Apostle confirmeth and establisheth this law after the death of Christ,
as plainly appears in the third chapter of Romans, the drift of which is to set Jews
and Gentiles in a like condition by nature - all breakers of the law of God, and so
become guilty before him, (verse 19,) and that therefore no flesh could be
justified by the deeds of the law, the law being for another purpose - to convince
of sin, (verse 20,) or to bring sin to their knowledge. He proves that Jews and
Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, are justified by and through faith, and
not by the law of works. Verses 27-30. But lest the Gentiles should think,
because they could not be justified by the works of the law, that therefore they
might look upon the law
62
as a thing done away or made void, he puts this question to the uncircumcised
Gentiles, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we
establish the law." He settles this question, whether the law be in force to
believing Gentiles or no, with a God forbid; which shows the greatness of his zeal
against such a persuasion, it being the same answer which he gives to another
gross question, whether we should continue in sin that grace might abound; and,
as if that were not enough, he adds to it, Yea, we establish the law.
7. This same Apostle doth prove that the law was in force at the time of his
conversion. He saith he had not known sin but by the law; he had not known lust
except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet." Rom.vii,7. He was alive without
the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died, (verse
9,) that is, not without the letter of it, for that he had, and did in a great measure
conform to, but without powerful convictions for sin by the law; and in this sense
then the commandment came, sin revived, and he died that before was alive in
his own apprehension. "For without the law sin was dead," (verse 8,) and by the
law is the knowledge of sin; and sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
deceived him, and slew him. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment
is holy, just and good," (verses 11,12,) not that the holy and just law was made
death unto him - God forbid - but sin, that it might appear sin, by this good law
wrought death in him, that by the commandment sin might appear exceeding
sinful. Verse 13. And if so, then this law did not die with the body of Christ;
though we are dead to the law by the body of Christ, that we should serve in
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter, and that we should be
married to another, even him who is raised from the dead; we being dead to that
spirit of bondage in which we were held, that we set our obedience to the law no
longer in the room of Christ as our head and husband; Christ by his blood having
purchased us from that power that the law had over us by reason of sin. So that
our service is not to satisfy the law, as a woman serves to please her husband
that she is bound to; but we are not dead to serving in newness of spirit in
obedience to Christ as our husband. Rom.vii,4-6. In this sense the Apostle
delights in the law of God after the inward man, (verse 22,) though the other law
in his members stood in great opposition to it. Verse 23. Mind this chapter well,
and it will appear so plain that he that runs may read, that the Apostle intends no
such thing as to take us from
63
our obedience to the law, nor yet the abrogating of the law, but the contrary.
8. The same Apostle urges the law, in the very letter of it, to the Ephesians.
He saith, in chapter vi,1-3, "Children obey your parents, for this is right; honor thy
father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with promise." He proves
his exhortation to be right from the commandment, and he takes notice of the
order of the commandments; it is the first commandment of that second table,
and it hath a promise annexed to it. He speaks in the present tense; he does not
say it was the first commandment, but it is the first with a promise, "that thy days
may be long on the earth." He urges the promise to them for their
encouragement; and to prevent mistakes, he shows the extent of it, that it was
not only to the Jews, that they should live long in the land of Canaan, but to the
Gentiles also; therefore the interpretation says, "that thy days may be long on the
earth."
9. James gives a full confirmation to what I am treating of. He convinces them
of sin by this law, in having the faith of Jesus Christ with respect of persons, as
appears by chapter ii,10,11. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all." He shows what law he means, and how it
is that he who offends in one point is guilty of all; because, "He that saith, Do not
commit adultery, saith also, Do not kill; now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou
kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." And John saith, "Whosoever
committeth sin transgresseth the law, for sin is the transgression of the
law," (1John iii,3,4,) and in the next verse he explains what law he means, and
saith, it was such transgression that Christ was manifested to take away. Now if
this law of God was done away by the death of Christ, sin could not be a
transgression of it so long after; neither could any be convinced of sin by it,
because it was not. But the Apostle saith, "Whosoever committeth sin
transgresseth the law;" which shows it was in force then, and not only so, but that
likewise it should so remain.
10. Let it be considered whether this opinion that the law is done away doth
not clash with redemption itself. The Apostle states that all men were under the
law, and by breaking of it they came under the curse. Gal.iii,10. And Christ was
made under the curse, to redeem his people from under the curse of the law, that
the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through faith. Verses
13,14. Now if we were not under the commanding power, we could not be under
the curse,
64
(for that follows disobedience,) and if so, then Christ was not made a curse
for us; neither can the blessing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles upon that
account, if the Jews only were under the law, and under the curse of it. Christ's
dying to redeem them from the curse, could not bring the blessing of Abraham
upon the Gentiles. And again the Apostle saith, "that Christ was made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption
of sons. Gal.iv,4,5. Now if we were not under the law, we could not be redeemed
by Christ's being under the law, nor receive the adoption of sons thereby; but it is
manifest that every one is under the commanding power of the law, and by
nature under the curse; and Christ hath only redeemed his people from the
curse, but they are not redeemed from their obedience to the law of God. I find
no Scripture that saith so; but the contrary.
11. God complaineth of the blindness of his servants, and of the deafness of
his messengers that he sent, (Isa.xlii,19,20,) and their blindness and deafness
appears in this, that they did not hear nor understand God's design in the gift of
his Son, that it was not to destroy the law or to slight it, but to magnify it and
make it honorable. Verse 2. Previously it was in tables of stone, but now in the
fleshy tables of the heart; service was then done from a spirit of bondage, but
now from a spirit of adoption. And in this sense I conceive the law to be
magnified and made honorable, and upon this account God is well pleased for
his righteousness' sake, that is, I conceive, for his Son's sake.
i *Jones' Ch. Hist. p. 164, Am. Ed., 1824.
ii Life of Constantine, B. 4, ch. 18. Busle ed.*
iii *Eccl. Hist. B. 1, ch. 8.
iv Encyclop. Art. Sund. Lond. 1791.
v Lucius' Eccl. Hist. Cent. 4, p. 740. Bamp. Enq. p. 98.
vi Socrates' Eccl. Hist. B. 5. ch. 21. Basle ed.
vii Eccl. Hist: B. 7, ch. 9.
viii Burnside on the Sabbath, p. 16.
ix Lucius' Eccl. Hist. p. 323.
x Chambers' Cyclop. Art. Sunday.
xi Lucius' Eccl. Hist. p. 103.
xii Dr. Peter Heylyn's Hist. Sab. part 2, p. 135.
xiii Bampfield's Enq. p. 101.
xiv Eccl. Hist. p. 29.
xv Enq. p. 111.
xvi Prinn's Hist. Pope's Usurpa. part 3, p. 17.
xvii Bamp. Enq. p. 116.
xviii Boethus, B. 13, of Scotland, p. 788. Bamp. Enq. 114.
xix Ibid.
xx Binius, p. 385.
xxi Bamp. p. 118.
xxii Purchase's Pilgrim, part 2, p. 1176.
xxiii Hist. Bap. v. 2, p. 44.
xxiv Researches, p. 160.
xxv Burnside on the Sab. p. 108.
xxvi Jones'' Church Hist. p. 844.