Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

of the week as a Sabbath. We answer, that there is abundant evidence, from the example of early Christians, and from the authority of the Fathers, that the first day is to be observed instead of the seventh.

In support of the above allegation, CONSTANTINE is quoted, as saying, "Let all the judges and townspeople, and those who follow the occupation of trades, rest on the venerable day of the Sun; but let all those who follow agriculture, carefully attend to their business; because it often happens that no day is so favorable to sowing corn and planting vines, lest thereby the precious fruits of the earth be slipped." Very conclusive, indeed, that the Sabbath was not observed when this edict was passed!! For objectors will have it, that the Jewish was done away at the death of Christ, by special direction: and they intend to prove, by this quotation, that there was, at that time, no Christian Sabbath so that the conclusion must be, that none at all was then observed, than which nothing can be more false.

If this quotation is correct, it will be seen that Constantine thought it necessary for certain classes of his subjects to keep a Sabbath, though others in certain seasons might labor. To infer from this edict, that "no one" thought it sinful to work on the Sabbath, or Lord's day, is like a man's concluding, after reading reports in favor of Sunday mails, that no man in this nation was against them. One would be proved as "conclusively" as the other.

When Constantine was converted, about a. d. 325, it should be remembered that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly done away. It is believed by some that the Christian church was returning to the observance of it, as a Sabbath, to the neglect of the first day, and that Constantine, while he commanded the observance of the first, may have done the same also with respect to the observance of the seventh day. It is well known, that while the converts to Christianity, after the resurrection of Christ, generally observed the first day only as a Sabbath, many of the Jewish, and perhaps some of the Gentile converts, observed also the seventh. This doubtless led to the various edicts, and the teachings of the Apostles, in relation to this subject. Many of the Jewish converts were tenacious, that their rites and ceremonies should be engrafted upon the Christian

system. The Apostles and others opposed it. We are told that some of the spurious authors of the fourth century required the observance of both days. But during the first three centuries, there was much unanimity in the minds of the ancient Fathers and their immediate successors, relative to the day to be observed; which, as will be shown, was the Lord's day. Facts prove that the change from the seventh to the first day, was gradual.

The APOSTLES allowed the Jewish converts to continue to keep the seventh day when first converted, if they chose to do so, training them to observe only the Lord's day, by little and little. But, suppose Constantine, in this edict, did give his views fully on the sacredness of this institution, that is no proof that they were correct, for he was then but a child in Christian knowledge.

But "EUSEBIUS, in his life of Constantine, assures us, that when the emperor embraced Christianity, he appointed that the Lord's day should be consecrated to prayer; and commanded through all the Roman empire, that they should forbear to labor or do any work on the Lord's day." If Christians at this time were inclining to the Jewish Sabbath, or to keep both, we can readily understand the propriety as well as the necessity of these edicts. Eusebius was elected Bishop of Cæsarea, about the year 313. He wrote an ecclesiastical history from the days of Christ down to 324, and must have known the general practice.

DR. CAVE says, "No sooner was Constantine come over to the Church, but his principal care was about the Lord's day; he commanded it to be solemnly observed, and that by all persons whatsoever; he made it a day of rest, that men might have nothing to do but to worship God, and be better instructed in the Christian faith."

But whether the objector's quotation is or is not correct, there is no discrepancy in Constantine's testimony. For, at the time when he gave the edicts last quoted, he might have had more correct views of the nature and design of the institution, than when he wrote the first. Both show that the first day of the week was considered by most of his people, and by himself, as the Sabbath; and though he might not have carefully conformed to his duty in the first place, it was not long before he did.

The EMPEROR LEO has been quoted to prove that the early

Christians kept no Sabbath. Hear what is considered "conclusive evidence," from his pen, as quoted by the enemies of that day. "We ordain, &c., that neither husbandmen, nor any others on that day, put their hands to unlawful work." How illogical must be that mind, which can, from such data, say that the early Christians kept no Sabbath! With equal propriety might it be said, that, because the people of our new territories, when they become independent bodies, enact laws, prohibiting theft, gambling, and the like; therefore, it is certain that all the inhabitants in such territories, previous to the enactment of these laws, were thieves and gamblers!! But Leo says, unlawful work; showing that before this edict, there was some work, which it would be unlawful to do on that day.

"In France and Hungary, as early as the sixth century, laws were made against Sabbath profanation. CHARLEMAGNE, son of Pepin, convoked the clergy to make canons for the keeping of the Sabbath, and also publishing his own royal edict, of which the following is an extract.”

"We ordain (as is required in the law of God) that no man do any servile work on the Lord's day, i. e., that they employ not themselves in the works of husbandry, in dressing their vines, plowing their ground, making hay, felling trees, digging in the mines, or building houses: that they do not go a hunting in the fields, or plead in courts of justice; but that they all come to church and magnify the Lord their God, for those good things, which are this day to be bestowed upon them." "As is required in the law of God." It seems that people in the sixth century, believed that the law of God required men to keep the Lord's day.

Had the objectors seen this extract, they would probably have quoted it also, to prove that before this edict was passed, no one observed a Sabbath.

We understand the EMPEROR LEO, about 440, to say, "It is our will and pleasure, that the holy day, dedicated to the Most High God, should not be spent in sensual recreations, or otherwise profaned by suits of law." Speaking of farmers, in relation to this subject, he says: "As to the pretence, that by this rest, an opportunity may be lost, [of securing crops,] this is a poor reason, considering that the fruits of the earth do not de

pend so much on the diligence and pains of men, as on the efficacy of the sun and the blessing of God. We command therefore all, whether husbandmen or others, to forbear work on this day of the resurrection. For if other people (meaning the Jews) keep the shadow of this day in a solemn rest from all secular labor on the Sabbath [the seventh day], how much rather ought we to observe the substance, a day so ennobled by our gracious Lord, who saved us from destruction." Again, Leo thus expresses the sentiment of the whole Christian church:-"We ordain, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles thereby directed, that on the sacred day wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease from labor; that neither husbandmen nor any other on that day, put their hand to forbidden work. For if the Jews did so much reverence their Sabbaths which were but a shadow of ours, are not we who inhabit the light and truth of grace, bound to honor that day which the Lord himself has honored, and hath therein delivered us from dishonor and from death? Are we not bound to keep it singular and inviolable, well contenting ourselves with so liberal a grant of the rest, and not encroaching upon that one day which God hath chosen for his own honor? Were it not reckless neglect of religion to make that very day common, and to think we may do with it as with the rest ?"

From these edicts, it is perfectly evident, that instead of there being no Sabbath observed, by any of the subjects of Leo at that time, one was known and observed, if not two-the Jewish and the Christian; and he was desirous to make Christians give up the practice of keeping the seventh day. Though some did pretend, as at the present time, that those who rested on the Sabbath, would lose property by it, he did not think it a good reason why it should not be kept. Doubtless, at that time, as in the days of Constantine, there were many who did not observe the Lord's day: but would either keep the Jewish Sabbath, or none at all; the latter, from the language of the edict, being most probable; and the Emperor therefore commanded that all should keep the Lord's day. Had there been no Sabbath observed by any one, when he gave this command, he would not have used the language he did. This evidence of the objectors must also be set down for nothing.

that

Objectors to the Sabbath quote JUSTIN MARTYR, to prove there was not only no Sabbath before Moses, but that the early Christians did not observe any. They adduce the following quotation, and lay great stress on it, on the ground that he must have known the facts on this subject. This is true in regard to the practice of the early Christians, but not true as it respects the question of a Sabbath before Moses. "There is another circumcision, and you (Trypho) think highly of that of the flesh. The law would have you keep a perpetual Sabbath; but you, when you have spent one day idle, think you are religious, not knowing why it was commanded. But I would have you know that as there was no circumcision before Abraham, nor Sabbath or sacrifices before Moses, so are they all done away in Christ. Continue as you were created; do you not see that the elements are never idle, or keep a Sabbath ?”

We have not seen this extract, except as thus quoted by the enemies of the Sabbath. If it be a fair quotation, it is not easy to reconcile all parts of it, with other things said by that authorIt makes him contradict himself in regard to the Sabbath, and say that which is not true in relation to sacrifices. In one part of this quotation, he says, "the law would have you keep a perpetual Sabbath." It is well known, that Justin Martyr believed that there never was a Sabbath before Moses; but we cannot believe that he ever intended to teach, that primitive Christians, and all men since their day, were not bound to keep a Sabbath. When Trypho avers, that the Christians differed in nothing from the heathen, inasmuch as they "neither observed circumcision, the Sabbath, nor the other festivals," it may be said he was in part correct, unless Christians at that time called the Lord's day Sabbath, which they probably did not. For they did not observe circumcision, nor, as a body, the Jewish Sabbath, nor their festivals. These were all done away in Christ. But that Christians, and Justin Martyr among them, observed the Lord's day most fully appears from his own writings. Hence, whatever he did mean in this quotation, he did not mean to teach that Christians, and all men, are not bound to keep the Lord's day, as a Sabbath. But neither Justin Martyr, who was educated a heathen, nor MARTIN LUTHER, nor CALVIN, just emerged from Popery, nor PALEY, all of whom believed the Sabbath an

« ForrigeFortsett »