1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/50778623aa1f8db1092cbe90239a7782.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LsePFqrlz9ZgX7nGyIppej11WF%7EU1CnXDIU12y0hh9MTHnZu8b2vWJodbxom1SuFlDyqkipf-gCgDoyLvvzhqrknnAiGgq23QokzplY8VpQdWccVxjGW6GcFiguYIYTESoUwseyi-gOk8dLY%7EQqnMSzL-dvENTsj0AZvpd1Slifz5tPtjY-7DchKt040FA8bTriWQXJNEg0m4PIUOrkODuxu0VhNbeBxq1YZIEfEQ4e31C7qv9GAZK0esH44dXAPTKm63j3xUQh907-ogoNkC213-Bxo4zFuefP37W19lciipZTqExILa5L1qjS94MNnLFAHQBbNZrOJSkUEiy8fDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
674557755735742d10583494204e676c
PDF Text
Text
CT 25
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH:
ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
-
■ "
<>
A Controversy Between the Rev. Dr. Sunderland,
Wm. Henry Burr, and Others.
.... num!
ii
in
i
i
In the Washington Daily Chronicle of October 10, 1871, a
sermon was published, two columns in length, with the follow
ing heading:
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
DISCOURSE BY DR. SUNDERLAND IN HIS CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORN
ING, OCTOBER 8, 1871—A NEW VIEW OF THE QUESTION—THE
JEWISH WEEK SET ASIDE—THE CHRISTIAN WEEK ESTABLISHED—
THE SABBATH IS ALWAYS “THE SEVENTH DAY” OF THE ESTAB
LISHED -WEEK—AS REQUIRED BY THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF THE
DECALOGUE.
The only portion of the discourse which it is necessary for the
present purpose to reproduce is the following :
In Acts xiii, 14, it is stated that Paul and his company, hav
ing arrived at Antioch, “ went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.” The Sabbath day here mentioned
was undoubtedly a “Jewish Sabbath.” In the 44th verse it is
said: “And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city
together to hear the word of God.” The Greek phrase for “the
next Sabbath day,” as our English translation has it in this
verse, is: to te erchomeno Sabbato—that is, “ on the approach
ing or coming Sabbath.” This was likewise undoubtedly a
“Jewish Sabbath,” occurring after the six secular days which
followed the Sabbath mentioned in the 14th verse. But what
had occurred in the meantime in the synagogue and in the city ?
What had occurred between these two consecutive Jewish
�2
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
Sabbaths ? . . . . Some Gentiles, who had either wit
nessed or heard of the scene which had transpired, and who had
become deeply interested in the declaration of Paul, besought
that these words might be preached to them, (not, as in our own
version, “ the next Sabbath,” but as in the original,) “ on the
intervening Sabbath,” or “ the Sabbath betweeny This was the
request not of Jews, but of Gentiles, who paid no special regard
to Jewish ordinances, and who were doubtless aware of the new
institution and custom of the observance of “ the Christian Sab
bath” or “ the Lord’s day,” and who here, for the want of better
terms, described it as “the Sabbath between,” or “the inter
vening Sabbath”—that is, the Sabbath coming between two
Jewish Sabbaths, This was a matter of fact, and while the
record is silent as to whether Paul complied with this request
of the Gentiles—though in all probability he did—yet one thing
is beyond dispute, if we read the account in the Greek, and
that is, the Sabbath mentioned in the 42d verse is not identical
with that mentioned in the 44th verse. The conclusion is inevi
table—one was “ a Christian Sabbath,” the other was a “Jewish
Sabbath.”
On the next day a communication appeared in the Chronicle,
as follows :
AN INTERESTING QUESTION—DR. SUNDERLAND’S POSITION ON “THE
CHRISTIAN SABBATH ” DISPUTED.
To the Editor of the Chronicle ;
In the discourse of the Rev. Dr. Sunderland, which appeared
in yesterday’s Chronicle, he draws the “ inevitable conclusion”
that Paul preached to the Gentiles on a “ Christian Sabbath,”
because in Acts xiii, 42, the Greek words “ to metazu sabbaton”
mean “ on the Sabbath between,” or “ on the intervening Sab
bath,” and not “ on the next Sabbath,” as rendered in our Bi
bles. It is true that the marginal translation in our reference
Bibles sustains [favors] the Doctor’s view. But if he will exam
ine one of the latest and best authorities, namely, the Greek
Testament, by Henry Alford, D.D., of Cambridge, England,
1868, (which may be found at Ballantyne’s book-store,) he will
see that this marginal translation is not sustained. Therefore,
unless we discard this latest standard authority, we cannot ac
cept Dr. Sunderland’s “ inevitable conclusion.” Moreover, his
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
3
admission that “ the record is silent as to whether Paul did
preach on a ‘ Sabbath between,’” must be taken in favor of the
rendering in our Bi,bles, viz : “ the next Sabbath ” of the Jews.
The attempt to prove that Paul observed the so-called Chris
tian Sabbath is futile. In Acts xx, 7, we read that on one oc
casion, when the disciples came together to break bread on the
first day of the week, Paul preached (p them, and the preaching
and breaking of bread continued till daybreak, i. e., about ten
hours into the second day of the week, which began at s-unset.
But this breaking of bread was a daily occurrence at the first,
(Acts ii, 46,) and therefore proves nothing as to the sanctity of
any particular day. The proof, therefore, fails that Paul ob
served a Christian Sabbath. On the contrary, during a ministry
of twenty years he constantly preached in the synagogues on the
Jewish Sabbath, (Acts ix, 20 ; xiii, 14, 44; xiv, 1 ; xvii, 2, 10,
17; xviii, 4, 11, 19; xix, 18.)
If space were allowed me, I can prove that the following emi
nent Christian authorities are against the observance of both the
Jewish and Christian Sabbath as a sacred day: Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Eusebius, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Neander,
Jeremy Taylor, and many others.
W. H. B
This brought out a reply from Dr. S., followed by a further
correspondence, as reproduced below.
HAVE WE A CHRISTIAN SABBATH?—A PROPOSAL TO “W. H. B.” FROM
DR. SUNDERLAND.
To the Editor of the Chronicle:
It is easy to show the fallacy of the comments of “ W. H. B.”
on my discourse in last Tuesday’s Chronicle. But not “ to make
two bites of a cherry,” and to save the daily journals of the city
the burden of an extensive and gratuitous publication, I have this
proposition to submit to “ W. H. B.,” (he must give his full
name.) Let us correspond upon the subject privately at first, and
when each has concluded what he wishes to say, let us then pub
lish the whole correspondence in pamphlet form.
I would not propose this labor and expense did I not feel so
deeply the importance of the truth in regard to the Christian Sab
bath. It is high time the present generation should know whether
we have left to us a Sabbath of divine authority and perpetual
�4
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH I
obligation, or whether the whole Christian world has been hood
winked and deceived by a stupendous imposition which has been
palmed upon them without any Scriptural authority whatever.
I think I have a right to expect an affirmative reply to the
above proposition, or in some way its equivalent.
B. SUNDERLAND.
REPLY OF “ W. H. B.” TO DR. SUNDERLAND.
Much as I desire to see the question of the Christian Sabba.h discussed, I feel constrained to decline the proposition of
Di .. Sunderland in yesterday’s Chronicle. In the first place, my
native modesty shrinks from the publicity of a controversy with
so distinguished an antagonist. I prefer to withhold my full
name altogether, especially as I take the unpopular side. I am
an obscure layman ; my antagonist is a distinguished clergyman.
Unknown as I am to him now, I am quite certain that he
would prefer a, more equal adversary. Iu coming out to meet
me he would reel as Goliath did when he saw the stripling
David, while I could never acquire the courage and confidence
of David, nor would I like, after all, to triumph, metaphorically
speaking, as David did. Therefore I propose to offer a sub
stitute ; and with that view I have written to one who I believe
will accept the challenge and do ample justice to my side of the
question. I mean Parker Pillsbury, of Ohio. Should he not
accept it there are several other men of distinction that I can
name, some one of whom doubtless will be willing to discuss the
question as fully as Dr. Sunderland desires.
Let us have light, and let truth prevail, though the heavens
aL
W. H. B.
THE DOCTOR READY FOR A SKIRMISH.
“W. H. B.” declines my proposition. His “native mod
esty is certainly a curious thing. It permits him, with an
apparent show of learning, to dispute my position and to vaunt
before the public what he could do if he only had “ the space.”
At the same time, it hides his name, especially as he is “ on the
unpopular side.” It suggests a comparison between himself and
David, and yet disclaims any desire for a similar triumph. Be
yond this, however, it prompts him to seek “a substitute,” and
to inform the public that he has written to Mr. Pillsbury.
�5
ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
.Well,.when Mr. Pillsbury is ready let me know, and I will com
mence’ the suggested correspondence at once. After we have
finished we will have it all published in pamphlet form, if
possible.
B. SUNDERLAND.
In the next issue of the same paper another writer makes the
following strictures on Dr. Sunderland’s discourse :
ANOTHER RICHMOND IN THE FIELD.
I have read with some curiosity Dr Sunderland’s sermon on
this subject, and, if I had been a firm believer before in the
duty of keeping Sunday, I should have had my faith severely
shaken finding that two columns of special pleading in fine print
were necessary even to get up a showing of a case in favor of the
obligation. I know I cannot have two columns to answer the
reverend Doctor, but perhaps you will let me state a few proposi
tions, which, I think, are clearer than his argument:
1. The observance of any day is not, in itself, a moral duty,
2. It can become a duty only by divine command.
3. inere was such a divine command in reference to the
seventh day.
4. There was a reason given for the observance of the sev
enth day, viz : that God rested on that day.
5. It is taught in the New Testament, and admitted by Dr.
Sunderland, that there is no longer any obligation to keep the
day originally appointed.
6. It would have been a very simple matter to make known
any transfer of obligation from the seventh day to the first day
of the week, in a plain command to that effect.
7. It is not pretended that there ever has been any such com
mand.
8. The pretended obligation to keep Sunday is merely a mat
ter of unfair inference, sustained by a tissue of sophistical special
pleading, such as would drive any lawyer out of court.
9. The idea of attaching superlative importance to an observ
ance wholly ceremonial, and as a duty wholly artificial, involv
ing no moral principle whatever, is simply preposterous.
SIGMA.
The Doctor replies to the foregoing as follows :
�6
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
FIGHTING IN AMBUSH—DR.
SUNDERLAND’S COUNTER PROPOSITIONS.
While waiting for Mr. Pillsbury on the Sabbath question, it
seems a new gun is opened from another ambush. Does it not
look like a sign of conscious weakness in their cause for men to
hide themselves behind some signature which keeps them from
being known to the public? I must confess I don’t like such
opponents. My general rule is not to notice them. If a man is
afraid or ashamed to let the public know who he is, I say he is not
the man to conduct a public discussion on a subject of this kind.
I should not reply to “ Sigma,” were it not for the importance
of meeting every objection which it is possible to urge against
‘ ‘ the Christian Sabbath.” I suggest, in answer to his communi
cation, the following counter propositions :
1. The moral welfare of man is an object of prime considera
tion .
2. To divide and spend our time in such a manner as best to
promote our moral welfare is a moral duty.
3. The Bible teaches (and all experience and observation con
firm it) that spending one day in seven as a day of sacred rest is
pre-eminently conducive to our moral welfare, and therefore it im
poses the moral obligation to do so.
4. Keeping the seventh day of the established week becomes
a duty by divine command, just as “ Thou shalt not steal” be
comes a duty by divine command.
5. There is now such a divine command in reference to the
seventh day of the present established week, which command is
accompanied by the reason that God set an example of such rest
at the conclusion of the creation week.
6. It is taught in the New Testament, and maintained by me,
that there is no longer any obligation to keep “ the Jewish Sab
bath,” but that such obligation is now transferred to “ the Chris
tian Sabbath.”
7. It is a false issue to assert that the question is upon trans
ferring the obligation from the seventh to the first day of the
Jewish week, and that there is no command for such transfer,
when the whole “ Jewish week” itself has been set aside and
‘‘the Christian week” has been established.
8. Such an issue as the above, sustained by no facts, and even
by no pleadings, sophistical, special, general, or otherwise, worthy
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
7
of the name, would drive not only “lawyers” but “laymen”
out of court.
9. The duty of observing and keeping the Sabbath day holy
is not for the benefit of the day, but for the benefit of man him
self. It is not, therefore, either “ a ceremonial or artificial duty;”
and when God commanded it as a part of the moral law, He was
probably about as wise as the anti-Sabbatarian, Mr. “Sigma,”
who, it seems, does not even comprehend either the nature of the
Sabbath or the first principles of morality.
B. SUNDERLAND.
And now another writer steps in with the following reply to
the above:
A THIRD RICHMOND—THE ARGUMENT BECOMING CONTAGIOUS.
In reply to Dr. Sunderland’s nine propositions, I observe, sev
erally and consecutively, as follows :
1. Good health is the greatest of all earthly blessings.
2. The twenty-four hours of the day are best divided into three
equal parts-, eight hours for labor, eight for refreshment and
sleep, and eight for the service of God and a distressed brother.
3. Petitio Principii.
4. “ Thou shalt not steal” is mala per se; “ Remember the
Sabbath day” is mala prohibita.
5. “ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath.”
6. “ Let no man judge you in keeping the Sabbath day.”
7. 11 False issue” denied in toto. The question is upon the
transfer.
8. Matter of private opinion as to the form of a special plea.
9. “ Mr. Sigma does not comprehend either the nature of the
Sabbath or the first principles of morality.” The old dodging
place of the clergy when close run.
RICHMOND No. 3.
To this the Doctor puts in a rejoinder, the essential part of
which is given below.
THE DOCTOR PRESSING ON—WHERE IS MR. PILLSBURY?—“ RICHMOND
NO. 3 ” DISPOSED OF.
As the argument of the anti-Sabbatarians (while waiting for
Mr. Pillsbury) seems to be rather “ running emptyings,” it is
�8
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
hardly worth while to spend much time on “Richmond No. 3.”
However, his propositions may be answered in few words, as fol
lows :
1. As “ good health is the greatest earthly blessing,” virtue,
of course, will have to take a back seat.
2. Obiter dictum.
3. Ipse dixit.
4. An affirmative precept,, mala prohibita ! Ha! ha ! ha !
Hog-latin; up with the hog-latin ! up with a baseless distinc
tion !
5. The Sabbath was made for man.’’ Man continues and
the Sabbath remains.
6. Misquotation and misapplication of Scripture.
7. The question is not upon the transfer from the seventh to
the first day of the Jewish week.
8. Private opinion—a great responsibility.
9. Smart thing for men in their holes to talk about “the old
dodging-place of the clergy.”
Let us now attend to the matter of Dean Alford on Acts xiii,
42. The meaning of this text turns on the word metaxu. Al
ford says, “ to metaxu Sabbaton appears by the usage of Luke to
mean the next Sabbath day, not the ‘ following week.’ This last
rendering would hardly suit eis, which fixes a definite occasion.”
Thus he merely conjectures that metaxu signifies here “ next,”
and in the margin he makes two references to Josephus and one
to Plutarch in support of his conjecture. Our answer is four
fold :
1. Altord, following many others in this error, did not under
stand the allusion of this passage, and consequently resorted to
a conjecture wholly unnecessary.
2. ^ The word metaxu has no such meaning in classic Greek,
but invariably signifies that which intervenes or comes between.
3.. There is no such usage of the word metaxu either in the
writings of Luke or of any other part of the New Testament
Greek. In fact, it is used only nine times, all told.
[In seven of the passages cited by Dr. S. the word is rendered
“between,” and in two, “ meanwhile.”]
Now, can any man tell me why the word metaxu in the New
lestament Greek has an invariable signification—that of inter-
�ALL DAYS ALIKE IIOLY,
9
vening or coming between, and yet it must be used out of its ac
customed import in this single text alone—that is, Acts xiii, 42?
What authority has Alford or any other scholar to make such a
•departure from the established meaning of words ?
4. My fourth point is that the references given by Alford do
not sustain his conjecture, but show that just the opposite is the
fact.
[Having considered and discussed the references, the Doctor
continues :]
Thus we see that every reference made by Alford is against the
sense of “ next,'1' or ‘‘following” for the word metaxu in this
passage. Beside this, neither Josephus nor Plutarch, both of
whom wrote about a century after the New Testament was com
posed, can furnish authority for the usage of words by writers so
long before them. The law of usage does not ascend.
Such being the case, I would say to Mr, “ W. H. B.,” whoso
ever he may be, that we feel constrained on this text “to dis
card” Dr. Alford as “ the latest standard authority,” and to hold
to the old classic and New Testament usage of the word metaxu
in the interpretation of this passage. Our English translators
stand corrected here. They mistook the allusion of the passage
and the learned Doctor of Cambridge has only followed in their
footsteps.
B. SUNDERLAND.
IS DR. SUNDERLAND A ROMAN CATHOLIC?
And now comes in still another adversary, who insists that Dr.
S., in taking the position he has assumed, has, “unknowingly,
demolished the groundwork of Protestant belief, namely, the
Bible, and practically indorsed that of the Catholic, namely,
Tradition.” The obligation to keep holy the first day of the
week, says the writer, “is nowhere stated to have been imposed,
either by Christ or his apostles; nowhere recorded, or so much
as alluded to in any one of the Gospels or Epistles.” The obli
gation rests “ wholly and exclusively upon the authority of tra
dition.”
The Doctor replies to the above as follows :
�10
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH:
THE CHARGE OF ROMANISM:—THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES—SCRIPTURE
AND TRADITION.
Has Rip Van Winkle come again? The article of “ M.” in
yesterday’s paper takes us back to the dark ages. In those days
tradition was a huge thing. The Bible was of but little account.
Few people knew much about it.
When the Reformation rose the English Church combated the
authority of tradition by affirming the article quoted by “ M.,”
namely: “ Holy Scripture containeth all things,” &c. This was,
and is, good Christian doctrine.
Our new Rip Van Winkle thinks he has me here. His trap
is remarkably novel and ingenious. He begins by reiterating the
old/aZse issue about “ changing the Sabbath from the seventh to
the first day of the Jewish week.” He says the warrant for this
change is not to be found “ in any one of the Gospels, or in any
one of the Epistles;” but yet it is an article of Christian faith,
and must, therefore, be founded on tradition.
And having come to this conclusion, he makes the astounding
discovery that I have “unknowingly demolished the groundwork
of Protestant belief 1”
It is curious to see what makeshifts are adopted by the anti
Sabbatarians (while waiting for Mr. Pillsbury) to conceal their
total discomfiture in the discussion of “ the Christian Sabbath.”
Driven from one point they fly to another, if possible, still more
irrelevant and untenable. Like Samson’s foxes, tail to tail, they
run in all directions and in no direction long.
B. SUNDERLAND.
In the same paper containing the above “ W. H. B.” comes
out with the following essay :
“w. H. B.” AT LAST SIGNS IN FULL—DAVID MEETS GOLIATH.
Not having heard from Mr. Pillsbury, whom I addressed at
Toledo, Ohio, but who doubtless is now absent from that city, I
will, with your permission, Mr. Editor, reply to Dr. Sunder
land’s defence of his position in regard to the proper rendering of
to metazu sabbaton. But before doing so allow me to say that,
while I protest against the injustice of his charge that I am ‘ fight
ing in ambush ”—while I insist that it is both customary and
proper for an obscure writer to withhold his name from the pub
lic in sending contributions to the press, except where the public
�ALL DAYS ALIKE IIOLY.
II
interest demands it—and though I am not aware that I am known
personally to a single editor in this city, I will, nevertheless, to
use the elegant expression of my adversary, “ come out of my
hole ” and disclose my full name.
There is another reason why I preferred in this case to remain
anonymous; that reason may be inferred from the last sentence
in Dr. S.’s reply to “ Sigma,” who, he says, “ it seems does not
even comprehend either the nature of the Sabbath or the first
principles of morality.” I have a private character which I hope
to maintain, and I do not wish to have it brought before the pub
lic with any imputation of that sort upon it, which, in my estima
tion, is little short of a libel. That is a style of discussion that I
wish to avoid.
The main point that I made against Dr. S.’s sermon was that
his “inevitable conclusion ” that Paul preached on a Christian
Sabbath, between two Jewish Sabbaths, was at variance with the
latest and best Christian standard anthority, Dean Alford. This
the Doctor admits, but he says that Dean Alford does not under
stand the allusion in the passage in question.
In order to present the question intelligibly let me give the two
verses in Acts xiii:
Verse 42.—“And when the Jews were gone out of the syna
gogue the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached
to them the next Sabbath.”
Verse 44.—“And the next Sabbath day came almost the
whole city together to hear the word of God.”
Dean Alford says that this rendering in verse 42, “ the next
Sabbath,” is correct; that it means the next Sabbath day, and
not the 1‘following week.” And he adds : “ This last rendering
would hardly suit eis, which fixes a definite occasion, nor verse
44, which gives the result.” The last clause was not quoted by
Dr. S., nor the author’s note on verse 44, which is as follows:
“ Whether erch (omeno} or ech (omeno') be read, the sense will
be ‘ on the following [ day,’ and not as Henrichs, ‘ on the fol
]
*
lowing week day.’ ”
Now, I submit to scholars and common-sense people whether
Dean Alford’s rendering is not more probably correct than that
* The intelligent reader will here supply the word “Sabbath,” for
verse 44 reads, to te erchomeno Sabbato—“ the next Sabbath day.”
�12
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH I
of Dr. Sunderland. This point is one on which the whole argu
ment of Dr. S. hinges ; if it fails his Christian Sabbath falls. If
Paul did not then and there observe a Christian Sabbath, there
was none at that time, and there is none now.
But I have not done with Christian authorities in support of
the passage as given in our Bibles. I find it sustained by John
Calvin, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, Thomas Scott, and
Joseph Benson. I will not take the space to quote them all, but
content myself with an extract from the last. Says Benson :
“In the intermediate Sabbath, i. e., says Bengelius, ‘ the
Sabbath that should occur in the remaining days about to be spent
by Paul and Barnabas at Antioch.’ But Grotius is confident
that the reading ought to be ‘ in the intermediate time between
the two Sabbaths,’ or ‘ in the course of the ensuing week;’ Mon
days and Thursdays, or the second and fifth days of the week,
being times in which the pious Jews were accustomed to meet
together in the synagogue for the study of the law, in compli
ance, says Lightfoot, with the appointment of Isaiah. It seems,
however, to be fully determined by ver. 44 that our version
gives the true expression.”
Thus I have brought five Christian commentators against the
rendering which Dr. S. gives. I do not know whether he
claims originality of discovery or not. I am not aware, as yet,
of any authority on his side except the marginal reading of our
reference Bibles, and that is ambiguous. If Dr. S. is right, let
him try and convince Christian scholars who accept the Lord’s
day as a Christian Sabbath, but who reject this passage as proof
of it; and then let him try to convert us anti-Sabbatarians.
As David chose five smooth stones from the brook, so have I
cited five eminent commentators, any one of whom is fatal to
Goliath.
WM. HENRY BURR.
GOLIATH THINKS DAVID HAS HIT HIMSELF.
We wait no longer for Mr. Pillsbury. “ W. H. B.” comes
out from his obscurity. I think Mr. Burr is not personally
known to me, and he will excuse any omission of titles, as I do
not know whether I should address him as judge, professor, gen
eral, colonel, major, or captain.
This is just what comes of men not doing right in the
�ALL DAYS ALIKE IIOLY.
13
first place. If lie had announced himself he would have been
saved the trouble of the protest in his first .paragraph. As to
the “little short of a libel” on “Sigma,” there was the same
difficulty. I had nothing to judge by but his propositions, and
my conclusion, as I think, was perfectly logical from the premises.
Mr. Burr is deceived when he thinks that the argument for
“the Christian Sabbath” rests solely on the meaning of Acts
xiii, 42. This text is, in fact, but a subordinate incident in the
general discussion. But when rightly understood, it does clearly
confirm the truth of the Christian Sabbath. The great argu
ment springs from another quarter.
Mr. Burr, it seems, relies on the opinions of distinguished
Christian scholars, and expects to triumph through the over
whelming weight of great names. He will find before he gets to
the end that this is a very precarious game, which two can
play at.
His main point against me was that metaxu, (not metazu, as
he writes it,) in Acts xiii, 42, does not mean between or inter
vening, but next or following. To support this position, he cited
the authority of Alford. I have shown that Alford is totally
mistaken. If he is mistaken, then all who agree with him are
mistaken.
I am glad Mr. Burr calls my attention to Alford’s note on verse
44, as it furnishes a new argument from his stand-point for my
rendering of metaxu in verse 42. If, as Alford says, “ the sense
will be on the following day, and not as Heinrichs, on the fol
lowing week-day,” this shows conclusively it was “ the Christian
Sabbath,” for if the day following the Jewish Sabbath “ was not
a week-day,” then it was “the Christian Sabbath,” as we know is
now the fact.
Thank you, Mr. Burr ! Truth always shines brighter the more
it is rubbed!
He has not done, however, “with Christian authorities.” He
produces his five smooth stones, Calvin, Clarke, Henry, Scott,
and Benson, but only slings one of them. The shot, however,
by some singular freak, instead of hitting his adversary, twirls
round and sinks into his own head I Quoting Benson, who
quotes Grotius, who was the most learned man of his time, he
distinctly proves the truth of my rendering of metaxu. Grotius
insists that the reading should be “ the intermediate Sabbath
�14
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
that is, the Sabbath between two Jewish Sabbaths. So much for
the quotation from Benson.
Four stones remain unslung.
“ He is not aware of any authority on my side, except the mar
ginal reading, which is ambiguous. ” He had better go back to
the old classic Greek, to the usage of the New Testament Greek
itself, and to hundreds of authorities far more decisive of my ren
dering of me tax u in this passage than any he has yet produced
against it.
But to do this I fear will require more time and space than can
be devoted to the subject in the columns of the daily journals.
And now that the gentleman appears in his own proper person,
and Mr. Pillsbury is out of the question, I have the pleasure of
renewing to Mr. Burr my original proposition. Let us corres
pond, privately at first, till we have concluded what we have to
say, and then publish the correspondence in pamphlet form.
B. SUNDERLAND.
DAVID CUTS OFF GOLIATH’S HEAD.
Prostrate Goliath flounders. He speaks. It is David, he says,
that is smitten. David thinks Goliath is blind, and in the death
struggle.
My adversary says that the weight of Christian authority is a
game that two can play at. Just so. Play away, Doctor. You
are plaintiff, I defendant. I demand a jury of your peers, all
drawn from the Christian Church. I challenge now [none] for
bias ; and if I can’t get a verdict for defendant, all the plaintiff
can hope for is a disagreement; so that he loses his case any way.
The Doctor’s Greek is good ; not so his logic. First, he admits
that Dean Alford is against him, and then claims that he is for
him. This will be news to the Dean of Canterbury. Grotius,
he says, is for him, because he insists on the reading, “ the inter
mediate Sabbath.” Not so, Doctor. Surely, you did not intend
to garble and pervert Grotius, who says, “in the intermediate
time between the two Sabbaths,” specifying Monday and Thurs
day, {not Sunday,) which were the lecture days of the Jews.
My opponent having thus perverted both Alford and Grotius,
let him try his hand at the other four authorities. It is unneces
sary for me to quote them; they are clearly and strongly against
him. And I will add that I have two more of the same sort,
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
15
namely, Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, who first made
public in that city the existence of the Book of Acts in the year
400, and the late Albert Barnes. The earliest Christian com
mentator [upon the book of Acts] never dreamed of the render
ing of the passage in question, revealed to Dr. Sunderland, and
his brother Barnes, the latest commentator, died without the dis
covery.
Having slung the stone, I now proceed to cut off Goliath’s
head with his own two-edged sword. Eight years after the cru
cifixion the Gospel was first preached and the Christian Church
established at Antioch, in Syria. (Actsxi, 19-26.) Fouryears
later, Paul and Barnabas, being sent on a missionary tour, reached
Antioch, in Pisidia, a sequestered town, remote from the sea,
lying at the foot of impassable mountains, and distant about 330
miles in a straight line from the other place. There were a few
Jews in this second Antioch, but not a Christian until Paul went
there. How, then, could the Gentiles, who had never before
heard of Christianity, have besought Paul to preach to them on
the next Christian Sabbath ?
Dear Doctor, is not this one of those passages ‘ ‘ which they that
be unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction ?” I
mean polemically, not literally.
Enough on this point. I have said that Paul, during a minis
try of twenty years, constantly preached in the synagogues on the
Jewish Sabbath. I now give the proof. Straightway after his
conversion he began to preach in the synagogues, (Acts, ix, 20.)
He did so at Antioch, in Pisidia, two Sabbath days in succession,
(xiii, 14, 44,) then at Iconium, (xiv, 1,) then at Thessalonica,
“as his manner was,” three Sabbath days, (xvii, 2,) then at
Berea, (ver. 10,) then at Athens, (ver. 17,) then at Corinth
“ every Sabbath,” for a year and a half, (xviii, 4-11,) then at
Ephesus, (ver. 19,) and again at the same place for “ three
months,” (xix, 8.) During all this time I do not find the slight
est evidence that Paul observed the first day of the week as a
Sabbath.
I decline a private correspondence. In three or four articles
of a quarter of a column each, I can say all I desire to on this
subject. But if my opponent declines a further newspaper discus
sion, I rest my case here.
J
WM. HENRY BURR.
�16
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
GOLIATH, THOUGH DEAD, YET SPEAKS.
Mr. Burr positively declines the private correspondence. I
must, therefore, make short work of his last communication.
1. I quoted Grotius from memory. The original has tempore
instead of Sabbato. I have no intention to misquote.
2. Can Mr. Burr say as much, when he has misrepresented
Alford on verse 42, and misquoted him on verse 44?
3. Mr. Burr cannot be permitted to select a jury from wiinesses whom we are going to put on the stand !
4. We will attend to these witnesses in due time. Alford is
already discredited. Benson gets his quietus from Grotius, and
the rest will follow as fast as we can reach them ?
5. He praises my Greek. Of course, after his blunder in
orthography I fully appreciate the compliment.
6. He says my logic, &c., “ will be news to the Dean of Can
terbury,” (meaning Alford.) As the Dean is dead, the “ news”
will, of course, be penetrating.
7. He need not spend time on “ the Jewish Sabbath,” or to
prove that the Apostles availed themselves of those occasions to
preach the Gospel. Nobody denies this.
8. It is equally useless to enter upon any historical researches
of the early Church to show that none of the Gentiles in Pisidia
had ever heard of “ the Christian Sabbath.” Dozens of people
might have been in Antioch on that very Sabbath who had
recently come from Palestine.
9. The issue between us, mind, is the meaning of ’metaxu.
He says it means next. I say it means between.
I will endeavor to be perfectly fair in examining the witnesses
he produces on his side, and in presenting such witnesses as I
may on my side. But it will take more time and space than can
be usually given in the columns of a daily journal like the Chron
icle. I therefore defer further observations to a future occasion.
B. SUNDERLAND.
DAVID ADDRESSES GOLIATH’S GHOST.
The ghost of
from memory I
his eyes. Why
In answer to
intend to do so,
Goliath appears. He says he quoted Grotius
The passage, as given by Benson, was before
did he garble it ?
my charge of misquoting, he says he did not
and insinuates that I intended to misrepresent
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
17
and misquote Dean Alford. I neithei intended it nor did it.
The charge is false. I quoted from Alford what Dr. S. omitted.
In impannelling a jury of authorities I said, “ I challenge
none for bias.” The word none was printed novo. I don’t want
to “ select'’ a jury. I will take them as they come.
I mistook a Greek letter for another almost exactly similar,
and I was not aware that Dean Alford had died within a year.
I acknowledge my mistakes; my opponent persists in his.
The lexicons say that metaxu means not only between, but
afterwards.
Ghost of Goliath, an revoir.
WILLIAM HENRY BURR.
THE GHOST APPEAHS AGAIN.
Mr. Burr sees a ghost! Quite likely! Men’s minds do
wander sometimes.
1. He says the passage as given by Benson was before my
eyes, and wants to know why I garbled it? Does he know the
primary meaning of garble? But let that pass. I would say to
Mr. Burr, just in this connection, that Grotius wrote in Latin. I
choose to read him in the original, not at second-hand. I made
the proper correction in Latin without any reference to Benson.
Is this persisting in a mistake ?
2. Mr. Burr denies that he misrepresented and misquoted
Alford, and disclaims the intention. I do not charge him with
the intention; but that he did it I will show. His words are,
“Alford says that this rendering in verse 42, ‘ the next Sabbath’
is correct." Alford does not use the word correct. To ascribe it
to him is what I call misrepresentation.
Again, on verse 44, he quotes Alford as saying, “ the sense
will be on the following day.” Alford’s words are, “ the sense
will be on the following Sabbath-day.” This is what I call mis
quotation.
3. Bias or no bias, we cannot consent to have a jury made up
of the rednesses in the case.
4. Lexicons at the best are only secondary authority. Cer
tainly they cannot settle the meaning of metau in Acts xiii., 42.
I am preparing an article on the weight of authority as to the
meaning of this text, which, when completed, I hope to have
published in some form as a full expression of my views.
B. SUNDERLAND.
�18
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
WHAT DAVID SAYS TO IT A SECOND TIME.
Dr. Sunderland did not make “the proper correction” of his
misquotation of Grotius. The passage reads “ medio tempore
inter duo Sabbata ”—“in the intermediate time between two
Sabbaths.” To make it read, “ in the intermediate Sabbath,” is
garbling.
I did not “ ascribe” the word “ correct” to Alford, and Dr.
Sunderland knows it. In the quotation, “ the following Sabbath
day,” the word “ Sabbath” is not to be found in Alford’s latest
edition, which I saw. I knew and Dr. Sunderland knew it ought
to be there, and yet upon that omission he sought to make Alford
stultify himself; and now, finding the word supplied in a former
edition, with strange perversity he charges me with misquotation.
WM. HENRY BURR.
THE GHOST RETURNS A THIRD TIME.
1. Mr. Burr thinks I did not make the proper correction. Let
us see. Quoting Grotius from memory, I made him read “ the
intermediate Sabbath,” as though his words were medio Sabbato.
Discovering the mistake, I corrected it by saying ‘ ‘ the original
has tempore instead of SabbataS This would make it read, as it
actually does, medio tempore.
But Mr. Burr hastens to tell us that the passage reads “ medic
tempore inter duo Sabbato.” And he adds, to make it read “ in
the intermediate Sabbath ” is garbling. He might as well accuse
me of garbling because I did not quote the entire work of Gro
tius bodily.
2. Mr. Burr’s words are, “Alford says that this rendering in
verse 42, ‘ the next Sabbath,’ is correct.” If this is not ascribing
to Alford the word “ correct,” will Mr. Burr tell us what it is?
3. How will Mr. Burr reconcile what he represents Alford as
saying with what he quotes Grotius as saying in regard to the
meaning of metaxu, in Acts xiii, 42.
4. I am inclined to think that Mr. Burr muddles himself and his
foremost witness, Alford, by confessing that he quoted an error
from an erroneous copy of Alford, knowing it to be such at the
time 1 Isn’t that being rather hard-pushed for testimony ?
5. Now, Mr. Burr, see what you have done ? By quoting
from your erroneous edition of Alford you have led me into error
in quoting the same thing after you, to make, from your stand-
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
19
point, an argument on my side. This is “stultifying” Alford
with a vengeance I I have never seen the erroneous edition of
which you speak. Is it at Ballantyne’s ?
B. SUNDERLAND.
A FINAL WORD BY DAVID.
Mr. Burr, deeming it unnecessary to reply to the foregoing,
leaves his adversary to have the last word in the Chronicle. But
in reproducing the controversy he submits the following final
word:
“ There is no God,” (Ps. liii, 1 ;) “ Trust in vanity and speak
lies,” (Is. lix, 4.) Who says that is garbling? Must I quote
the whole Bible ?
How “ hard-pushed” the Doctor must have been for an argu
ment when he eagerly seized upon so apparent an omission as that
of the word “ Sabbath,” in Dean zllford’s note on Acts xiii, 44,
not only to make nonsense of the note, but to make the “ Sab
bath-day,” mentioned in verse 44, mean the first day of the week,
contrary to the Doctor’s own admission in his discourse I (See
page 1.)
HOW THE EARLY FATHERS, REFORMERS, AND OTHER
EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS REGARDED
SUNDAY AND THE SABBATH.
In the Daily Chronicle of October 31, one day prior to the
appearance of Dr. Sunderland’s last article in the controversy
with Mr. Burr, the Doctor uses this language in reply to an asser
tion by “J. R.,” on the previous day, that there is no authority
in history or Christianity for a special sacred day:
‘ ‘ Whoever will undertake deliberately to assert that there is
no authority for the Christian Sabbath in history or Christianity
is too far gone in self-complacent ignorance to be reasoned with.”
And yet so eager was the Doctor at the outset to discuss the
�20
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH I
question, that he challenged an anonymous writer, (“ W. II. B.,”)
who clearly denied the authority for the Christian Sabbath, to a
private controversy. (See page 3.) But letting that pass, let us
see how the early Fathers, Reformers, and other eminent Christian
writers regarded Sunday and the Sabbath, and whether the charge
of iC self-complacent ignorance ” will apply to them,
JUSTIN MARTYR,
So called from his being believed to have suffered martyrdom
about A. D. 163, was supposed to have been born A. D. 89. In
his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, reported by himself, (AnteNicene Library, vol. ii,) the following passages referring to the
Sabbath are gathered:
Trypho. “ This is what we are most at a loss about: that you,
professing to be pious and supposing yourself better than others,
are not in any particular separate from them, and do not alter
your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no fes
tivals or Sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision.”
Justin. “We do not trust through Moses or through the law,
for then we would be the same as yourselves. . . For the
law, promulgated on Iloreb, is now old and belongs to yourselves
alone. . . Now, law placed against law has abrogated that
which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like man
ner has put an end to the previous one, and an eternal final law,
namely, Christ, has been given to us; and the covenant is trust
worthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no
ordinance. . . The new law requires you to keep a per
petual Sabbath ; and you, because you are idle for one day, sup
pose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded
you. . . As if it were not the same God who existed in
the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised
after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites.
Do you see that the elements are not idle and keep no Sabbaths ?
. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abra
ham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, feasts, and sacrifices,
before Moses, no more need is there of them now, after that,
according to the will of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has
been born without sin.”
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
*
21
Trypho. ‘ ‘ Why do you select and quote whatever you wish from
the prophetic writings, but do not refer to those which expressly
command the Sabbath to be observed ?”
Justin. “I have passed them by, not because such prophecies
were contrary to me, but because you have understood and do
understand, that although God commands you by all the prophets
to do the same things which He commanded Moses, it was on
account of the hardness of your hearts and your ingratitude
towards Him that He continually proclaims them. . . Why
did He not teach those who are called righteous and pleasing to
Him, who lived before Moses and Abraham . . and
observed no Sabbaths, to keep these institutions ?”
TERTULLIAN
Was presbyter of the Church of Carthage about A. D. 193, and
died about A. D. 220. In his Apology addressed to the rulers
of the Roman Empire, (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xi, p. 85,) he
says:
“But you, many of you, also, under pretence sometimes of
worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction
of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to
rejoicing from a far different reason than Sun-worship, we have
some resemblance to those who devote the day of Saturn to ease
and luxury, though they, too, go far away from the Jewish ways,
of which indeed they are ignorant.”
In his essay On Idolatry (Ibid, p. 162) are these words:
“ By us, to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons
and festivals, formerly beloved by God, the Saturnalia and Newyear’s and Mid-winter’s festivals and Matronalia are frequented.
J • • • We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heaj thens ! If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh you have
it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for, to the
heathens each festive day occurs but once annually: you have a
i festive day every eighth day.”
In his -address To the Nations, (Ibid, p. 449,) he thus
speaks of Sunday:
“Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be
�22
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
confessed, suppose that the Sun is the God of the Christians, be
cause it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the East or
because we make Sunday a day of festivity.”
Lastly, in his Answer to the Jews, (Ibid, vol. xviii, chap. 4,)
he maintains that the temporal, Jewish Sabbath is abrogated:
“It follows accordingly, that in so far as the abolition of carnal
circumcision and of the old law is being demonstrated as having
been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of
the Sabbath is being demonstrated to have been temporary.
We [Christians] understand that .we still more
ougiht to observe a Sabbath from all ‘ servile work’ always, and
not only every seventh day, but through all time.
For the Scriptures point to a Sabbath eternal and a Sabbath
temporal.”
EUSEBIUS,
The father of church history, who wrote about A. D. 315, in
Book i, chap. 4, of his Ecclesiastical History, says:
“They [the patriarchs] did not therefore regard circumcision
nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain
from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses
subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols,
because such things as these do not belong to Christians.”
MARTIN LUTHER,
The father of the Reformation, is quoted by Mitchelet in his Af/e
qf Luther, (Book iv, chap. 2,) as follows :
“As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity
for keeping it; but if we do, it ought to be not on account of
Moses’ commandment, but because nature teaches us from time
to time to take a day of rest.”
The following quotation is also made from Luther, by Cole
ridge, in his Table Talk, article ‘ ‘ Christian Sabbath
“ Keep it for its use’ sake both to body and soul. But if any
where the day is made holy for the mere day’s sake—if any
where any one sets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation,
then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to
feast on it—to do anything that shall reprove this encroachment
on the Christian spirit of liberty.”
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
23
In a hasty search of Luther’s writings we have been unable to
find either of the above passages; but their verity is not contro
verted, even by the Rev. James Gilfillan, of Scotland, the latest
and perhaps most learned advocate of the Christian Sabbath,
whose elaborate work on that subject has been recently reissued
by the American Tract Society. And we have found in Luther’s
works enough to prove that he did cherish such views, as will
appear from his instructions to Christians how to make use of
Moses, a few sentences of which we here translate from Lutheri
Opera Latina, Tom. iii, pp. 72-3 :
“ The whole of the law of Moses, in its promulgation, be
longs to the Jews alone, and not to other nations, nor to us
Christians. It was manifestly given to that people only, and
they received it to be observed by them and their posterity to
the exclusion of all other nations. . . . Nothing of it
pertains to other nations, not even the words delivered from
Mount Sinai. ... I say this on account of certain
ignorant and pernicious spirits, who, because the laws and polity
of Moses were prescribed to the people of God, say it is necessary
that we should observe the same. These new masters would
teach us something more than the Gospel of Christ.
Their doctrines are fanatical, and foreign from the true under
standing of the Gospel. Do not listen to them ; rather let no
mention of Moses be made at all. . . . We neither wish,
nor ought we to acknowledge Moses as our legislator, nor has
God so intended it. . . . When, therefore, you hear
these men say, ‘ Thus Moses wrote and commanded the people
of God by Divine authority, and therefore these things are bind
ing on us,’ you will answer them in a word : ‘ What is Moses to
us? We have nothing to do with his ministry or vocation’
For if you concede that you are bound by one of his
laws you cannot eScape the observance of the whole.
Let Moses go; he is dead, and was buried long ago by God him
self. . . . That the decalogue does not bind the Gen
tiles is shown by the very words of its promulgation, in Exodus
xx, where God says, ‘ I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee
out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage.’
Clearly he speaks and gives commandments to those whom he had
�24
. SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
led out of Egypt. Therefore the words have no reference to other
nations, nor to us, for we were not brought out of Egypt.
Here we might also show that the Sabbath in no way per
tained to the Gentiles. It was not commanded to them nor
observed by any of them. Even Paul and the Apostles, after
the Gospel began to be preached and spread over the world,
clearly released the people from the observance of the Sabbath.
And even the prophets foretold that the time would come when
the Jewish Sabbath would cease to exist. Thus Isaiah, in the
last chapter, says that after Christ has come the distinction be
tween the Sabbath and other days shall be removed, ‘ and there
shall be month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath.’ ”—
[Douay version, Is. lxvi 23.]
PHILIP MELANCTHON,
The bosom friend of Luther, framed and presented the Augsburg
Confession to the Assembly in 1530. In it (Omnium Operum,
1562, vol. i, p. 37,) are these words, which we translate from
the Latin :
“They who think that the observance of the Lord’s day has
been appointed by the authority of the Church instead of the Sab
bath, as a necessary thing, do greatly err. The Scripture allows
that the observance of the Sabbath has now become void, for it
teaches that the Mosaic ceremonies are not needful after the rev
elation of the Gospel. And yet, because it was requisite to assign
a certain day that the people might know when to come together,
it seems that the Church did, for that purpose, appoint the Lord’s
day, which day, for this cause also, seemed to have better pleased
the Church, that in it men might have an example of Christian
liberty, and might know that the observance neither of the Sab
bath nor of any other day is necessary.”
JOHN CALVIN,
*
The father of Presbyterianism, in Book ii, chap. 8, of his Insti
tutes, concludes a long essay on the fourth commandment as fol
lows :
“Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets who, in past
ages, have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
25
that nothing but the ceremonial part of this commandment
(which, according to them, is the appointment of the seventh day)
is abrogated; but that the moral part of it—that is, the obser
vance of one day in seven—still remains. But this is only
changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while retaining the
same opinion of the holiness of a day; for on this principle the
same mysterious signification would still be attributed to particu
lar days which formerly obtained among the Jews.”
GROTIUS,
The distinguished Dutch jurist and theologian, was born A. D.
1583. In his Annotations on the Old Testament he thus com
ments on Exodus xx:
“ These things refute those who suppose that the first day of
the week (that is, the Lord’s day) was substituted in place of
the Sabbath; for no mention is ever made of such a thing, either
by Christ or the Apostles; and when the Apostle Paul says,
Christians are not to be condemned on account of Sabbaths, &c.,
(Col. ii, 16,) he shows that they were entirely free from that law ;
which liberty would be of no effect, if, the law remaining, the
day merely were changed. Therefore the day of the Lord’s res
urrection was not observed by Christians, any more than the Sab
bath, from any precept of God, or of the Apostles, but by volun
tary agreement of the liberty which had? been given them.”
WILLIAM TYNDALE,
The distinguished English reformer and martyr, in his Answer to
Sir Thomas Moore's Dialogue, chap. 25, says:
“ As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may
yet change it into Monday or into any other day, as we see need;
or make every tenth day a holy day only, if we see cause why.
We may make two every week, if it were expedient, and not one
enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to
change it from Saturday than to put difference between us and
the Jews, and lest we should become servants unto the day, after
their superstition. Neither need we any holy day at all if the
people might be taught without it.”
�26
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
JOHN FRITH,
A cotemporary of Tyndale, and also a martyr, in his Declaration'
of Baptism, takes a similar view, as follows :
“ Our forefathers which were in the beginning of the Church
did abrogate the Sabbath, to the extent that men might have an
example of Christian liberty, and that they might know that
neither the keeping of the Sabbath nor of any other day is neces
sary. . . Howbeit, because it was necessary that a day
should be reserved in which the people should come together to
hear the word of God, they ordained in the stead of the Sabbath,
which was Saturday, the next day following, which was Sunday.
And although they might have kept Saturday with the Jews as
a thing indifferent, yet did they much better, and overset the day,
to be a perpetual memorial that we are free and not bound to any
day, but that we may do all lawful works to the pleasure of God
and profit of our neighbor. We are in manner as superstitious
in the Sunday as they were in the Saturday; yea, are we much
madder ; for the Jews have the word of God for their Saturday,
since it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the
seventh day solemn; and we have not the word of God for us,
but rather against us, for we keep not the seventh day as the Jews
do, but the first, which is not commanded by God’s law.”
JOHN MILTON,
In his Treatise on Christian Doctrines, vol. ii, p. 331, says:
“ Since, then, the Sabbath was originally an ordinance of the
Mosaic law, since it was given to the Israelites alone, and that for
the express purpose of distinguishing them from other nations, if
follows that if (as was shown in the former book) those who live
under the Gospel are emancipated from the ordinances of the law
in general, least of all can they be considered as bound by that
of the Sabbath, which was the special cause of its institution.”
Again, on page 332 :
“ The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particu
lar day of worship has been appointed in its place is evident from
the same Apostle, (Rom. xiv, 5.”)
And on page 339 he concludes :
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
27
‘ ‘ First, that under the gospel no one day is appointed for
divine worship in preference to another, except such as the Church
may set apart, of its own authority, for the voluntary assembling
of its members; . . . and, secondly, that this may con
veniently take place once every seven days, particularly on the
first day of the week. ... I perceive also that several of
the best divines, as Bucer, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Ursinus, Gomarus, and others, concur in the opinions above ex
pressed.”
PETER HEYLYN,
Chaplain to Charles I and Charles II, as cited by Bannerman
in his Modern Sabbath Examined, (London, 1832, p. 139,) dis
courses as follows:
“ It was left to God’s people to pitch on the first day of the
week or any other, as the public use might require; for there
was no divine command that it particularly should be sanctified,
as there was concerning the Jewish Sabbath. And though this
day was taken up and made a day of meeting in the congrega
tion for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was
neither law to bind them to it nor rest from labor or from worldly
business required upon it. And when it seemed good unto
Christian princes to lay restraints upon their people, yet at first
it was not general, but only this: that certain men in certain
places should lay aside their ordinary works to attend to God’s
service in the church ; those engaged in employments that were
most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sab
bath being allowed to follow and pursue their labors, because
most necessary to the Commonwealth. And in following times,
when the princes and prelates endeavored to restrain them from
that also, it was not brought about without much strugglin''
and opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being
past after Christ’s ascension before the Lord’s day had attained
that state in which it now standeth. ... In all this
time, in twelve hundred years, we find no Sabbath.”
ARCHBISHOP WHATELY,
In his Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul., (Andover edi
tion, p. 160,) says:
�2S
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
“ Throughout the whole liturgy and rubric the word Sabbath
never once occurs. Our reformers, there is every reason to
believe, concurred in taking the same view of the obligation of
the fourth commandment as is set forth in the catechism extant
under the name of Archbishop Cranmer, published in the be
ginning of the reign of Edward VI: ‘ The Jews in the Old Tes
tament were commanded to keep the Sabbath day; and they
observed every seventh day, called the Sabbat or Satterday.
But we Christian men in the New Testament are not bound to
such commandments of Moses’ law.”
Again, on page 163 :
“We find, in short, the most ample evidence of the observance
of the Lord’s day as a Christian festival by the Apostles and
their immediate converts, whose example has been followed by
all Christian churches down to this day; but that in so doing
they conceived themselves to be observing a precept of he
Levitical law, that they taught the doctrine of a transfer of the
Sabbath from one day to another, we find not only no evidence,
but every conceivable evidence to the contrary.”
JEREMY TAYLOR
Treats of the Sabbath at great length. We subjoin a few pas
sages from vol. xii, of his Whole Works :
‘ ‘ The Christians for a long time together did keep their conven
tions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were
read. ... At first they kept both days, with this only dif
ference : that though they kept the Sabbath, yet it was after the
Christian, that is, after the spiritual manner. . . . They
did it without any opinion of essential obligation and without the
Jewish rest. . . . We find it affirmed by Balsamo, ‘ The
Sabbath day and the Lord’s day were almost in all things made
equal by the holy fathers.’ . . . The effect of which
consideration is, that the Lord’s day did not succeed in the place
of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the
Lord’s day was merely an ecclesiastical institution.
And the primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the
Lord's day, even in times of persecution, when they are the
strictest observers of all the Divine commandments. But in this
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
29
they knew there was none; and therefore when Constantine, the
Emperor, had made an edict against working upon the Lord’s
day, yet he excepts and still permitted to agriculture the labors
of the husbandman whatsoever; for ‘ God regardeth not outward
cessation from works more upon one day than another,’ as St.
Epiphanius disputes well against the Ebionites and Manichseans.”
NEANDER,
The most profound Church historian, in vol. i, sec. 3, of his Gen
eral History of the Christian Religion and Church in the three
first centuries, (first edition,) thus speaks of Sunday :
“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always
only a human ordinance ; and it was far from the intention of the
Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from
them and from the early Apostolic Church, to transfer the laws
of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second
century a false application of this kind had begun to take place,
for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sun
day as a sin.”
In the second edition, which the author issued in 1843, the
foregoing passage is not found, nor indeed anything like it. The
explanation of so remarkable an omission is given by the trans
lator in his preface to the English edition, (Edinburgh, 1851-2,)
as follows : “In this new edition the alterations are numerous and
important. . . . These important changes, not here and there,
but through the entire page and paragraphs, have made it neces
sary to translate nearly the whole of the first volume anew.”
That Neander did modify bis views on the Sunday question ap
pears not only from the radical changes made in the second edi
tion of his General Church History, but from the following pas
sages contained in his prior work, entitled, History of the Plant
ing and Training of the Christian Church, (Edinburgh, 1842,
vol. i, p. 156 :)
“According to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, the Mosaic
law in its whole extent had lost its value as such to Christians ;
. . . but whatever was binding as a law for the Christian life
�30
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
must, as such, derive its authority from another quarter. Hence
the transference of the Old Testament command of the sanctity
of the Sabbath to the New Testament standing point was not
admissible. . . , Thus all the days of the Christian life must
be equally holy to the Lord. . . . He fears that his labors
among them, [the Galatians,] to make them Christians, had been
in vain, because they reckoned the observance of certain days as
holy to be an essential part of religion. . . . We must de
duce the religious observance of Sunday, not from the Jewish
Christian churches, but from the peculiar circumstances of the Gen
tile Christians, and may account for the practice in the following
manner: Where the circumstances of the churches did not allow
of daily meetings for devotion, . . . although on the Chris
tian standing point all days were to be considered as equally holy,
in an. equal manner devoted to the Lord, yet, on account of
peculiar outward relations, such a distinction of a particular day
was adopted for religious communion.”
WILLIAM PALEY,
Author of standard works on Natural Theology, Evidences of'
Christianity, and Moral and Political Philosophy, in discussing
the Sabbath question in the last mentioned work, chap, vii,
says :
“St. Paul evidently appears to have considered the Sabbath
as part of the Jewish ritual, and not obligatory on Christians as
such.” (Col. ii, 16, 17.)
And in regard to the first day of the week he speaks as follows :
“A cessation upon that day from labor beyond the time of
attendance upon public worship is not intimated in any passage
of the New Testament; nor did Christ or his Apostles deliver,
that we know of, any command to their disciples for a discontin
uance, upon that day, of the common affairs of their professions.
The opinion that Christ and his Apostles meant to
retain the duties of the Jewish Sabbath, shifting only the dav
from the seventh to the first, seems to prevail without sufficient
reason ; uor does any evidence remain in the Scripture (of what,
howevei, is not improbable) that the first day of the week was
thus distinguished in commemoration of our Lord’s resurrec
tion.”
�ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
If the Christian Sabbath, so called, be of Divine appointment,
to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, it must take its origin
from that event. During the forty days thereafter that Jesus
remained on earth, (Acts i, 3,) it is conceded that He gave no
command to observe any day as a Sabbath. Did He then by His
example indicate such an observance ?
According to Matthew, He met the two Marys on the morning
of the day of his resurrection, and bade them “ go tell my breth
ren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”
(xxviii, 10.) “ Then the eleven disciples went away into Gal
ilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them,” (v. 16;)
and after receiving from Him a command to teach and baptize,
the narrative ends. Is it not very remarkable, if this was the
first Christian Sabbath, that we find no intimation of it here, but
on the contrary an order sent to the disciples, which they seem
to have straightway obeyed, to set out on a journey of more than
fifty miles ? Only one meeting with the disciples after the resur
rection is recorded, and that, being in a far off mountain, can
hardly be supposed to have occurred on Sunday. In short, there
is no intimation in Matthew’s narrative that the risen Jesus met
His disciples at all on the first day of the week.
According to Mark, the two Marys and Salome received the
instruction to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee from the
young man in a long, white garment. A little later in the day
Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene alone, who went and told the
disciples that He was alive, (xvi, 10;) afterward He appeared to
two of His disciples as they went into the country, (v. 12;) and
lastly, to the eleven as they sat at meat, (y. 14.) The three
appearances seem to have occurred on the same day; and not only
31
�32
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
is there no indication of the special observance of that day, but
quite the contrary ; for two of the disciples were journeying into
the country, an act entirely inconsistent with the keeping of a
Sabbath, and Jesus appears to have kept them company. The
meeting of the eleven at meat would seem to have been in the
evening, (John xx, 19,) which, according to the Jewish division
of time, was the beginning of another day. So there is no inti
mation in Mark’s narrative of the observance of the first day of
the week.
According to Luke, the two Marys, Joanna, and other women,
having visited the empty sepulchre, went and told the fact to the
eleven, (xxiv, 9.) Then that same day, as two of the disciples were
going to the village of Emmaus, (v. 13,) a distance of seven and a
half miles, Jesus drew near and walked with them ; and when they
came to the village “ He made as though He would have gone
further,” (v. 28,) but they constrained Him to take supper with
them, the day being “far spent;” after which they returned to
Jerusalem, where they met the rest of the eleven and others
gathered together. But presently Jesus himself appeared among
them, (y. 36.) Here we have the fact of Jesus and two of the
disciples traveling a distance of fourteen miles, which is adverse
to the recognition, even by Jesus himself, of the sacredness of
the day. Nor did He meet the eleven disciples until late in the
evening, which was the second day of the week; for it is not to
be supposed that the disciples, who were all Jews, had suddenly
discarded the Jewish division of time, by which the day began at
sunset. Moreover, there is nothing to show that this meeting of
the disciples was extraordinary, or more than accidental. The
two disciples appear to have returned from Emmaus on purpose
to tell the rest that Jesus was alive, so that their attendance at
least was accidental; and in spite of the information that the other
nine had received of the resurrection from these two, as well as
from the women, His appearance among them was a surprise, and
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
33
with difficulty did He persuade them that He was not a spirit.
Then He led them out to Bethany, (w. 50,) whence He was car
ried up into heaven. Luke, like Mark, mentions but this one
meeting of Christ with His disciples, and every circumstance
recorded is opposed to the recognition of the day of the resurrec
tion as a Sabbath.
According to John, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene,
(xx, 14,) who went and told the disciples, (y. 18.) “Then the
same day at evening/’ ten of the eleven disciples being assembled,
Jesus came among them, (v. 19.) This meeting was not on the
first but the second day of the week, as we have already seen,
and the appearance of Jesus among the ten was a surprise. He
convinced His incredulous disciples that He was alive; but they
could not afterward convince the absent Thomas of the fact. So,
“after eight days,” when the eleven were assembled, Jesus ap
peared again among them, (y. 26,) apparently for the sole pur
pose of convincing Thomas. Admitting that “ after eight days”
means one week, which is disputed by learned theologians, it is
certain that this second meeting, which is mentioned by John
only, was, like the first, on the second day of the week. John
mentions a third appearance of Jesus to the disciples when they
were fishing, (xxi, 3, 4,) which of course could not have been
on a Sabbath.
So, then, there is not the slightest testimony in any of the four
Gospels to the observance of Sunday as a Sabbath. Surely, if
the day was thenceforth to be hallowed, there must have been
some intimation of it by at least one of the Evangelists ; but on
the contrary, every recorded circumstance is against it.
Here we might rest the case, for if Christ did not institute a
Christian Sabbath, what authority had His Apostles, much less
their successors, to do it? But waiving that objection, let us turn
to the Acts of the Apostles and remaining books of the New Tes
tament, and see if they contain any warrant for the sanctification
of Sunday.
�34
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH
The first nineteen chapters of Acts contain no reference what
ever to the first day of the week. On the other hand, we there
have a history of twenty-five years of Paul’s ministry, in which
he constantly preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath-day of
the Jews, showing that if he had any regard for one day as holier
than another it was the seventh day. But there is no intimation
even of this, and many passages in his epistles are clearly against
the observance of any Sabbath. (Rom. xiv, 5; Gal. iv, 10Col. ii, 16.)
The first and only mention of the first day of the week in Acts
is in chap, xx, 7, where it is said the disciples came together on
that day to break bread, and Paul, ready to depart on the mor
row, preached to them till midnight; i. e., six hours into the sec
ond day of the week. But after midnight they again broke bread,
(y. 11,) and Paul talked till daybreak; i. e., ten hours or more
into the second day of the week. ,Rut if, as may be the fact, this
meeting was on Saturday evening, which was the beginning of
the Jewish first day, then it is certain that Paul, in taking his
departure in the morning, traveled on Sunday. The fact of the
disciples coming together to break bread on the first day of the
week has no significance as to the sacredness of that day, because
it was a daily practice, as we read in Acts ii, 46. So there is
nothing in Acts xx, 7, to indicate the special observance of Sun
day.
The last and only othei- mention of the first day of the week
in the New Testament is in 1st Corinthians, xvi, 2, where every
one is exhorted to lay by him in store on that day for a collection.
Nothing further can be inferred from this than that on that par
ticular day the Corinthian Christians, like the Galatians, were to
lay by their contributions—reserved, perhaps, from the earnings
of the past week.
The only mention of the “Lord’s day” in the New Testament
is in Revelations i, 10 : “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”
�ALL DAYS ALIKE IIOLY.
Granting that by this was meant the first day of the week, and
not a particular day of the year, (which was possible,) it proves
nothing as to the sacredness of Sunday, especially as it was the
custom in the early Christian church to meet on other days as
well as Sunday for religious purposes. To establish this fact we
produce Neander, author of the most profound and exhaustive
history of the Christian church yet produced, who, in speaking
of the observance of festive days in the first three centuries, (vol.
i, second edition, p 402,) says :
“ Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy. . . . The Friday of
•each week, this day in particular, and the Thursday, were specially con
secrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ and of the prepara
tory circumstances. On those days there were meetings for prayer and
fasting till three o’clock in the afternoon. . . . Those Churches, how
ever, which were composed of Jewish Christians, though they admitted
with the rest the festival of Sunday, yet retained also the Sabbath.”
Again, in vol. iii, p. 398:
“ Yet the most distinguished Church teachers of this period continue still
to express the purely Christian idea of the relation of the festivals to the
whole Christian life. . . . Thus Jerome asserts that, considered in a
purely Christian point of view, all days are alike, and every day is for the
Christian a Friday, . . . every day a Sunday. . . . Chrysostom
delivered a discourse at Antioch, in which he showed that those who never
attended church except on the principal festivals adopted the Jewish point
of view ; that on the other hand the Christian celebration of festivals was
not necessarily restricted to certain times, but embraced the whole life.
. . . In like manner the Church historian Socrates remarks that Christ
and the Apostles, conformably to Christian freedom, gave no law respect
ing feasts, but left everything open here to the free expression of feelings.
. . Socrates mentions it as a peculiarity of the Alexandrian Church,
that on Wednesday and Friday the Holy Scriptures were read in the Church
and expounded by homilies; and in general the whole service conducted
as on Sunday, the celebration of the communion excepted. This custom
probably vanished by degrees in most of the Churches ; only Friday con
tinued to be consecrated to the memory of Christ’s passion. The Emperor
Constantine, as Sozomon relates, enacted a law that on Friday, as on Sun
day, there should be a suspension of business at the courts and in other
civil offices, so that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the
purpose of devotion. At Antioch the communion was celebrated on Fri
day as well as on Sunday. Also, at Constantinople, Friday was observed
by the more serious Christians as a day of penitence and fasting, conse
crated to the memory of Christ’s passion, and the Sacrament of the Sup
per was distributed. . . . In several of the Eastern Churches the Sab
bath was celebrated nearly after the same manner as Sunday.”
�36
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH:
In Mosheim’s Church History (cent, ii, part ii, ch. iv, sec.
8) the observance of four days of the week by the Christians of
the second century is mentioned, namely : the first, the fourth,
the sixth, and the seventh—the fourth being the day on which
Christ was betrayed, and the sixth day on which he was crucified.
In Jeremy Taylor’s treatise on the Sabbath ( Whole Works, vol.
xii,) he says that the primitive Christians continued to meet
publicly on the Jewish Sabbath until the time of the Council of
Laodicea, (A. D. 368,) when the observance of that day was ex
pressly forbidden in these words: “ Christians must not keep a
rest Sabbath, but work upon that day, preferring the Lord’s day
before it. If they will rest on that day let them rest as Chris
tians ; but if they rest as Jews, let them be accursed.”
It is needless to cumulate proof of the fact that the primitive
Christians were accustomed to meet for religious purposes on other
days beside Sunday. There can be no question of it. Indeed,
if any day of the week was more generally used than another
for Christian worship in the first three centuries it was the sev
enth day, or Jewish Sabbath.
The “Lord’s day” mentioned in Rev. i, 10, probably meant
the “great day of God Almighty,” (xvi, 14,) or “ the great day
of His wrath,” (vi, 17,) and the proper rendering of the passage
would be, “I was in spirit on the Lord’s day,” i. e., the day of
God’s wrath. At all events it is mere conjecture that it meant
Sunday, and it would be a bettei’ conjecture that it meant the old
Sabbath. The date of the book of Revelation is given in the
margin of our Bibles as A. D. 96, but modern criticism fixes it
about A. D. 70. The earliest use of the expression “ Lord’s
day” we have been able to find in the writings of the Fathers is
in the Miscellanies of Clement of Alexandria, (B. v, p. 284;
Ante-Micene Lib., vol. xii,) the date of which is assigned be
tween A. D. 194 and 202. Eusebius, however, (B. iv, ch. 23,)
quotes it from an epistle (not now extant) of Dionysius, who was
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
37
made bishop of Corinth, A. D. 170. Assuming that Eusebius
quoted it correctly, we have but these two occurrences of it in the
writings of the Fathers of the first two centuries, unless what is
known as the long epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, which
is generally regarded as spurious, was forged before the year 200.
That epistle, which is an enlargement of the short one, contains
these words:
“Let us, therefore, no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner,
and rejoice in days of idleness, . . . but let every one of you keep the
Sabbath after a spiritual mauner. . . . And after the observance of
the Sabbath let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival ;
the resurrection day, the queen and chief of days.” (Ch. ix.)
The short epistle, which, though questionable, is believed by
some to be genuine, and therefore written about the end of the
first century, also contains the expression “Lord’s day” in our
translations, but not in the original Greek. In Archbishop
Wake’s translation we read, “No longer observing Sabbaths, but
keeping the Lord’s day.” (Ch. iii, 3.) The Greek reads, kata
kuriaken zoen zontes, and the rendering should be, “living
according to the Lord’s life.” This, too, makes far better sense
of the whole passage, thus : “ No longer observing Sabbaths, but
living according to the Lord’s life, in which also our life is sprung
up,” &c.
It therefore appears that until about the close of the second cen
tury the expression “ Lord’s day” occurs but barely once in any
existing manuscript, namely, the Book of Revelations; and it is
presumptuous to assume that it meant a Christian Sabbath. Nor
is the meaning of the expression as used by Clement of Alexan
dria, A. D. 194-202, any more certain; for in repeating it
(B. vii, ch. xii) he seems to regard any day as the Lord’s day.
Furthermore, it is a remarkable fact that the most learned advo
cates of the Christian Sabbath, in applying Rev. i, 10, to Sunday,
never refer to any writer earlier than the fourth century who
quotes it. Hence there may be just ground for the suspicion that
�38
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH !
the passage was interpolated in that Book about or prior to the
time of Constantine.
Still it is conceded that Sunday had begun to be observed in a
special manner about the middle of the second century. Justin
Martyr, in his Apology, written about this time, speaks of the
celebration of the “day of the Sun, because on this first day God
made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.”
But no observance of Sunday is to be traced in any writer of the
first century; and when the observance began, the laws of the
Sabbath were not transferred to Sunday; nor were they so applied
at all until, says Neander, “perhaps at the end of the second
century a false application of this kind had begun to take place.”
(First Edition, vol. i, sec. 3.) The observance of the day seems
to have grown up gradually from about A. D. 140 to A. D. 321,
when the Emperor Constantine issued the following edict:
“Let all judgesand people of the town and all the various trades be
suspended on the venerable day of the Sun, [die Solis.] Those who live
in the country, however, may freely and without fault attend to the culti
vation of their fields, (since it often happens that no other day may be so
suitable for sowing grain and planting the vine;) lest, with the loss of
favorable opportunity, the commodities offered by Divine Providence
should be destroyed.’’ ( Cod. Justin., lib. iii, tit. 12, secs. 2, 3.)
In this edict the day is not called the ‘ ‘ Lord’s day,” but ‘ ‘ Sun
day,” or literally the “Sun’s day,” which was the Pagan desig
nation. And not only did Constantine ordain the observance of
Sunday, but also of Friday.Says Eusebius, in his Life of Con
stantine, Book iv, chap. 18 :
“ He commanded that through all the Roman empire they should forbear
to do any work upon the Lord’s day, and that they should reverence the
day immediately before the Sabbath, in regard to our Saviour’s memorable
and divine actions performed on those days.”
It is the Christian historian Eusebius, and not Constantine,
who here uses the expression “Lord’s day ” Sylvester, who was
bishop of Rome while Constantine was emperor, in order, as it
is stated, to give more solemnity to the first day of the week,
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
39
changed its name from Sunday, which Constantine had given it,
to the more imposing one of the “Lord’s day.” (ZtictW Eccl.
Hist., cent, v, p. 470.)
The Rev. James Gilfillan, in his able work on the Sabbath,
indorsed and extensively distributed by the New York Sabbath
Committee in 1865, concedes that “ the Fathers of the first three
centuries believed that the Jewish Sabbath-day had been set
aside,” (p. 377,) but labors to prove that they recognized the
Divine appointment of the first day of the week, in place of the
seventh, as a “day of rest and worship,” citing several of the
early Fathers. Let us take them up in their order, and see what
they prove.
All that Clement of Rome (A. D. 68-97) says is, that “ offer
ings and sacred services ” were commanded by our Lord to be
rendered “ at appointed times and hours.”
“ Barnabus, disclaiming the old Sabbath-day,” says Gilfillan,
“ declares the eighth day to be its acceptable substitute.” The
epistle of Barnabus is unquestionably spurious, and its date can
not be fixed earlier than A. D. 120. (Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. i.)
Here is what the writer of that epistle says:
“Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all
things will be finished. ‘And He rested on the seventh day.’ This meaneth : when His Son, coming [again,] shall destroy the time of the wicked
man and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the
stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. . . . Further, He
says to them: 1 Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.’
Ye perceive how He speaks. Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to
me, but that is which I have made, [namely, this,] when giving rest to all
things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day; that is, a beginning
of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyful
ness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead, and, when
He had manifested Himself, ascended into the heavens.” (Ante-Nicene Lib.,
vol. i, ch. xv )
Whatever the character of the observance of the eighth day
may have been when this epistle was written, it is clear that it
was not a day of rest, and the “joyfulness” of its observance
�40
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
implies that it was a festive day. It was, therefore, by no means
■an ‘ acceptable substitute,” as Gilfillan asserts, for the “ old Sab
bath-day.”
Justin Martyr (A. D. 140-165) is claimed as the next wit
ness for the substitution of Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath, be
cause he says that the Christians assembled for worship in his
time on the day of the Sun, “because on this first day God made
the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.”
{Apology, ch. lxvii.) This is a most unfortunate passage to prove
a Sabbath, for it denies all possible connection between Sunday
and the fourth commandment. Nothing is said by Justin about
observing Sunday as a day of rest in obedience to the law of the
Decalogue, and we have already seen (p. 20) that he says there
is no more need of Sabbaths now.
The testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, is based on the statemont of Eusebius (B. iv, ch. 26) that he wrote a book on the
subject of the Lord's day in A. D. 170, or later. This is a mis
translation; in the original Greek it is Kuriakes logos—“Lord’s
discourse.”
That of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, (A. D. 170 or later,)
is, that Eusebius, in the fourth century, quotes him as having
written, “ We have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have
read your epistle.” It is second-hand testimony, and amounts
to little or nothing if true.
That of Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, (A. D. 168-188,) is
that he “ appeals to the observance of the Lord’s day as a cus
tom in the churches.” Eusebius, to whom reference is made,
states no such thing in regard to Theophilus of Antioch, but he
does speak of a Theophilus, Bishop of Cesarea, (A. D. 180-192,)
who presided at a council which enacted “ that the mystery of
our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than
the Lord’s day.” (B. v., ch. 23.) This is also second-hand
testimony, and of little or no weight if true.
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY,
41
The testimony of Irenaeus (A. D. 177-202) is in his saying
that the “true sanctification of the Sabbath consists in doing
works of mercy;” and that the commandments of the Decalogue
“ continue with us, extended and enlarged, not abolished.” (B.
iv, ch. 16.) But in the very next sentence Irenaeus calls these
commandments “laws of bondage,” and adds: “These things,
therefore, which were given for bondage and for a sign to them
He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. But He has in
creased and widened those laws which are natural, and noble, and
common to all.” Furthermore, in section 1 of the same chapter,
he quotes Exod. xxxi, 13, and Ezek. xx, 12, to prove that the
Sabbath was a sign, and says: “The Sabbaths taught that we
should continue, day by day, in God’s service.” Again, in sec
tion 2, he says:
“And that man was not justified by these things, but that they were
given as a sign to the people, this fact shows—that Abraham himself, with
out circumcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, ‘ believed God
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend
of God.’ . . . Moreover, all the rest of themultitude of those righteous
men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded
Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned and
without the law of Moses. As also Moses himself says to the people in
Deuteronomy: 1 The Lord thy God formed a covenant in Horeb. The
Lord formed not this covenant with your fathers, but for you.’ ”
Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 189-202) is quoted by Gilfillan
is saying, “ The eighth day appears rightly to be named the sev
enth, and to be the true Sabbath.” This, if correctly rendered,
would be testimony of some weight, but in the recent translation
(Ante-Flcene Lib., vol. xii, B. vi, The Fourth Commandment') it,
is rendered thus : ‘ ‘ The eighth day may possibly turn out to be
properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and
the latter properly the Sabbath. ” So the passage proves nothing
in favor of Sunday Sabbatarianism.
Tertullian (A. D. 193-220) is cited in proof of the sanctity
of the Lord’s day. In his time it is quite possible, as Neander
�42
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH !
intimates, that a false application of the laws of the Sabbath to
Sunday began to prevail. Tertullian discusses the question of
kneeling in prayer on the Sabbath and on the day of the Lord’s
resurrection, (not “ Lord’s day/’ as Gilfillan quotes it,) and says
that on the last-mentioned day we “ought to guard not only
against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; defer
ring even our business lest we give any place to the devil.” And
he adds : “ Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost,which period
we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. But who
would hesitate every day to prostrate himself before God, at least
in the first prayer, with which we enter on the daylight ?” (AnteNicene Lib., vol. xi, ch. xxiii, On Prayer.We have seen, fur
thermore, that Tertullian speaks of Sunday as “ a day of festiv
ity/’ and of observing “ a Sabbath from all servile work always,
not only every seventh day, but through all time.” (P. 22.)
He is certainly, therefore, far from being a witness in favor of
Sabbatarianism.
All that Minutius Felix (A. D. 210) says on the subject, as
quoted by Gilfillan, is this: “ On a solemn da,y persons of 'both
sexes and of every age assemble at a feast, with all their children,
sisters, and mothers.” The scene described by this enemy of
Christianity, if at all truthful, is one that does not in the least
comport with the observance of a holy day. {Octavius of Minu
tius Felix, ch. ix, Anti-Nicene Lib., vol. xiii.)
Origen, who wrote about A. D. 230, while he repudiates the
“Jewish Sabbath observances,” commends the “Christian ob
servance of the Sabbath,” in abstaining from secular duties to
attend to spiritual exercises. Here is the first witness of any
weight in favor of modern Sabbatarianism. He concludes his
instructions by saying : “ This is the observance of the Christian
Sabbbath”—Sabbati Christiani. Here, 200 years after the cruci
fixion, we find the first use of the term “Christian Sabbath.”
We believe not a solitary writer can be found prior to Origen who
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
43
ever called Sunday the Sabbath, and even he seems to have ap
plied the term only by way of contrast. Nor did any one of them,
Origen included, claim the fourth commandment as authorizing
Sunday observance. If we are perchance mistaken in regard to
these facts, we will fall back on the statement of Richard Baxter,
who,in speaking of Sunday, says: “ The ancient churches called
it constantly by the name of ‘ Lord’s day,’ and never called it the
SabbathWit, when they spoke analogically by allusion to the Jew
ish Sabbath.” (-Baxter’s Works, vol. iii, “ On the Lord’s Day,”
ch. 7.) Gilfillan erroneously makes Tertullian speak of the duty
of abstaining from work on Sunday, (p. 378,) when it was the
Jewish Sabbath that Tertullian was discussing.
The next one of the Fathers cited is Cyprian, Bishop of Car
thage, (A. D 253,) who says: “The eighth day, that is, the
first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in
the figure; which figure ceased when, by-and-by, the truth came
and spiritual circumcision was given.” (Ante-Nicene Lib., vol.
viii, Ep. lviii.) Cyprian, in this chapter, discusses solely the
question of infant baptism—whether or not it should be admin
istered before the eighth day—and makes no allusion whatever to
any observance of the Lord’s day.
To complete the proof of “ the ordinance of a weekly season
of rest and devotion ” in the first three centuries, Gilfillan says
that Commodian, a Christian poet, (A. D. 270,) mentions the
Lord’s day, and that Victorinus, Bishop of Petau, (A. D. 290,)
speaks of the custom of fasting on the seventh day, lest they
“ should seem to observe the Sabbath of the Jews.” This quo(ation is neither correct nor complete. It reads : “ Lest we should
appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Him
self, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘ His
soul hateth ;’ and which Sabbath He, in His body, abolished.”
Furthermore, Victorinus says that the “true and just Sabbath
should be observed in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ
�44
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH I
with His elect shall reign.” {Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xviii, p
390.)
Such is the meagre and barren testimony upon which the ex
istence of a Christian Sabbath is vainly sought to be traced
through the first three centuries. The proof is entirely wanting,
with the possible exception of the uncertain testimony of Origen.
Modern Sabbatarians may trace the first use of their favorite term
■“ Christian Sabbath” to him, whom they have facetiously styled
the “ Origin of all heresies.” That Sunday was observed as a
festival from a very early period is not denied, nor that in the
latter part of the second century it began to be called the Lord’s
day. But, says Jeremy Taylor—
“ It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because
they for almost 300 years together kept that day which was in that com
mandment ; but they did it also without any opinion of prime obligation,
and therefore they did not suppose it moral. . . . They affirmed it to
be ceremonial and no part of the moral law, as is to be seen in Irenaeus,
Tertuliian, Origen, St. Cyprian, and others before quoted.”
Says the learned Heylyn, as quoted by Bannerman, {.Modern
Sabbath Examined, p. 139 :)
“ Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands—on custom
first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom
continued by the authority of the Church of God, which tacitly approved
the same, and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes through
out their empires.”
This same author, Heylyn, as we have already seen, (p. 27,)
says that more than a thousand years passed after Christ’s ascen
sion before the Lord’s day had attained that state in which it
stood in his time, (A. D. 1660,) and that for “ 1,200 years we
find no Sabbath.” Until some time after the Reformation, in the
sixteenth century, Sunday was uniformly regarded throughout
Christendom as a weekly festival or holiday. How it grew up to
be a holy day will appear from the extracts subjoined. Says Ban
nerman, (p. 143:)
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
45
“ In 1541 Edward VI thus directed the clergy : ‘All parsons,vicars, and
curates shall teach and declare unto their parishioners that they may, with
a safe and quiet conscience, in the time of harvest, labor upon the holy and
festival days and save that which God hath sent.’ . . . The festival
days mentioned included, it is well known, all Sundays in the year. These
directions were adopted by Elizabeth in 1559, adding merely to the words
‘quiet conscience,’ ‘ after their common prayer.’ The act of 1552 declared
it ‘ lawful for every husbandman, laborer, fisherman, &c., upon the holy
days aforesaid, in harvest time or any other time in the year, when neces
sity shall require, to labor, ride, fish, or work any kind of work, at their
free wills and pleasure.’ ”
“ It was shortly after this that the doctrine that the prescriptions of the
fourth commandment have been transferred to the first day of the week
was introduced into this country, [England.] It has been traced to Dr.
Bownd, who published a book upon the subject in the year 1594[5.] . . .
This new doctrine was for a long time strenuously opposed by the leading
divines of the English church ; it was warmly contended for, however, by
the Puritans, and shortly became one of the most distinguishing tenets of
that party.”
Says Dr. Heylyn, in his History of the Presbyterians, p. 24 :
“He [Calvin] esteemed no otherwise of the Lord’s day Sabbath than of
an ecclesiastical constitution appointed by our ancestors in the place of the
Sabbath, and, therefore, alterable from one day to another at the Church’s
pleasure, followed therein by all the churches of his party, who thereupon
permit all lawful recreations and many works of necessary labor on the day
itself, provided that the people be not thereby hindered from giving their
attendance in the Church at the times appointed ; insomuch that in Ge
neva, itself, all manner of exercises, as running, vaulting, leaping, shoot
ing, and many others of that nature, are as indifferently indulged on the
Lord’s day as on any other. How far the English Puritans departed from
their mother Church, both in doctrine and practice, with reference to this
particular, we shall see hereafter.”
Then on p. 337 he shows how the Puritan Sabbath was estab
lished :
“The brethren had tried many ways to suppress them [the ancient fes
tivals] formerly, as having too much in them of the superstitions of the
Church of Rome, but they had found no way successful till they fell on
this, which was to set on foot some new Sabbath doctrine, and, by advanc
ing the authority of the Lord’s day Sabbath, to cry down the rest. Some
had been hammering at this anvil ten years before, and had procured the
mayor and aidermen of London to present a petition to the Queen for the
suppression of all plays and interludes on the Sabbath (as they pleased to
call it) within the liberties of their city, the gaining of which point made
them hope for more, and secretly to retail those speculations which after
ward [Dr.] Bownd sold in gross by publishing his treatise on the Sabbath,,
which came out in this year, 1595.”
�46
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH :
“ Now for the doctrine. It was marshalled in these positions ; that is to
say, that the commandment of sanctifying every Sabbath-day, as in the
Mosaical decalogue, is natural, moral, and perpetual; that when all other
things in the Jewish Church were so changed that they were clean taken
away, this stands—the observation of the Sabbath. And though Jewish
and Rabbinical this doctrine was, it carried a fair show of piety, at the
least, in the opinion of the common people, and such as did not stand to
examine the true grounds thereof, but took it upon the appearance; such
as did judge, not by the workmanship of the stuff, but the gloss and color,
in which it is not strange to see how suddenly men were induced not only
to give way unto it. but without more ado to abet the same, till in the end
and in very little time it grew the most bewitching error and most popu
lar infatuation that ever was infused into the people of England.”
Coleridge also bears testimony to the modern origin of the Chris
tian Sabbath. Commenting upon the passage which he quotes
from Luther, (p. 22,) he says:
“ The English reformers took the same view of the day as Luther and
the early Church. But, unhappily, our Church, in the reigns of James
and Charles First, was so identified with the undue advancement of the
royal prerogative that the puritanical Judaism of the Presbyterians was
too well seconded by the patriots of the nation in resisting the wise efforts
of the Church to prevent the incipient alteration of the character of the
day of rest. After the restoration the bishops and clergy in general
adopted the view taken and enforced by their enemies.”
The astounding spread of the new Sabbath doctrine is attested
also by Gilfillan himself, who quotes Fuller, the historian, as say
ing
It is almost incredible how taking this doctrine was. . . .
For some years together Dr. Bownd alone carried the garland
away, none offering openly to oppose, and not so much as a feather
of a quill in print did wag against him.” (P. 70.) The publi
cation of Dr. Bownd’s treatise, says Gilfillan, was “the com
mencement of the earliest Sabbatic contest, entitled to the name,
in the Christian Church,” (p. 66 ;) and the author goes on to give a
history of the agitation, which culminated in the incorporation of
the new Sabbath doctrine in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
agreed upon in 1643, approved by the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland in 1647, and ratified by act of Parliament in
1649. The doctrine was introduced into Holland by some Eng
lish Puritans, but with poor success. John Robinson, pastor of
�ALL DAYS ALIKE HOLY.
47
the Pilgrim Fathers, left England in 1608, and settled in Hol
land, whence in 1620 he and his flock came to America. “Of
the various reasons for the resolution to quit their adopted coun
try for America,” says Gilfillan, “ one was that they could not
bring the Dutch to observe the Lord’s day as a Sabbath.” (P.
91.) “The controversy,” says Hengstenberg, {Ibid., p. 117,)
“ was kept up in Holland till the eighteenth century, but with
great calmness. However, the more liberal views gradually ad
vanced, and became more and more prevalent throughout the Re
formed Churches, with the exception of Great Britain.”
Thus we see where the so-called Christian Sabbath originated,
when it was instituted, and by whom it was ordained. Its origin
was not in Judea, but in Great Britain; it was instituted not
in the first century, but in the seventeenth; it was ordained not
by Christ or His Apostles, but by the Puritans.
ORIGIN AND ABROGATION OF THE JEWISH SABBATH.
The origin of the seventh-day Sabbath is not involved in the
present discussion, but the weight of evidence, as well as of Chris
tian authority, fixes it after the exodus of the Israelites from
Egypt. Says Calmet, in his Dictionary of the Bible, first pub
lished by him in 1730 :
“The greater part of the Divines and Commentators hold that the ben
ediction and sanctification of the Sabbath mentioned by Moses in the be
ginning of Genesis signifies only that appointment then made of the sev
enth day, to be afterward solemnized and sanctified by the Jews.”
The learned Dr. Gill, in commenting on Gen. ii, 3, “And Godblessed the seventh day,” &c., remarks:
“These words may be read in a parenthesis, as containing an account of
a fact that was done not at the beginning of the world and on the seventh
day of it, but of what had been done in the time of Moses, who wrote this
after the giving of the law of the Sabbath.”
Throughout all history we discover no trace of a Sabbath among
the nations of antiquity. Says Theodoretus, a Christian Father,
�48
SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH.
(A. D. 429 :) “ No other nation beside the Jews ever observed
the Sabbatic rest.” (Comment, in Ezek. xx.) Passages from
Josephus, Philo, and other ancieut writers, have been mistrans
lated to support a contrary theory. The Christian Fathers uni
formly regarded the Sabbath as a ceremonial institution peculiar
to the Jews, and as having been abrogated by the advent of Christ,
with no other day substituted therefor. Such also were the views
of the most illustrious reformers and many of the most brilliant
ecclesiastical writers, besides those already quoted. That the
Apostle Paul taught the same doctrine is clear from Col. ii, 16,
1/; Gal. iv, 10, 11, and Rom. xiv, 5. His teachings in this
respect are in harmony with the adjudication of the first great
Council of the Church, A. D.52, which decreed that the keeping
of the law, with the exception of three (or four) things named, two
of them of a moral nature and the other ceremonial, was a burden
not to be laid upon the Gentiles. (Acts xv, 24, 28, 29.) The
observance of the Sabbath was not one of the articles enjoined.
The Gentile converts knew no Sabbath, and it is incredible that
that question should have been ignored if Sabbath-keeping was
an essential part of Christianity. Therefore, by the formal de
cree of that first Church Council, the Sabbath was wholly and
unequivocally abrogated.
Stereotyped and Printed by Gibson Brothers, Washington, D. C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Sunday not the Sabbath: all days alike holy. A controversy between the Rev. Dr. Sunderland, Wm. Henry Burr, and others
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Burr, William Henry
Sunderland, Byron [1819-1901]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 48 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stereotyped and printed by Gibson Brothers, Washington D.C. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Byron Sunderland was an American Presbyterian minister, author, and Chaplain of the United States Senate during the American Civil War. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT25
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Sunday not the Sabbath: all days alike holy. A controversy between the Rev. Dr. Sunderland, Wm. Henry Burr, and others), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christian church
Conway Tracts
Judaism
Sabbath
Sunday