Who can change the Sabbath to Sunday?

Differences of Opinion concerning the Supposed Authority of Apostolic Tradition to Render the First Day the Weekly Sabbath.

CHAP. VIII.

Robert Burnside, 1825: WHATEVER conviction may he felt by individuals who observe the first day respecting the evidence which the New Testament affords of its divine claim to sanctification, the conviction is very far from being general in the Christian world. No one can doubt this who recollects the proof contained in the last Chapter not only of the indirect and virtual, but also of the positive and avowed disbelief of that position. The earliest Fathers and Councils, strongly as they recommend and enjoin the celebration of the first day as a festival in honour of our Lord's resurrection, never once plead the example, any more than the precept, of the apostles for it. They distinguish the day sometimes by the title of "Lord's day," as well 'as by the appellations of "first day" and Sunday; but they never tell us that they derived the expression from the Revelation, and much less attempt to justify the application of it to the weekly Sunday by quotations from the sacred writings notwithstanding the general association of the seventh day with the first day during that period in the weekly observances of Christendom proves, the doubts that prevailed concerning its exclusive right to sanctification. This practice was reserved for the modern advocates of the first day; it has not, I believe, existed much more than two centuries [prior to 1800] - many ages later than the time when the right of the Revelation to be received into the sacred canon was denied by so many eminent observers of the first day.

The decrees of councils, the edicts of princes, and the laws of nations, in favour of sanctifying the first day, both before and since the time of Protestantism, proceed chiefly, if not solely, upon the opinions and practice of the first Christians after the apostolic age, derived, as they suppose, by tradition from the apostles. The most eminent writers on the side of Sunday, such as White and Morer, take the same ground. They seem to think that - though the apostles never instituted the first day sabbath in their writings, nor ever did or directed to be done any thing on that day, assigning its sacred character as the reason, or any thing which they might not have done, had it been another day, yet that they reckoned it to be the weekly sabbath, and kept it as such - that their disciples, acquaintance, and contemporaries, knew these particulars to be facts, and observed the day accordingly - that from them the tradition passed to the Christians in the next age - and that from them it passed to the ages following in succession.

Whether or not the observers of the first day would acquiesce in this tradition, if they did not think that it was wanted to cover a defect in the title of the first day to consecration from written revelation, or if it did not at least coincide with and confirm that sense which they give to the texts usually adduced in support of the first day's claim, I am unable to say. But they cannot justly blame the Sabbatarians for reminding them on this occasion of the old maxim the soundness of which they in general admit, that "the Bible, and that only, is the religion of Protestants."

(Tradition may possibly convey truth, as appears in the instances of the "angels that kept not their first estate;" of the name borne by the evil spirit who tempted our first parents in the form of a serpent; of the prophecy delivered by Enoch; of the names of the magicians who withstood Moses in Egypt; and of the contest between Michael the archangel and the devil concerning the body of Moses. But their truth could not have been ascertained, if they had not received the sanction of Revelation. It is upon that authority that we receive them, and not upon the authority of tradition.)

As Protestants, they themselves maintain the Scriptures to be a perfect rule of faith and practice. They cannot consent to the association of Tradition with Revelation; persuaded that, however it might be the duty of the Thessalonians to "hold fast the traditions they had received," by word as well by epistle from an apostle, it was not the duty of those to do so who had received them merely from one that said or wrote that he received them from an apostle; since the contrary practice would open a wide door to all manner of error and superstition, whether arising from weakness or from wickedness. They insist also it is the duty and the right of everyone to determine the meaning of Scripture for himself provided he does not injure the civil rights of his neighbour or of his country. Accordingly, they deny that the "rock on which was to be built the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," was the person of Peter, and his pretended successors, the Popes: nor can they admit that the Church of Rome has a right to impose its sense of Scripture upon the common people,under the pretence that the unlearned and unstable, who "wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction," are to be found only among them.

Upon the same principles, which both reason and revelation strongly inculcate, when they reject the sense usually given of the phrase "Lord's day," Rev. 1:10. even admitting that it was written by the apostle John. The phrase, indeed though some times used concerning the weekly Sunday by the ancient Fathers, is never quoted and produced by them as from the Scriptures. But if they had quoted it and applied it in this manner, their authority ought to avail nothing with Protestants against the reasons before assigned for the impossibility of determining its meaning and use by the help of any other part of Holy Writ. Of these Fathers, St. Ignatius is among, if not the earliest. The editions of the epistle written by him to the Megarenses [Magnesians], which is most frequently referred to by the first day writers on the sabbath, differ so much from each other respecting the precise words of the author relative to this subject, and commentators differ so much concerning the sense of the words which they all agree that the author did write, that it seems to be wholly uncertain whether he is speaking of Judaism, or of the seventh day Sabbath; of the Lord's day, or of the Lord's life; of celebrating the first day instead of; or after, keeping the Sabbath [See Morer, p. 206.].

(According to Morer, (p. 88,) he calls Sunday "Lord's day" in his [spurious] Epistle to the Philippians.)

I have already quoted his [spurious] injunction in another part to keep the seventh day. At the same time, there certainly are passages in which he strongly urges the Christians to observe the first day as a festival in honour of Christ's resurrection, though without ever reminding them of the passage in Rev. 1:10. much less applying it to his purpose. Yet if he had quoted it, and explained it in favour of the first day, - if he had even told them that his contemporary and master, the apostle John, called the first day of the week by this name - that he kept it himself - and that he strongly inculcated the observance of it both in conversation and preaching, as being part of the will of Christ, (all which it was natural for St. Ignatius to do, and which he doubtless would have done had the things been true, considering his object,) neither the Christians of his time, nor any in succeeding ages, could, consistently with the Protestant maxims, have received his testimony as supplementary to Scripture, or as infallibly interpretative of it. Much less could they be justified in receiving any opinion or practice as apostolic from any Father or Council that was not contemporary or acquainted with the Apostles. To treat the Fathers and Councils fairly, however, they no more profess, than St. Ignatius does, in sometimes recommending or enjoining the observance of the first day under the name of the Lord's day, to be quoting or commenting upon the words of Scripture.

But in opposition to these remarks, an idea prevails on the subject of tradition, which will require some discussion. It has been said that though the Protestants object in general to the introduction of tradition to supply any supposed defect in the matter of Scripture, or to ascertain its sense, yet they do not deny its use in religion altogether. They think it lawful and even necessary in certain cases to admit its authority. The ancient Patriarchs and the Gentiles knew the divine institution of sacrifices, and observed it, only in consequence of tradition. From the same source the Protestants derive the knowledge of the books which they consider as composing the canon of the New Testament, as also of their genuine contents. It is held by many Protestants, that early and universal tradition is a sufficient ground for receiving any religious doctrine, or practice whatever.

I cannot say that the sentiments just stated appear to me to be correct, or at least useful in practice. I admit, indeed, that there must have been many things said and done by the apostles, as well as by our Lord himself, which are not recorded in the New Testament - that they must have been known to certain people - that many of them were communicated by speech, and perhaps writing, to contemporaries - that from them they passed to the next generation - and some of them, at least, from that to a third, without the possibility of determining with precision the time when the transmission would wholly cease. I admit, further, that certain of the particulars might be communicated and handed down with accuracy. But since it is impossible to tell which of these particulars contained in human writings are truly stated, and which are not, there is no safety but in rejecting them all without exception, in estimating what God would have us believe and do.

There is the more occasion to act in this manner, as the apostle tells the Thessalonians that the "mystery of iniquity" was already working. If speeches and actions were falsely attributed to a divine origin, when detection was possible, how much more might the practice be expected to exist, when detection was impossible? It was not even every thing that an apostle said or did, which, could it have been verified, would be binding on our faith and practice: and it is reasonable to think that whatsoever the Holy Spirit intended to have such an effect, would be thus represented by Inspiration in writing, and preserved.

Antiquity, therefore, cannot be a sufficient proof of purity in a tradition; for no tradition relative to the first day can possibly be more ancient than the "mystery of iniquity" just referred to. Its spread, too, notwithstanding its odious nature, might be sufficiently extensive to give it the appearance of universal - especially after the time of the apostles.

With respect to the regard shown during the patriarchal ages to the custom of sacrificing, as to a divine institution, though known only by tradition, it will afford no justification, proper as it was then, to the reception of a doctrine or duty as divine on such a ground, since the Christian era. Tradition was the only revelation then in existence. It could be better relied on then than now, on account of the opportunity afforded of access to the origin of it, and of the few individuals through which it passed. In the case of sacrifice, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how the idea of such a practice could ever have entered into the mind of man, if the Divine Being did not introduce it himself. The Patriarchs, both before and after the flood, who offered sacrifice, were themselves inspired, and therefore did not rest their idea of the divine will,respecting this matter upon tradition, but upon their own knowledge. The other ancients indeed, not having the same advantage, might be liable to mistake a matter of indifference or a duty; but they were not liable in doing so to abrogate or misinterpret a written command of God, by adopting a custom that was merely commanded by man. I may add, that though there is no instance on record in which the authenticity or genuineness of the tradition was suspected, yet if a doubt on the subject had arisen, there is no reason to think that the entertainer of it would not have been excused for non-compliance. In each of these particulars, the situation of Christians since the days of the apostles is completely the reverse.

The case of the books received or rejected, wholly or in part, as sacred, is somewhat like that of sacrifices. The canon of the New Testament (and consequently of the Old, the divinity, of which is acknowledged by the New) is obtained through tradition; but necessarily so, and not unaccompanied by corroborative circumstances. Since not every one that lived in the age of the apostles, and much less in a succeeding age, could have access to them to learn the authenticity of a book, and the genuineness of its contents, miraculous interposition must have taken place universally and perpetually, if tradition had not been employed. In consequence of this, no doubt, the just claim of some books was not admitted without hesitation, and not even with it, by all who bore the Christian name. There was danger, on the other hand, of receiving some that had no right to be in the canon; and all, in being copied, were liable to defect, to interpolation, or to various readings. But no serious evil has arisen, or could arise from these disadvantages.

Examination of the evidence for and against a book will enable every one to judge for himself of the justice or injustice of its claim to a place in the sacred canon. By comparing the manuscripts and the versions in different languages with others, the text may be corrected or improved.

(Human writings of high antiquity pass current, notwithstanding their various readings and obscurities.)

But in cases where neither of these expedients can take place, the substance of Scripture will remain, whether particular passages, or readings, be received or rejected. The phrase "on the Lord's day," (Rev. 1:10.) whether interpolated or not, can, in my opinion, throw no light, and consequently can have no influence, on the question relative to the Scriptural weekly sabbath.

The sacred canon, therefore, is necessarily received on the ground of tradition; but not wholly so, nor without peculiar pledges for its purity. It was not requisite, for the divine character of the New Testament, that there should be a tradition in favour of each book, and each text or reading in each book, that is as ancient as the time of the apostolic age, or that is universal neither of which is true. The harmony among the different books with respect to their contents - the comparative insignificance of the doubts which have arisen relative to particular texts, readings, and even whole books, whether received into the holy canon or not - and their beneficial effect on the hearts and lives of men, afford essential aid and support to tradition. But none of these circumstances can be pleaded in favour of any new article of faith or of duty conveyed by tradition. The article of faith or the duty in question might easily have been made a part of Revelation; and its not being so, is a proof of its being no tradition from an apostle. With respect to the sense of a text, had it contained any new doctrine or duty, the Scriptures themselves would have furnished means for ascertaining it, and would not have left us to seek it from men no less deficient in judgment, integrity, and diligence, than ourselves.

Where such means then are wholly wanting, the text can be of no use to us. Human writings can only illustrate an article of faith or a duty, the general meaning and reality of which are known and acknowledged without them. They can add no explanation or proof that enlarges the system of faith and practice. Their sense, too, is as liable to be contested as that of Revelation. In fine, oral tradition might give an interpretation of the text quite different from what appeared to us to be the true meaning, and in that case, if not rejected, would render written revelation useless. Tradition, therefore, was not wanted for conveying a new sabbath, much less for explaining a passage of Scripture supposed to contain such a notice; as the phrase "Lord's day," for instance. Nor is there any circumstance that tends to confirm a tradition of such a sabbath, as there is to confirm the traditions relative to the divine institution of sacrifices before the time of Moses, the variety of the books contained in the sacred canon, and the truth of the things contained in those books.

(There is no way of accounting for the ceremony, but by the supposition of a divine institution. It is rendered credible, both by the measure which the Divine Being adopted for clothing our first parents, and by his order to the Patriarchs to sacrifice.)

There is no more reason in the nature of things for a weekly celebration of our Lord's resurrection, than for one on account of his ascension; nor is any more notice taken of the resurrection on the first day by the observers of it, than maybe taken, and in, fact is taken, of it by the Sabbatarians on the seventh day. No social or public act of religion is recorded to have taken place on the first day, which did not take place every day among the earliest converts. It nowhere appears that the whole of it was ever kept sacred; and though Sunday was very early, and after some centuries extensively, called "Lord's day," yet Rev. i. 10. is never pleaded as an authority for so doing. The words "Lord's day" are never mentioned by the ancient Fathers as a quotation from Scripture, but as Good Friday, &c. are mentioned. It is wholly uncertain whether they ever intended Sunday to be the weekly sabbath, or kept it like one - especially as they kept the seventh day in the same manner. The same services (the Lord's supper included) were performed by them on both days; and the performance of them any day, even weekly, gives no proof of keeping a sabbath, without saying so.

The case, then, of the first day is wholly different from that of the sacrifices in patriarchal times, and that of the books comprehended in the canon of the New Testament, together with the purity of their contents in substance, since the divine claim of the former might have been conveyed without tradition; nor has the asserted tradition of it from the apostles any confirmatory circumstances, as the latter cases have. These objections to its reception as an apostolic tradition would be solid, were it ever so ancient and universal. But it is neither one nor the other so considerably or exclusively as it is thought to be.

Though St. Ignatius certainly recommends the observance of the first day as a festival, there is no proof that he meant by it a sabbath like that which is described in Isaiah 58:13.; nor is there any proof that it ever was kept so till A. D. 1618, about the time of the Puritans, by any considerable number of people, or, indeed, that it has been kept to that extent since, except by the Presbyterians (between whom and the Puritans there was originally no great difference) in the British dominions, in Holland, and in the United States of North America that were formerly subject to Great Britain. The divine claim of the seventh day under the Christian dispensation is not founded by its votaries on apostolic tradition, it being enough, in their opinion, that the apostles never repealed or secularized it. But if it had needed such a support; its claim on the ground of antiquity would have been as good as that of the first day; for St. Ignatius (as has been shown) does not recommend or enjoin one of the days more strongly than he does the other. With respect, indeed, to universality of prevalence, the first day has the advantage of the seventh day, since, according to ecclesiastical history, it was regarded at every place in Christendom; whereas the seventh day was not observed either at Rome or Alexandria: and after the fourth century, we hear little more comparatively of it till the time of the Reformation.

(See the account of the Sabbatarians in Chap. vi.)

But the errors of Popery, though equally ancient and, once as extensively prevalent as the observance of the first day can be, are not for these reasons to be considered by the Protestants to be apostolic traditions.

To represent the case accurately, the earliest Fathers and Councils in general never plead apostolic tradition in favour of the first day, any more than, they plead apostolic precept or example. St. Ignatius produces no authority for celebrating the day on which Christ rose as a weekly festival, except his own: he does not even tell us that the generality of Christians concurred with him in his view and wish. The Fathers and Councils, the ecclesiastics and princes who pursue the same object, urge only their own opinion, or that of their predecessors, as recorded in the history of the Church. The Protestants alone who, like White and Morer, admit the insufficiency of the evidence adduced by them to prove the first day to be the Scriptural weekly sabbath, attempt to supply the defect by apostolic tradition; and many of them, as Charles the First did [ca. 1645], found the claim of the first day to sacred regard entirely upon the authority of the Church, without the smallest reference to the apostles.

To return to the supposed tradition from the apostles concerning the substitution of the first day for the seventh day sabbath, and the attempt to authenticate it in modern times by the plea of antiquity and universality.

There are cases existing, in which the opponents of the Sabbatarians are as little influenced by considerations of this nature, as the Sabbatarians themselves. The history of the Church notices no power that was exercised over the faith and practice of Christians, except that of ecclesiastics, till the reign of Constantine [300 A.D.]; and even that prince did not exercise it till toward the close of his reign, (for he only presided in the Council of Nice,) except in his decrees concerning Sunday, issued, it is probable, solely by the advice and under the influence of Pope Sylvester. [See Morer, p. 57.] The tradition, therefore, relative to supremacy, if from the apostles, is plainly in favour of ecclesiastical authority; and no doubt both the Popes and the popish councils avail themselves of the circumstance. But will the Protestant states admit this plea? Will they not say that the tradition owes its existence and continuance merely to the want of a Christian prince, and that as soon as there was one, it became proper that the tradition should cease and determine? I shall not examine the solidity of this reasoning, but shall only observe upon it, that it is manifest, from the opinion of the Protestant states, that tradition supposed to be apostolic on account of its antiquity and universality, is not in all cases and for ever binding upon Christians.

Again:- will the Protestant Dissenters allow the fasts and feasts of the Church to have originated with the apostles? Some of them, however, (particularly Easter,) occur as early in history as the sacred character of the first day, and were regarded no less universally by Christians for many ages. - Will the Dissenters allow the ancient and universal tradition concerning the appellations "saint" and "bishop," as used in the Christian Church, to be apostolical? Convinced as they may be that St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, got his idea of "Lord's day," and that of celebrating it as a festival on account of our Lord's resurrection, from the apostle John, they are not equally convinced, I believe, that he obtained his title of "Saint," (if he ever used it,) together with his diocese, from the same source: yet I think it would be difficult for them to prove that there is better reason to credit the one than to credit the other. They will not deny that "saint" and "bishop" are in the New Testament, as well as "first day" and "Lord's day" itself (supposing it to have any right to be there;) and if tradition has authority to fix the sense and application of the latter words, why not to fix those of the former also?

Among the instances of doctrines and practices which Bishop White enumerates as proper to be received upon the ground of tradition from the apostles, are the "Lord's day," (in the sense of the weekly Sunday, with its application, in part at least, to sacred purposes,) and "infant baptism." My Baptist brethren in general will, I believe, more readily acquiesce in the first, than in the last of these instances. I know not, however, upon what ground, except upon what I admit to be a very substantial one; namely, that there is no case of infant baptism in all the New Testament. But, in my opinion, it is quite as easy to show,, that in the different texts where "households" are said to have been baptized, infants must has been included, as to show that the disciples could not come together to "break bread," nor an apostle preach to them, or order money to be laid up in store by individual Christians for an act of pious benevolence, on the first day, without converting it into a sabbath, or proving that it was so considered and meant to be so considered.

Here it will probably be asked, If the custom of treating the first day as sacred did not originate with the apostles, with whom did it originate? I have no objection to give a direct answer to the question: but before I do so, I must observe, that the conclusiveness of the reasoning against the sacred character of the first day does not in the least depend upon the possibility of discovering and proving its origin to be elsewhere, and not with the apostles. Errors in doctrine and practice may exist, though their origin be utterly unknown: as the invocation of departed spirits, and the custom of mingling water with the wine in the sacrament, which were introduced before the end of the second century, and the sources of which can only be conjectured.

If the "mystery of iniquity worked" in the days of the apostle Paul, notwithstanding our ignorance of its particular nature, as well as of its source, why should not innovations and corruptions be supposed to arise immediately afterwards, though their origin be equally concealed? It is reasonable to suppose that they may have even sprung up and abounded much more, however mysterious their cause. It does not follow, therefore, from an opinion or a practice existing in the age next to that of the apostles - perhaps in the apostolic age itself, and its origin being unknown, that it cannot be an error, but that it must originate with the apostles; and if this be possible of an error that is nameless, why not also of one that has a name? It may likewise not be trivial, but such a one as is wrought by the "mystery of iniquity," most gross and injurious. Of course the transfer of the weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first may be an error, and no tradition from the apostles, were it absolutely impossible to account for its origin.

I proceed to state my conjecture concerning the circumstance that gave rise to celebrating the first day as a holy festival. It originated, as I think, in the wish and proposal of some Christians to distinguish the day by some religious service, (including the Lord's supper, perhaps,) and a love-feast, in commemoration of our Lord's rising upon it. Whether this was or was not done in the time of the apostles, it is impossible to say. I see nothing, however, against the possibility of its taking place during their time; for surely if "the mystery of iniquity" began to work in their age, it is not incredible that a service which contained nothing in it that might not be done innocently; and which had not actually been done [Acts 2:46.] on every day, might not be performed for a purpose, which, though unnecessary, had nothing criminal in it. But there is certainly nothing in the texts usually produced in favour of the first day, which indicates the existence of such a custom so early - much less that the apostles authorized or participated in it. The account of the meeting held at Troas (Acts 20:7.) mentions nothing of its having taken place in consequence of our Lord's resurrection, or of any particular notice taken on that occasion of this great and good event that occurred on it, or of any uncommon thanksgiving and rejoicing of the assembly present, either at that time, or on any former occasion - all which would naturally have existed in the case supposed, and which,, no doubt, did exist for some time, when the custom was actually introduced.

The expression "Lord's day," indeed, in Rev. 1:10. has in modern times been thought to prove that the apostle John not only knew of the custom, but that he sanctioned it, and even commanded the whole day weekly to be kept as the sabbath in the room of the old one. But I have already shown that this does not appear from Scripture; and, therefore if St. Ignatius had really quoted the expression as from the Revelation, and commented upon it agreeably to its modern sense and application, notwithstanding his opportunities for knowing the opinion and practice of the apostle John on the subject, his interpretation could not have been received according to the Protestant maxim, which admits of no new doctrine or precept upon the ground of tradition. But he never uses the expression "Lord's day," as a quotation, (if he uses it at all,) and his not quoting and arguing from it, I have stated to be one of my reasons for thinking the words to be an interpolation [in the Book of Revelation].

As to the question how he or any other came to call the first day "Lord's day," if he did not take it from the Revelation, I answer, as before, that when the authors of the custom (whoever they were, and whether they lived in the time of the apostles or afterwards) agreed to distinguish the first day in the manner that has been mentioned, nothing was more natural for them than to give the day a new name, as they did that of the crucifixion; and considering their object, what name was more appropriate than "Lord's day," or "Christ's day?"

(The day, however, was not exclusively or generally called "Lord's day;" till the fourth century; which is an objection to its divine origin and present application.)

Whether the day was observed so often as weekly at the beginning, or whether it was confined to "Easter Sunday," which is noticed by St. Ignatius with equal zeal, cannot be known. The love-feast seems to have quickly given way to an entertainment more sumptuous and luxurious, if any judgment can be formed of it from the nature of a festival by which the day was called for ages, and the repeated prohibitions issued against fasting on it. As to the sanctification of the whole day in the manner of a sabbath, (Isaiah 58:13.) the term "festival," even a religious one, neither usually implies any such thing, nor does it appear to have existed till after many centuries.

No one can wonder at the origin I have assigned for the custom in question, who recollects the number of days that are accounted sacred, in part at least, in the Latin and Greek churches, and how many anniversaries are distinguished from other day's among Protestants in our own time, by abstinence from secular employment, attendance on public worship, and festivities. There are reasons given for them all; but Scriptural authority neither is, nor can, be pleaded for any of them as enjoining them. According to Grotius, these public manifestations of thankfulness and joy on the first day were at first optional: but the instructions of Fathers, and the decrees of Councils, soon made them obligatory. Their proving injurious to the sacred regard paid to the seventh day agreeably to the Fourth Commandment, with which regard they were associated till the time of Constantine, and their final triumph over it in the Christian-Roman empire, are not the only instances in which human traditions have superseded a divine precept. The persecutions every where raised against the Jews after the destruction of their city and temple by the Romans, and the risk run by the Christians of being confounded with them and of being treated like them, on account of their keeping the same sabbath, tended greatly to facilitate and extend the observance of the first day festival, as it was called. The festival being weekly, as well as the seventh day Sabbath - its services being the same - the respect it apparently showed to Christ - and the inconvenience of keeping two days together, strengthened this tendency. To the decrees of Constantine [321 A.D., etc.], however, in favour of this day exclusively, in opposition to the Fathers and Councils that had preceded, and, so far as is known, without even taking the sense of any council as he did at Nice [Nicea], is chiefly to be attributed, in my opinion, that prevalence throughout Christendom which it has ever since possessed.

If this account of the origin whence proceeded this regard paid in the early ages of Christianity to the first day be objected to as resting on conjecture, I reply, that I do not pretend to state the precise fact, of which history gives no information. In a case where (as I have shown) I am not obliged to give any account at all conjecture is quite sufficient. The supposition is not like that by which the prevalence of Sabbatarianism in the ages before Constantine has been attempted to be accounted for, namely, the accommodating spirit of the Gentile converts toward their brethren from among the Jews, about which the New Testament and the Fathers are equally silent and which, till the repeal of the old Sabbath be proved, may be accounted for much more naturally and satisfactorily. The conjecture I have hazarded is possible, and even highly probable, considering the numerous declarations made by individuals and public bodies of the greatest respectability who kept the first day, that its claim rested entirely on the authority of the Church. In short, the Scriptures were never appealed to on the subject till the time of the Puritans. St. Ignatius, as already noticed, states his recommendation of it only as an idea of his own; and the subsequent writers either express their own opinion in like manner, or follow his.

I wish to remind my Baptist friends of the accounts given, by them, of the origin of Paedobaptism, and the Dissenters in general of the sources whence, in their opinion, Episcopacy, together with the fasts and feasts observed in the primitive Church, particularly Easter Sunday, had their rise. They are mentioned as early in Ecclesiastical History as the first day is. I perfectly agree with my friends respecting the probability of these accounts: but they are as incapable of being proved, as my hypothesis concerning the origin of sanctification of the first day.

I observe, finally, that my pious friends in the Establishment [Church of England] no more approve than I do of the corruptions of Christianity in the second and third centuries noticed by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others: such as carrying the Eucharist to private houses after it had been consecrated at Church; mingling water with the wine used in the Holy Supper;: and the invocation of departed saints. But their modes of accounting for these abuses, though extremely probable, can no more be proved to the satisfaction of an opponent, than my conjecture relative to Sunday.

Next chapter
Previous chapter
Introduction and Table of Contents

Go to Literature Index Page

This URL is www.abcog.org/b8.htm