SABBATARIAN HISTORY.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

THE word Sabbatarian, whether bestowed by their enemies as a term of opprobrium upon those who observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, or whether assumed by themselves, is, nevertheless, peculiarly appropriate, and very distinguishing of this particular tenet in their system of religious faith. Neither do we hesitate to employ it in a very extensive sense, as comprehending all those religious communities, whatever may be their names, modes of worship, or forms of ecclesiastical discipline, who refrain from secular employments upon the last day of the week, and observe the same as holy time. There cannot, therefore, be any impropriety in considering the Abyssinian and Armenian Churches as sabbatarian organizations, although the former has become greatly corrupted in worship and doctrine, and exhibits few traces of the purity and simplicity of primitive Christianity.

We claim for sabbatarian institutions a very high antiquity, and a multitude of the most illustrious exemplars; from that grand sabbath proclaimed over the new-born world by the Eternal Father, and observed by angelic and seraphic intelligences, to its second ordainment amid the smoke and thunders of Sinai, and its subsequent obser

vance by kings, priests, sages, and witnesses for the truth through so many ages, to Him, the Great High Priest of the Covenant, who sanctified the law and made it honourable. It is incontestable that our adorable Lord and his Apostles observed the seventh day of the week, and it was not until a long time subsequent to the close of their earthly pilgrimages that the reverence due to this holy time was transferred, in any Christian community, to the Dominical day.

The first Christian church established in the world' was founded at Jerusalem under the immediate superintendence of the Apostles. This church, which was the model of all those that were founded in the first century, was undoubtedly sabbatarian. In the second and third centuries, according to the testimony of Mosheim, it was very generally observed. During the fourth and in the commencement of the fifth centuries, it was almost universally solemnized, if the veracity of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, may be depended upon.

We have every reason to believe, however, that from the first, or, indeed, at a very early period, a superstitious veneration was paid in some places to the first day of the week. It is certain that, before the close of the first century, the original purity and simplicity of Christianity had become greatly defaced and deplorably corrupted by the introduction into its doctrines of the monstrous tenets of a preposterous philosophy, and into its ceremonies of a multitude of heathen rites. Identical with this was the appointment of various festivals to be observed on particular days. These days were those on which the martyrs had laid down their lives for the truth, the day on which the Saviour had been crucified, and that also on which he rose from the dead. We have no reason to suppose that the observation of the first day dates back any earlier than

that of Friday, or those anniversary festivals which were introduced to commemorate the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, and the feast of Easter. All were the fruits of as dark, fabulous, and superstitious times, as have ever been since the resurrection of Christ. It seems to have been the policy of the rulers of the church at this period, to assimilate Christianity in its rites and festivals to the manners of Paganism, and in its doctrines to the tenets of a corrupt yet seducing philosophy. For such a course of conduct various reasons may be assigned. In the first place they were pleasing to the multitude, who were more delighted with the pageantry and circumstance of external ceremonies, and the frequency of holidays, than with the valuable attainments of rational and consistent piety, or with a sober and steady course of life.

In the second place, we have reason to believe that the bishops augmented the number of the religious ceremonies and festivals in the Christian worship, by way of accommodating it to the prejudices and infirmities of both Jews and heathens, in order to facilitate their conversion. These people were accustomed to a round of pompous and magnificent ceremonies in their religious service; and, as they deemed these rites an essential part of religion, it was natural for them to regard with indifference, or even with contempt, any service whose forms were divested of all

specious and captivating appearances. As their religion allowed to them a multitude of festivals, the bishops supposed, and not without reason, that they persisted in their idolatry on account of the ease, pleasure, and sensual gratifications thereby enjoyed, consequently the rulers of the church adopted certain external ceremonies, and appointed festivities, in order to allure the senses of the vulgar, and to make them more disposed to embrace Christianity. The effect of this course of conduct was most

pernicious. It effaced the beautiful simplicity of Christianity, and corrupted its natural purity in order to extend its influence; thus making it lose that practical excellence for which no popular esteem could ever afford compensation. It may be allowable, it may even be commendable, to accommodate ecclesiastical as well as civil institutions, in certain cases, to the infirmities of mankind, and to make some concessions, some prudent instances of compliance to their invincible prejudices, but all these should be of such a nature as not to derogate from the majesty of the divine law, or to substitute for the ordinances of God the observances and institutions of fallible men.

The multiplication of festivals and holidays would naturally bring the Sabbath into neglect, but what contributed more than anything else to destroy its influence over the minds of men, was the almost universal abhorrence in which the Jews were held. We are informed that multitudes of Christians, in the time of Adrian, abandoned all the rites and institutions of their religion that bore any resemblance to the Jewish ritual, for fear of being confounded with that people, who had become obnoxious to the prince, and were suffering the extremity of his vengeance. "Let us have nothing in common with that odious brood, the Jews," says Constantine, when issuing his edict for the observation of the Dominical day. Subsequently, the sabbath was condemned for the same reasons by synods and councils; popes and kings rose up in judgment against it. Perhaps they feared also that its observation would remind the people of that sacred volume, which the prelates chose, for their own convenience, to keep from the world, and in which their condemnation, as followers of the most detestable vices, would be so strongly marked. Moreover they were determined, in the plenitude of their arrogance, to give laws in both a temporal and spiritual sense; to govern the consciences as

they ruled the actions of mankind. Nor was this all, some of these prelates actually aspired to stand, at least in the eyes of the multitude, in the place of God,-to divert the adoration, which should be paid to him, to themselves, or to the relics they had blessed, and the saints they had canonized. Would not the observation of the sabbath have tended to recall the minds of men to the Maker of all things, as the only true and proper object for religious adoration; to the fact that he alone was the moral governor of the universe; his laws the standard of perfection; himself of infallibility? History presents numerous examples of kings and tyrants, who have assumed the attributes of Deity, and demanded the homage of mankind; but, perhaps, a more impious imitation of his power, a more blasphemous assumption of his prerogatives, were never exhibited than in the conduct of these hierarchs. Did God appoint one mediator between himself and man, -behold the saints they canonized; did he bestow the Scriptures as his revealed will upon the world,-behold the canons of the church in which their authority is superseded; and did he institute and command the observation of the seventh day as a day of rest,-they substitute an other in its place. The Sabbath is reprobated as a Jewish institution : it is a wonder that we hear nothing of a Jewish religion, as Christianity certainly originated with that people; of a Jewish Saviour, since the Redeemer was of the offspring of David; and of Jewish apostles, as not one of the twelve were of the Gentile race. We must go to the Jews for the Bible, in which is contained the knowledge of God, and the hope of the world; we must go to the Jews for examples of godliness in the long, dark ages before the Christian era; why not go to them for a sabbath likewise? The spiritual pride that opposes such a measure will not stand in the great and burning day.