CHAPTER 20
SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES
The pope becomes the head of all the churches - The people of God
retire into the wilderness - Sunday to be traced through the Dark Ages in
the history of the Catholic church - State of that festival in the sixth
century - It did not acquire the title of Sabbath for many ages - Time
when it became a day of abstinence from labor in the east - When in the
west - Sunday canon of the first council of Orleans - Of the council of
Arragon - Of the third council of Orleans - Of a council at Mascon - At
Narbon - At Auxerre - Miracles establishing the sacredness of Sunday - The
pope advises men to atone, by the pious observance of Sunday, for the sins
of the previous week - The Sabbath and Sunday both strictly kept by a
class at Rome who were put down by the pope - According to Twisse they
were two distinct classes - The Sabbath, like its Lord, crucified between
two thieves - Council of Chalons - At Toledo, in which the Jews were
forbidden to keep the Sabbath and commanded to keep Sunday - First English
law for Sunday - Council at Constantinople - In England - In Bavaria -
Canon of the archbishop of York - Statutes of Charlemagne and canons of
councils which he called - The pope aids in the work - Council at Paris
originates a famous first-day argument - The councils fail to establish
Sunday sacredness - The emperors besought to send out some more terrible
edict in order to compel the observance of that day - The pope takes the
matter in hand in earnest and gives Sunday an effectual establishment -
Other statutes and canons - Sunday piety of a Norwegian king - Sunday
consecrated to the mass - Curious but obsolete first-day arguments - The
eating of meat forbidden upon the Sabbath by the pope - Pope Urban II.
ordains the Sabbath of the Lord to be a festival for the worship of the
Virgin Mary - Apparition from St. Peter - The pope sends Eustace into
England with a roll that fell from Heaven commanding Sunday observance
under direful penalties - Miracles which followed - Sunday established in
Scotland - Other Sunday laws down to the Reformation - Sunday always only
a human ordinance.
The opening of the sixth century witnessed the development of the great
apostasy to such an extent that the man of sin might be plainly seen
sitting in the temple of God.1 The western Roman Empire had been broken up into ten
kingdoms, and the way was now prepared for the work of the little horn.2 In the early part of this century, the bishop of Rome was
made head over the entire church by the emperor of the east, Justinian.3 The dragon gave unto the beast his power, and his seat, and
great authority. From this accession to supremacy by the Roman pontiff,
date the "time, times, and dividing of time," or twelve hundred and sixty
years of the prophecies of Daniel and John.4
The true people of God now retired for safety into places of obscurity
and seclusion, as represented by the prophecy: "The woman fled into the
wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed
her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."5 Leaving their history for the present, let us follow that
of the Catholic church, and trace in its record the history of the Sunday
festival through the period of the Dark ages. Of the fifth and sixth
centuries, Heylyn bears the following testimony:
"The faithful being united better than before, became more uniform in
matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give
the Lord's day all the honors of an holy festival. Yet was not this done
all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth centuries being
well-nigh spent before it came into that height which hath since
continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same
affections; both [being] earnest to advance this day above all other;
and to the edicts of the one and ecclesiastical constitutions of the
other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions
which it still enjoyeth."6
But Sunday had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Thus Brerewood
bears testimony:
"The name of the Sabbath remained appropriated to the old Sabbath;
and was never attributed to the Lord's day, not of many hundred years
after our Saviour's time."7
And Heylyn says of the term Sabbath in the ancient church:
"The Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than that which
formerly it had, the Sabbath. So that whenever for a thousand years and
upwards, we meet with Sabbatum in any writer of what name soever, it
must be understood of no day but Saturday.8
Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, also testifies:
"When the ancient fathers distinguish and give proper names to the
particular days of the week, they always style the Saturday, Sabbatum,
the Sabbath, and the Sunday, or first day of the week, Dominicum, the
Lord's day."9
It should be observed, however, that the earliest mention of Sunday as
the Lord's day, is in the writings of Tertullian; Justin Martyr, some
sixty years before, styling it "the day called Sunday;" while the
authoritative application of that term to Sunday was by Sylvester, bishop
of Rome, more than one hundred years after the time of Tertullian. The
earliest mention of Sunday as Christian Sabbath is thus noted by
Heylyn:
"The first who ever used it to denote the Lord's day (the first that
I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus - he lived
about the time that Rupertus did - [which was the beginning of the
twelfth century] who calls the Lord's day by the name of Christian
Sabbath."10
Of Sunday labor in the eastern church, Heylyn says:
"It was near nine hundred years from our Saviour's birth if not quite
so much, before restraint of husbandry on this day had been first
thought of in the east; and probably being thus restrained did find no
more obedience there than it had done before in the western parts."11
Of Sunday labor in the western church, Dr. Francis White thus
testifies:
"The Catholic church for more than six hundred years after Christ,
permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to work upon
the Lord's day, at such hours as they were not commanded to be present
at the public service by the precept of the church."12
But let us trace the several steps by which the festival of Sunday
increased in strength until it attained its complete development. These
will be found at present mostly in the edicts of emperors, and the decrees
of councils. Morer tells us that,
"Under Clodoveus king of France met the bishops in the first council
of Orleans [A.D. 507], where they obliged themselves and their
successors, to be always at the church on the Lord's day, except in case
of sickness or some great infirmity. And because they, with some other
of the clergy in those days, took cognizance of judicial matters,
therefore by a council at Arragon, about the year 518 in the reign of
Theodorick, king of the Goths, it was decreed that `No bishop or other
person in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil
controversy on the Lord's day.' "13
This shows that civil courts were sometimes held on Sunday by the
bishops in those days; otherwise such a prohibition would not have been
put forth. Hengstenberg, in his notice of the third council of Orleans,
gives us an insight into the then existing state of the Sunday
festival:
"The third council of Orleans, A.D. 538, says in its twenty-ninth
canon: `The opinion is spreading amongst the people, that it is wrong to
ride, or drive, or cook food, or do anything to the house, or the person
on the Sunday. But since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian,
that shall be lawful in future, which has been so to the present time.
On the other hand agricultural labor ought to be laid aside, in order
that the people may not be prevented from attending church.'"14
Observe the reason assigned. It is not lest they violate the law of the
Sabbath, but it is that they may not be kept from church. Another
authority states the case thus:
"Labor in the country [on Sunday] was not prohibited till the council
of Orleans, A.D. 538. It was thus an institution of the church, as Dr.
Paley has remarked. The earlier Christians met in the morning of that
day for prayer and singing hymns in commemoration of Christ's
resurrection, and then went about their usual duties.15
In A.D. 588, another council was holden, the occasion of which is thus
stated:
"And because, notwithstanding all this care, the day was not duly
observed, the bishops were again summoned to Mascon, a town in Burgundy,
by King Gunthrum, and there they framed this canon: `Notice is taken
that Christian people, very much neglect and slight the Lord's day,
giving themselves as on other days to common work, to redress which
irreverence, for the future, we warn every Christian who bears not that
name in vain, to give ear to our advice, knowing we have a concern on us
for your good, and a power to hinder you to do evil. Keep then the
Lord's day, the day of our new birth.'"16
Further legislation being necessary, we are told:
"About a year forward, there was a council at Narbon, which forbid
all persons of what country or quality soever, to do any servile work on
the Lord's day. But if any man presumed to disobey this canon he was to
be fined if a freeman, and if a servant, severely lashed. Or as Surius
represents the penalty in the edict of King Recaredus, which he put out,
near the same time to strengthen the decrees of the council, `Rich men
were to be punished with the loss of a moiety of their estates, and the
poorer sort with perpetual banishment,' in the year of grace 590.
Another synod was held at Auxerre a city in Champain, in the reign of
Clotair king of France, where it was decreed. . . . `that no man should
be allowed to plow, nor cart, or do any such thing on the Lord's day.'
"17
Such were some of the efforts made in the sixth century to advance the
sacredness of the Sunday festival. And Morer tells us that,
"For fear the doctrine should not take without miracles to support
it, Gregory of Tours [about A.D. 590] furnishes us with several to that
purpose."18
Mr. Francis West, an English first-day writer, gravely adduces one of
these miracles in support of first-day sacredness:
"Gregory of Tours reporteth, `that a husbandman, who upon the Lord's
day went to plough his field, as he cleaned his plough with an iron, the
iron stuck so fast in his hand that for two years he could not be
delivered from it, but carried it about continually to his exceeding
great pain and shame.' "19
In the conclusion of the sixth century, Pope Gregory exhorted the
people of Rome to "expiate on the day of our Lord's resurrection what was
remissly done for the six days before."20 In the same epistle, this pope condemned a class of men at
Rome who advocated the strict observance of both the Sabbath and the
Sunday, styling them the preachers of Antichrist.21 This shows the intolerant feeling of the papacy toward the
Sabbath, even when joined with the strict observance of Sunday. It also
shows that there were Sabbath-keepers even in Rome itself as late as the
seventh century; although so far bewildered by the prevailing darkness
that they joined with its observance a strict abstinence from labor on
Sunday.
In the early part of the seventh century arose another foe to the Bible
Sabbath in the person of Mahomet. To distinguish his followers alike from
those who observed the Sabbath and those who observed the festival of
Sunday, he selected Friday, the sixth day of the week, as their religious
festival. And thus "the Mahometans and the Romanists crucified the
Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the Lord of the Sabbath, between
two thieves, the sixth and first day of the week."22 For Mahometanism and Romanism each suppressed the Sabbath
over a wide extent of territory. About the middle of the seventh century,
we have further canons of the church in behalf of Sunday:
"At Chalons, a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there was a
provincial synod which confirmed what had been done by the third council
of Orleans, about the observation of the Lord's day, namely that `none
should plow or reap, or do any other thing belonging to husbandry, on
pain of the censures of the church; which was the more minded, because
backed with the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended
herein; who if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free, had
three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part of their
patrimony, and if still obstinate were made slaves for the future. And
in the first year of Eringius, about the time of Pope Agatho there sat
the twelfth council of Toledo in Spain, A.D. 681, where the Jews were
forbid to keep their own festivals, but so far at least observe the
Lord's day as to do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express
their contempt of Christ or his worship.' "23
These were weighty reasons indeed for Sunday observance. Nor can it be
thought strange that in the Dark Ages a constant succession of such things
should eventuate in the universal observance of that day. Even the Jews
were to be compelled to desist from Sabbath observance, and to honor
Sunday by resting on that day from their labor. The earliest mention of
Sunday in English statutes appears to be the following:
A.D. 692. "Ina, king of the west Saxons, by the advice of Cenred his
father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with all his aldermen and
sages, in a great assembly of the servants of God, for the health of their
souls, and common preservation of the kingdom, made several constitutions,
of which this was the third: `If a servant do any work on Sunday by his
master's orders, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings;
but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either beaten with
stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman, if he works on this
day, shall lose his freedom or pay sixty shillings; if he be a priest,
double.' "24
The same year that this law was enacted in England, the sixth general
council convened at Constantinople, which decreed that,
"If any bishop or other clergyman, or any of the laity, absented
himself from the church three Sundays together, except in cases of very
great necessity, if a clergyman, he was to be deposed; if a layman,
debarred the holy communion."25
In the year 747, a council of the English clergy was called under
Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert, king of Kent,
and this constitution made:
"It is ordered that the Lord's day be celebrated with due veneration,
and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that all abbots and
priests, on this most holy day, remain in their respective monasteries
and churches, and there do their duty according to their places."26
Another ecclesiastical statute of the eighth century was enacted and
Dingosolinum in Bavaria, where a synod met about 772, which decreed
that,
"If any man shall work his cart on this day, or do any such common
business, his team shall be presently forfeited to the public use, and
if the party persists in his folly, let him be sold for a bondman."27
The English were not behind their neighbors in the good work of
establishing the sacredness of Sunday. Thus we read:
A.D. 784. "Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively what was to
be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by prohibiting ordinary
work to be done on such days, made this canon:`Let nothing else, saith
he, be done on the Lord's day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms
and spiritual songs. Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for
seven days.' "28
In the conclusion of the eighth century further efforts were made in
behalf of this favored day:
"Charles the Great summoned the bishops to Friuli, in Italy, where .
. . they decreed [A.D. 791] that all people should, with due reverence
and devotion, honor the Lord's day. . . . Under the same prince another
council was called three years later at Frankford in Germany, and there
the limits of the Lord's day were determined from Saturday evening to
Sunday evening.29
The five councils of Mentz, Rheims, Tours, Chalons, and Arles, were all
called in the year 813 by Charlemagne. It would be irksome to the reader
to dwell upon the several acts of these councils in behalf of Sunday. They
are of the same character as those already quoted. The council of Chalons,
however, is worthy of being noticed in that, according to Morer,
"They entreated the help of the secular power, and desired the
emperor [Charlemagne] to provide for the stricter observation of
it[Sunday]. Which he accordingly did, and left no stone unturned to
secure the honor of the day. His care succeeded; and during his reign,
the Lord's day bore a considerable figure. But after his day, it put on
another face."30
The pope lent a helping hand in checking the profanation of Sunday:
"And thereupon Pope Eugenius, in a synod held at Rome about 826, . .
. gave directions that the parish priest should admonish such offenders
and wish them to go to church and say their prayers, lest otherwise they
might bring some great calamity on themselves and neighbors."31
All this, however, was not sufficient, and so another council was
summoned. At this council was brought forward - perhaps for the first time
- the famous first-day argument now so familiar to all, that Sunday is
proved to be the true Sabbath because that men are struck by lightning who
labor on that day. Thus we read:
"But these paternal admonitions turning to little account, a
provincial council was held at Paris three years after . . . in 829,
wherein the prelates complain that `The Lord's day was not kept with
reverence as became religion . . . which was the reason that God had
sent several judgments on them, and in a very remarkable manner punished
some people for slighting and abusing it. For, say they, many of us by
our own knowledge, and some by hearsay know, that several countrymen
following their husbandry on this day have been killed with lightning,
others, being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably
perished. Whereby it is apparent how high the displeasure of God was
upon their neglect of this day.' And at last they conclude that `in the
first place the priests and ministers, then kings and princes, and all
faithful people he beseeched to use their utmost endeavors and care that
the day be restored to its honor, and for the credit of Christianity
more devoutly observed for the time to come.' "32
Further legislation being necessary,
"It was decreed about seven years after in a council at Aken, under
Lewis the Godly, that neither pleadings nor marriages should be allowed
on the Lord's day."33
But the law of Charlemagne, though backed with the authority of the
church, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, by the
remissness of Lewis, his successor became very feeble. It is evident that
canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention of
terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not yet
sufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute
than any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor. Thus we
read:
"Thereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius,
that they would be pleased to take some care in it, and send out some
precept or injunction more severe than what was hitherto extant, to
strike terror into their subjects, and force them to forbear their
ploughing, pleading, and marketing, then grown again into use; which was
done about the year 853; and to that end a synod was called at Rome
under the popedom of Leo IV."34
The advocates of the first-day Sabbath have in all ages sought for a
law capable of striking terror into those who do not hallow that day. They
still continue the vain endeavor. But if they would honor the day which
God set apart for the Sabbath, they would find in that law of fire which
proceeded from his right hand a statute which renders all human
legislation entirely unnecessary.35
At this synod the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Thus
Heylyn testifies that under the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, a synod was
held at Rome A.D. 853, under pope Leo IV.,
"Where it was ordered more precisely than in former times that no man
should from thenceforth dare to make any markets on the Lord's day, no,
not for things that were to eat: neither to do any kind of work that
belonged to husbandry. Which canon being made at Rome, confirmed at
Compeigne, and afterwards incorporated as it was into the body of the
canon law, became to be admitted, without further question, in most
parts of Christendom; especially when the popes had attained their
height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their devotion. For
then the people, who before had most opposed it, might have justly said,
`Behold two kings stood not before him, how then shall we stand?' Out of
which consternation all men presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts
being brought to lay by their labors; and amongst those, the miller,
though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence."36
This was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five
years after this we read as follows:
A.D. 858. "The Bulgarians sent some questions to Pope Nicholas, to
which they desired answers. And that [answer] which concerned the Lord's
day was that they should desist from all secular work, etc."37
Morer informs us respecting the civil power, that,
"In this century the emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed the
philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which, according to
Constantine's toleration, were permitted in the east. The same care was
taken in the west, by Theodorius, king of the Bavarians, who made this
order, that `If any person on the Lord's day yoked his oxen, or drove
his wain, his right-side ox should be forthwith forfeited; or if he made
hay and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist, which if
he did not, he was to receive no less than fifty stripes.' "38
Of Sunday laws in England in this century, we read:
A.D. 876. "Alfred the Great, was the first who united the Saxon
Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to make a law that
among other festivals this day more especially might be solemnly kept,
because it was the day whereon our Saviour Christ overcame the devil;
meaning Sunday, which is the weekly memorial of our Lord's resurrection,
whereby he overcame death, and him who had the power of death, that is
the devil. And whereas before the single punishment for sacrilege
committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the thing
stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any person was found
guilty of this crime done on the Lord's day, he should be doubly
punished."39
Nineteen years later, the pope and his council still further
strengthened the sacred day. The council of Friburgh in Germany, A.D. 895,
under Pope Formosus, decreed that the Lord's day, men "were to spend in
prayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be
provoked to anger."40 The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in England was
carried steadily forward:
"King Athelston, . . . in the year 928, made a law that there should
be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord's day, under the penalty
of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine of thirty shillings for each
offense."41
In a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed
that all sorts of traffic and holding of courts, &c., on Sunday should
cease. "And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a freeman,
he was to pay twelve orae, if a servant, be severely whipt." We are
further informed that,
"About the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it decreed
that above all things the Lord's day should be kept with all imaginable
caution, according to the canon and ancient practice."42
A.D. 967. King Edgar "commanded that the festival should be kept from
three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till day-break on
Monday."43
"King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, coming to the crown about
the year 1009, called a general council of all the English clergy, under
Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and Wolstan, archbishop of York. And
there it was required that all persons in a more zealous manner should
observe the Sunday, and what belonged to it."44
Nor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn
tells us of the piety of a Norwegian king by the name of Olaus, A.D.
1028.
"For being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and having
in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and whittled it as
men do sometimes, when their minds are troubled or intent on business.
And when it had been told him as by way of jest how he had trespassed
therein against the Sabbath, he gathered the small chips together, put
them upon his hand, and set fire to them, that so, saith Crantzius, he
might revenge that on himself what unawares he had committed against
God's commandment."45
In Spain also the work went forward. A council was held at Coy, in
Spain, A.D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of Pope
Leo IX., where it was decreed that the Lord's day "was to be entirely
consecrated to hearing of mass."46
To strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the
people, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the
following statement:
"It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani, who
lived A.D. 1056, that every Lord's day they were manumitted from their
pains and fluttered up and down the lake Avernus, in the shape of
birds."47
At the same time, another argument of a similar kind was brought
forward to render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us
respecting that class who in this age were most zealous advocates of
Sunday observance:
"Yet still the others went on in their way; and to induce their
proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care, they
brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to the damned in
hell, who during the day, have some respite from their torments, and the
case and liberty they have is more or less according to the zeal and
degrees of keeping it well."48
If therefore they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their
friends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their torments
on that day! In a council at Rome, A.D. 1078, Pope Gregory VII decreed
that as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast day, those who
desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from eating meat.49 In the eastern division of the Catholic church, in the
eleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal in
sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the
western division of that church:
"But it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they did
labor and fast. . . . And this, with little opposition or interruption,
save that which had been made in the city of Rome in the beginning of
the seventh century, and was soon crushed by Gregory then bishop there,
as before we noted. And howsoever Urban of that name the second, did
consecrate it to the weekly service of the blessed virgin, and
instituted in the council held at Clermont, A.D. 1095, that our lady's
office should be said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian
folks should worship her with their best devotion."50
It would seem that this was a crowning indignity to the Most High. The
memorial of the great Creator was set apart as a festival on which to
worship Mary, under the title of mother of God! In the middle of the
twelfth century, the king of England was admonished not to suffer men to
work upon Sunday. Henry II. entered on the government about the year
1155.
"Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff (. . . in
South Wales) which from St. Peter charged him, that upon Sundays
throughout his dominions, there should be no buying or selling, and no
servile work done."51
The sacredness of Sunday was not yet sufficiently established, because
a divine warrant for its observance was still unprovided. The manner in
which this urgent necessity was met is related by Roger Hoveden, a
historian of high repute who lived at the very time when this much-needed
precept was furnished by the pope. Hoveden informs us that Eustace the
abbot of Flaye in Normandy, came into England in the year 1200, to preach
the word of the Lord, and that his preaching was attended by many
wonderful miracles. He was very earnest in behalf of Sunday. Thus Hoveden
says:
"At London also, and many other places throughout England, he
effected by his preaching, that from that time forward people did not
dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the Lord's Day.52
But Hoveden tells us that "the enemy of mankind raised against this man
of God the ministers of iniquity," and it seems that having no commandment
for Sunday he was in a strait place. The historian continues:
"However, the said abbot, on being censured by the ministers of
Satan, was unwilling any longer to molest the prelates of England by his
preaching, but returned to Normandy, unto his place whence he came."53
But Eustace, though repulsed, had no thought of abandoning the contest.
He had no commandment from the Lord when he came into England the first
time. But one year's sojourn on the continent was sufficient to provide
that which he lacked. Hoveden tells us how he returned the following year
with the needed precept:
"In the same year [1201], Eustace, abbot of Flaye, returned to
England, and preaching therein the word of the Lord from city to city,
and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a market of goods on
sale upon the Lord's day. For he said that the commandment
under-written, as to the observance of the Lord's day, had come down
from Heaven:
"THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD'S DAY,
"Which came from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the altar of
Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of
the world. The Lord sent down this epistle, which was found upon the
altar of Saint Simeon, and after looking upon which, three days and
three nights, some men fell upon the earth, imploring mercy of God. And
after the third hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias, the archbishop,
and they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from God. And
when they had taken the same they found this writing therein:
" 'I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day of the
Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented of your sins, as I
have said in my gospel, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away." Whereas, I caused to be preached unto you
repentance and amendment of life, you did not believe me, I have sent
against you the pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet
you have not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord's day
holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you fulness,
and after that you did still worse again. Once more, it is my will, that
no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday until sunrise on Monday, shall
do any work except that which is good.
" `And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make amends
for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this command, verily, I
say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my seat and by my throne, and by
the cherubim who watch my holy seat, that I will give you my commands by
no other epistle, but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain
upon you stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may
take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy all wicked
men.
" `This do I say unto you; for the Lord's holy day, you shall die the
death, and for the other festivals of my saints which you have not kept:
I will send unto you beasts that have the heads of lions, the hair of
women, the tails of camels, and they shall be so ravenous that they
shall devour your flesh, and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of
the dead, and to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take
away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send darkness
upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another, and that I may
remove from you my face, and may not show mercy upon you. For I will
burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and of all of those who do not
keep as the holy day of the Lord.
" `Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for the
holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance for your
sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and Gomorrah shall you
perish. Now, know ye, that your are saved by the prayers of my most holy
mother, Mary, and of my most holy angels, who pray for you daily. I have
given unto you wheat and wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not
obeyed me. For the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them
you show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all. The
trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for your sins; the
rivers and the fountains shall not give water.
" `I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not kept. I
gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not observed. For you
I was born into the world, and my festive day ye knew not. Being wicked
men, ye have not kept the Lord's day of my resurrection. By my right
hand I swear unto you, that if you do not observe the Lord's day, and
the festivals of my saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that
they may slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others,
and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against you
still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your women. I will
curse those who on the Lord's day have wrought evil.
" `Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse. Those
who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the earth, will I
curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the prince of this world. Give
heed to my voice, and you shall have the blessing of mercy. But you
cease not from your bad works, nor from the works of the devil. Because
you are guilty of perjuries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall
surround you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.' "54
That such a document was actually brought into England at this time,
and in the manner here described, is so amply attested as to leave no
doubt.55 Matthew Paris, like Hoveden, was actually a contemporary
of Eustace. Hoveden properly belongs to the twelfth century, for he died
shortly after the arrival of Eustace with his roll. But Matthew Paris
belongs to the thirteenth, as he was but young at the time this roll (A.D.
1201) was brought into England. Both have a high reputation for
truthfulness. In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears
the following testimony to the credibility of Matthew Paris:
"Among the historians, the first place is due to Matthew Paris, a
writer of the highest merit, both in point of knowledge and prudence."56
And Dr. Murdock says of him:
"He is accounted the best historian of the Middle Ages, learned,
independent, honest, and judicious."57
Matthew Paris relates the return of the abbot Eustachius (as he spells
the name) from Normandy, and gives us a copy of the roll which he brought,
and an account of its fall from Heaven as related by the abbot himself. He
also tells us how the abbot came by it, tracing the history of the roll
from the point when the patriarch gathered courage to take it into his
hands, till the time when our abbot was commissioned to bring it into
England. Thus he says:
"But when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had
diligently examined the contents of this epistle, it was decreed in a
general deliberation that the epistle should be sent to the judgment of
the Roman pontiff, seeing that whatever he decreed to be done, would
please all. And when at length the epistle had come to the knowledge of
the lord pope, immediately he ordained heralds, who being sent through
different parts of the world, preached every where the doctrine of this
epistle, the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs
following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a devout
and learned man, having entered the kingdom of England did there shine
with many miracles.58
Now we know what the abbot was about during the year that he was absent
from England. He could not establish first-day sacredness by his first
mission to England, for he had no divine warrant it its behalf. He
therefore retired from the mission long enough to make known the
necessities of the case to the "lord pope." But when he came the second
time he brought the divine mandate for Sunday, and with the commission of
the pope, authorizing him to proclaim that mandate to the people, and
informing them that it was sent to His Holiness from Jerusalem by those
who saw it fall from Heaven. Had Eustace framed this document himself, and
then forged a commission from the pope, a few months would have discovered
the imposture. But their genuineness was never questioned as shown by
preservation of this roll by the best historians of that time. We
therefore trace the responsibility for this roll by the best historians of
that time. We therefore trace the responsibility for this roll directly to
the pope of Rome. The statement of the pope that he received it from the
hands of those who saw it fall from Heaven is the guaranty given by His
Holiness to the people that the roll came from God. The historians then
living, who record this transaction, were able to satisfy themselves that
Eustace brought the roll from the pope; and they believed the pope's
statement that he had received it form Heaven. It was Innocent III. who
filled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus:
"Innocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal power and
authority to the highest pitch, and we shall see him improving, with
great address, every opportunity that offered to compass that end."59
Another eminent authority makes this statement:
"The external circumstances of his time also furthered Innocent's
views, and enabled him to make his pontificate the most marked in the
annals of Rome; the culminating point of the temporal as well as the
spiritual supremacy of the Roman See."60
"His pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the period of
the highest power of the Roman See."61
The dense darkness of the Dark Ages still covered the earth when that
pontiff filled the papal throne who raised the papacy to its highest
elevation. Two facts worthy of much thought should here be named in
connection:
1. The first act of papal usurpation was by an edict in behalf of
Sunday.62
2. The utmost height of papal usurpation was marked by the pope's act
of furnishing a divine precept for Sunday observance.
The mission of Eustace was attested by miracles which are worthy of
perusal by those who believe in first-day sacredness because their fathers
thus believed. Here they may learn what was done six centuries since, to
fix these ideas in the minds of their fathers. Eustace came to York, in
the north of England, and, meeting an honorable reception,
"Preached the word of the Lord, and on the breaking of the Lord's day
and the other festivals, and imposed upon the people penance and gave
absolution, upon condition that, in future they would pay due reverence
to the Lord's day and the other festivals of the saints, doing therein
no servile work."63
"Upon this, the people who were dutiful to God at his preaching,
vowed before God that, for the future, on the Lord's day, they would
neither buy nor sell any thing, unless, perchance, victuals and drink of
wayfarers."64
The abbot also made provision for the collection of alms for the
benefit of the poor, and forbade the use of the churches for the sale of
goods, and for the pleading of causes. Upon this, the king interfered as
follows:
"Accordingly, through these and other warnings of this holy man, the
enemy of mankind being rendered envious, he put it into the heart of the
king and of the princes of darkness to command that all who should
observe the before stated doctrines, and more especially all those who
had discountenanced the markets on the Lord's day, should be brought
before the king's court of justice, to make satisfaction as to the
observance of the Lord's day."65
The markets of the Lord's day, it seems, were held in the churches, and
Eustace was attempting to suppress these when he forbade the sale of goods
in the churches. And now to confirm the authority of the roll, and to
neutralize the opposition of the king, some very extraordinary prodigies
were reported. The roll forbade labor "from the ninth hour (that is 3
P.M.) on Saturday until sunrise on Monday." Now read what happened to the
disobedient:
"One Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the ninth
hour of the day was, contrary to the wholesome advice of his wife,
making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being struck with paralysis. A
woman also, a weaver, who, after the ninth hour, on Saturday, in her
anxiety to finish a part of the web, persisted in so doing fell to the
ground, struck with paralysis, and lost her voice. At Rafferton also, a
vill belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a loaf
and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on Saturday, and ate
thereof, and put part of it by till the morning, but when he broke it
on the Lord's day blood started forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore
witness, and his testimony is true.
"At Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after the
ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly came forth,
instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the vessel placed
beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the mill wheel stood
immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the water; and those who
beheld it wondered thereat, saying, `Spare us, O Lord, spare thy
people!'
"Also, in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and taking it
to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she placed it in the oven,
which was then at a very great heat; but when she took it out, she found
it raw, on which she again put it into the oven, which was very hot;
and, both on the next day, and on Monday, when she supposed that she
should find the loaves baked, she found raw dough.
"In the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her
dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to her, `It
is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it one side till
Monday:' on which the woman, obeying her husband, did as he commanded;
and so, having covered over the dough with a linen cloth, on coming the
next day to look at the dough, to see whether it had not, in rising,
through the yeast that was in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she
found there the loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked,
without any fire of the material of this world. This was a change
wrought by the right had of Him on high."66
The historian laments that these miracles were lost upon the people,
and that they feared the king more than they feared God, and so "like a
dog to his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord's day."67 Such was the first attempt in England after the apparition
of St. Peter, A.D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance.
"It shows," as Morer quaintly observes, "how industrious men were in those
times to have this great day solemnly observed."68 And Gilfillan, who has occasion to mention the story of
the roll from Heaven, has not one word of condemnation for the pious fraud
in behalf of Sunday, but he simply speaks of our abbot as "This ardent
person."69
Two years after the arrival of Eustace in England with his roll, A.D.
1203, a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and
establishment of the Lord's day in that kingdom.70 The roll that had fallen from Heaven to supply the lack of
scriptural testimony in behalf of this day, was admirably adapted to the
business of this council, though Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch
were so ready to comply with the pope's wishes that the packet from the
court of Heaven and the accompanying miracles were not needed.71 Yet Morer asserts that the packet was actually produced on
this occasion:
"To that end it was again produced and read in a council of Scotland,
held under [pope] Innocent III, . . . A.D. 1203, in the reign of King
William, who . . . passed it into a law that Saturday from twelve at
noon ought to be accounted holy, and that no man shall deal in such
worldly business as on feast days were forbidden. As also that at the
tolling of a bell, the people were to be employed in holy actions, going
to sermons and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a
penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the year 1214,
which was eleven years after, it was again enacted, in a parliament at
Scone, by Alexander III., king of the Scots, that none should fish in
any waters, from Saturday after evening prayer, till sunrising on
Monday, which was afterward confirmed by King James I.72
The sacredness of this papal Lord's day seems to have been more easily
established by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work
of establishing this institution was everywhere carried steadily forward.
Of England we read:
"In the year 1237, Henry III. being king, and Edmund de Abendon
archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made, requiring every
minister to forbid his parioshners the frequenting of markets on the
Lord's day, and leaving the church where they ought to meet and spend
the day in prayer and hearing the word of God. And this on pain of
excommunication."73
Of France we are informed:
"The council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it restrained the
people from their ordinary work on the Lord's day, and other festivals
on pain of ecclesiastical censures."
A.D. 1282. The council of Angeirs in France "forbid millers by water
or otherwise to grind their corn from Saturday evening till Sunday
evening."74
Nor were the Spaniards backward in this work:
A.D. 1322. This year "a synod was called at Valladolid in Castile,
and then was ratified what was formerly required, that `none should
follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any mechanical employment on
the Lord's day, or other holy days, but where it was a work of necessity
or charity, of which the minister of the parish was to be judge.' "75
The rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in
establishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes show
that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its
observance:
A.D. 1358. "Istippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great
concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: `We have it from the relation
of very credible persons, that in divers places within our province, a
very naughty, nay, damnable custom has prevailed, to hold fairs and
markets on the Lord's day. . . . Wherefore by virtue of canonical
obedience, we strictly charge and command your brotherhood, that if you
find your people faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause
them to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the Lord's
day. . . . And as for such who are obstinate and speak or act against
you in this particular, you must endeavor to restrain them by
ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful means put a stop to these
extravagances.'
"Nor was the civil power silent; for much about that time King Edward
made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple on Sundays and
other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of King Henry VI., Dr.
Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1444, it was decreed that
fairs and markets should no more be kept in churches and church-yards on
the Lord's day, or other festivals, except in time of harvest."76
Observe that fairs and markets were held in the churches in England on
Sundays as late as 1444! And even later than this such fairs were allowed
in harvest time. On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday was
persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as
follows:
A.D. 1532. "The Lord's day and other festivals were instituted for
this purpose, that faithful Christians abstaining from external work,
might more freely, and with greater piety devote themselves to God's
worship."77
They did not seem to be aware of the fact however that when the fear of
God is taught by the precepts of men such worship is vain.78 The council of Rheims, which sat the next year, made this
decree:
A.D. 1533. "Let the people assemble at their parish churches on the
Lord's day, and other holidays, and be present at mass, sermons and
vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to plays or dances,
especially during service." And the historian adds: "In the same year
another synod at Tours, ordered the Lord's day and other holidays to be
reverently observed under pain of excommunication"79
A council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the
divine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which
has supplanted it:
A.D. 1584. "Let all Christians remember that the seventh day was
consecrate by God, and hath been received and observed, not only by the
Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship God; though we Christians
have changed their Sabbath into the Lord's day. A day therefore to be
kept, by forbearing all worldly business, suits, contracts, carriages,
&c., and by sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the
contemplation of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works
of charity, say prayers, and sing psalms."80
We have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a
period subsequent to the Reformation. That it is an ordinance of man which
has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath is most distinctly confessed by
the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends of their
violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity, prayers, and
psalms: a course too often adopted at the present time to excuse the
violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long list of Sunday
laws, not from the "one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy," but
from popes, emperors, and councils, without adopting the sentiment of
Neander: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always
only a human ordinance?"
1 2Thess.2. <Return>
2 Dan.7. <Return>
3 Shimeall's Bible Chronology, part ii. chap. ix. sect.
5, p. 175, 176; Croly on the Apocalypse, pp. 167-173. <Return>
4 Dan.7:8,24,25; Rev.13:1-5. <Return>
5 Rev.12. <Return>
6 Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 1. <Return>
7 Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 73, ed. 1631.
<Return>
8 Hist. Sab. part ii, chap. ii, sect. 12. <Return>
9 Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 202. <Return>
10 Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13. <Return>
11 Id. part ii. chap. v. sect. 6. <Return>
12 Treatise of the Sabbath Day, pp. 217, 218. <Return>
13 Dialogues on the Lord's Day, pp. 263, 264. <Return>
14 The Lord's Day, p. 58. <Return>
15 Dictionary of Chronology p. 813, art. Sunday. <Return>
16 Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 265. <Return>
17 Id. pp. 265, 266; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect
7. <Return>
18 Dialogues on the Lord's Day. p. 68. <Return>
19 Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord's Day,
p. 174. <Return>
20 Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 282. <Return>
21 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Tome viii. Livre xxxvi. Sect 22;
Heylyn's Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 1. Dr. Twisse, however,
asserts that the pope speaks of two classes. He gives Gregory's words as
follows: "Relation is made unto me that certain men of a perverse spirit,
have sowed among you some corrupt doctrines contrary to our holy faith; so
as to forbid any work to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may well
call the preachers of Antichrist. . . . Another report was brought unto
me; and what was that? That some perverse persons preach among you, that
on the Lord's day none should be washed. This is clearly another point
maintained by other persons, different from the former." - Morality of the
Fourth Commandment, pp. 19, 20. If Dr. Twisse is right, the
Sabbath-keepers in Rome about the year 600 were not chargeable with the
Sunday observance above mentioned. <Return>
22 The idea is suggested by the language of an anonymous
first-day writer of the seventeenth century, Irenaeus Philalethes, in a
work entitled "Sabbato-Dominica," pref. p. 11, London, 1643. <Return>
23 Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 267. <Return>
24 Id. p. 283. <Return>
25 Dialogues, &c. p. 268. <Return>
26 Id. pp. 283, 284. <Return>
27 Id. p. 268. <Return>
28 Id. p. 284. <Return>
29 Dialogues, &c. p. 269. <Return>
30 Id. p. 270. <Return>
31 Id. p. 271. <Return>
32 Dialogue, &c. p. 271; Hist. Sab. part ii, chap.
v. sect. 7. <Return>
33 Dialogues, &c. p. 272. <Return>
34 Dialogue, &c. p. 261. <Return>
35 Ex.20:8-11; Deut.33:2. <Return>
36 Hist. Sab. part ii, chap. v, sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.
<Return>
37 Hist. Sab. part. ii, chap. v, sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.
<Return>
38 Dialogues, &c. pp. 261, 262. <Return>
39 Id. pp. 284, 285. <Return>
40 Dialogues, &c. p. 274. <Return>
41 Id. p. 285. <Return>
42 Id. p. 286. <Return>
43 Ib. Ib. <Return>
44 Id. pp. 286, 287. <Return>
45 Hist. Sab. part ii, chap. v, sect. 2. <Return>
46 Dialogues, &c. p. 274. <Return>
47 Hist. Sab. part ii, chap. v, sect. 2. <Return>
48 Dialogues, &c. p. 68. <Return>
49 Binius, vol. iii, p. 1285, ed. 1606. <Return>
50 Hist. Sab. part. ii, chap. v, sect. 13. <Return>
51 Morer, p. 288; Heylyn, part 2, chap. vii, sect. 6.
<Return>
52 Roger de Hoveden's Annals, Bohn's ed. vol. ii, p.
487. <Return>
53 Id. Ib. <Return>
54 Hoveden, vol. ii, pp. 526-528. <Return>
55 See Matthew Paris's Historia Major, pp. 200, 201. ed.
1640; Binius' Councils, ad ann. 1201, vol. iii, pp. 1448, 1449; Wilkins'
Concilia Magnae Britaniae, et Hibernae, vol. i, pp. 510, 511, London,
1737; Sir David Dalrymple's historical Memorials, pp. 7, 8, ed. 1769;
Heyln's History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. vii, sect. 5; Morer's
Lord's Day, pp. 288-290; Hessey's Sunday pp. 90, 321; Gilfillan's Sabbath,
p. 399. <Return>
56 Maclaine's Mosheim, cent. xiii, part ii, chap. i,
sect. 5. <Return>
57 Murdock's Mosheim, cent. xiii, part ii, chap. i,
sect. 5, note 19. <Return>
58 Matthew Paris's Historia Major, p. 201. His words
are: "Cum autem l'atriarcha et clerus omnis Terrae sanctae, hunc epistolae
tenorem diligenter examinassent; communi omnium deliberatione dectretum
est, ut epistola ad judicium Romani Pontificis transmitteretur; quatenus,
quicquid ipse agendum dectrevit, placaet universis. Cumque tandem epistola
ad domini Papae notitiam pervenisset, continuo praedicatotres ordinavit;
qui per diversas mundi partes profecti, praedicaverun ubuque
epistolaftenerem; Domino cooperante et sermonem eorum confirmante,
sequentibus signis. Inter quos Abbos de Flai nomine Eustachius, vir
religiosus et literali scientia eruditis, regnum Angliae agrressus: multis
ibidem miraculis corruscavit." - Library of Harvard College. <Return>
59 History of the Popes, vol. ii, p. 535. <Return>
60 M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, vol. iv, p. 590.
<Return>
61 Id. vol. iv, p. 592. <Return>
62 See page 274 of this work. <Return>
63 Hoveden, vol. ii, p. 528. <Return>
64 Hoveden, vol. ii, p. 528. <Return>
65 Id. p. 529. <Return>
66 Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 529, 530. <Return>
67 Id. Ib. Sabbath History. <Return>
68 Dialogues, &c. p. 290. <Return>
69 Gilfillan's Sabbath, p. 399. <Return>
70 Binius's Councils, vol. iii. p. 1448, 1449; Heylyn,
part ii. chap. vii. sect. 7. <Return>
71 Heylyn, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 7. <Return>
72 Dialogues, &c. pp. 290, 291. <Return>
73 Id. p. 291. <Return>
74 Id. p. 275. <Return>
75 Id. Ib. <Return>
76 Id. pp. 293, 294 <Return>.
77 Id. p. 279. <Return>
78 Isa.29:13; Matt.15:9. <Return>
79 Morer, p. 280. <Return>
80 Id. pp. 281, 282. <Return>
|