[This post provides the historical background refered to in a previous post called “The Lord’s Day Proves The Sabbath Is Abolished.”]
Understanding the development of the doctrine of Sunday sacredness during the Reformation movement is crucial for appreciating how the Protestant Reformation influenced the concept of a divinely ordained weekly rest day. It is essential to acknowledge that the immediate successors of Luther made significant strides away from the laxity of the Dark Ages, as they sought to adhere more closely to the fourth commandment despite their interpretations being somewhat flawed.
A notable observation is that the concept of a sanctified weekly rest day gained traction primarily because of the increasing emphasis on the moral obligation of the fourth commandment for Christians. Without this emphasis, Protestantism would not have developed a distinct appreciation for a weekly holy day that clearly differentiates Reformation churches from the Catholic Church. When religious leaders today challenge the binding nature of the fourth commandment in an effort to dismiss the Sabbath truth, they are undermining the very foundation upon which the recognition of a weekly rest day in Protestantism has been built.
It is claimed that the Reformers did not fully embrace the implications of the fourth commandment. What, then, can be said about their spiritual successors today who seek to abolish this command? At Sure Word Ministry, along with many other seventh-day Sabbath keepers, we believe we are progressing in the true path of reformation by emphasizing the importance of the fourth commandment and insisting on its observance as it was originally given by God, rather than how it has been altered throughout centuries of apostasy.
The following account by Philip Schaff, a prominent church historian, provides valuable historical context regarding the Sabbath.
Philip Schaff on Sabbath Reform
“Ch. XXI.,’ Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day,’ must be mentioned as (next to the Irish Articles) the first symbolical indorsement of what may be called the Puritan theory of the Christian Sabbath which was not taught by the Reformers and the Continental Confessions, but which has taken deep root in England, Scotland, and the United States, and has become the basis of a far stricter observance of the Lord’s day than exists in any other country. This observance is one of the most prominent national and social features of Anglo American Christianity, and at once strikes the attention of every traveler.
The way was gradually prepared for it. Calvin’s view of the authority of the fourth commandment was stricter than Luther’s, Knox’s view stricter than Calvin’s, and the Puritan view stricter than Knox’s. The Prayer-Book of the Church of England, by incorporating the responsive reading of the Decalogue in the regular service, kept alive in the minds of the people the perpetual obligation of the fourth commandment, and helped to create a public sentiment within the Church of England favorable to the Puritan theory, although practically great desecration prevailed during Elizabeth’s reign. The ‘judicious’ Hooker, who was no Puritan, says: ‘We are bound to account the sanctification of one day in seven a duty which God’s immutable law doth exact forever.’
Towards the close of Elizabeth’s reign the Sabbath question assumed the importance and dignity of a national movement,and of a practical reformation which traveled from England to Scotland and from both countries to North America. The chief impulse to this movement was given in 1595 by Dr. Nicolas Bownd (or Bound), a learned Puritan clergyman of Norton in Suffolk. He is not the originator, but the systematizer or first clear expounder of the Puritan theory of the Christian Sabbath, namely, that the Sabbath or weekly day of holy rest is a primitive institution of the benevolent Creator for the benefit of man, and that the fourth commandment as to its substance (that is, the keeping holy one day out of seven) is as perpetual in design and as binding upon the Christians as any other of the Ten Commandments, of which Christ said that not ‘one jot or one tittle’ shall pass away till all be fulfilled.
The work in which this theory was ably and earnestly vindicated proved to be a tract for the times. Heylin, a High-Church opponent, says ‘that in a very little time it grew the most bewitching error, the most popular deceit that had ever been set on foot in the Church of England.’ Fuller dates from it ‘the more solemn and strict observance of the Lord’s day,’. . .
The Puritan Sabbath theory was denounced and assailed by the rising school of High-Churchism as a Sabbatarian heresy and a cunningly concealed attack on the authority of the Church of England, by substituting the Jewish Sabbath for the Christian Sunday and all the Church festivals. Attempts were made by Archbishop Whitgift in 1599, and by Chief Justice Popham in 1600, to suppress Bownd’s book and to destroy all the copies, but ‘the more it was called in the more it was called on;’ its price was doubled, and ‘though the book’s wings were clipped from flying abroad in print, it ran the faster from friend to friend in transcribed copies, and the Lord’s day, in most places, was most strictly observed. The more liberty people were offered the less they used it. . . . It was sport for them to refrain from sports. . . . Scarce any comment, catechism, or controversy was set forth by the stricter divines, wherein this doctrine (the diamond in this ring) was not largely pressed and proved; so that, as one saith, the Sabbath itself had no rest.’
At last King James I. brought his royal authority to bear against the Puritan Sabbatarianism so called, and issued the famous ‘Book of Sports,’ May 24, 1618, which was afterwards republished, with an additional order, by his son, Charles I., no doubt by advice of Archbishop Laud, Oct. 18, 1633. This curious production formally authorizes and commends the desecration of the evening of the Lord’s day by dancing, leaping, fencing, and other ‘lawful recreations,’ on condition of observing the earlier part by strict outward conformity to the worship of the Church of England. The professed object of this indulgence to the common people was to check the progress of the Papists and Puritans (or ‘Precisians’), and to make ‘the bodies more able for war’ when his majesty should have ‘occasion to use them.’ The court set the example of desecration by balls, masquerades, and plays on Sunday evening; and the rustics repaired from the house of worship to the ale-house or the village green to dance around the Maypole and to shoot at butts. To complete the folly, King James ordered the book to be read in every parish church, and threatened clergymen who refused to do so with severe punishment. King Charles repeated the order. But in both cases it became the source of great trouble and confusion. Several bishops disapproved of it. Archbishop Abbot (the Puritan predecessor of Laud) flatly forbade it to be read at Croydon. The Lord Mayor of London commanded the king’s own carriages to be stopped as they were passing through the city on a Sunday. James raged and swore, and countermanded the prohibition. The Lord Mayor yielded, with this answer: ‘While I was in my power I did my duty, but that being taken away, it is my duty to obey.’ Some clergymen, after reading the book from the pulpit, followed it up by a sermon against it, or by reading the fourth commandment—’ Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy’—and added, ‘This is the law of God, the other the injunction of man.’ Those who refused to read the royal Book of Sports were suspended from office and benefice, or even excommunicated by Laud and his sympathizing fellow-bishops. . . .
This persecution of conscientious ministers for obeying God rather than men gave moral strength to the cause of Sabbath observance, and rooted it deeper in the affections of the people. It was one of the potent causes which overwhelmed Charles and Laud in common ruin. The sober and serious part of the nation were struck with a kind of horror that they should be invited by the highest authorities in Church and State to destroy the effect of public worship by a desecration of a portion of the day consecrated to religion.
On the Sunday question Puritanism achieved at last a permanent triumph, and left its trace upon the Church of England and Scotland, which reappeared after the licentious period of the Restoration. For, although the Church of England, as a body, never committed itself to the Puritan Sabbath theory, it adopted at least the practice of a much stricter observance than had previously obtained under Elizabeth and the Stuarts, and would never exchange it for the Continental laxity, with its disastrous effects upon the attendance at public worship and the morals of the people.
The Westminster Confession, without entering into details or sanctioning the incidental excesses of the Puritan practice, represents the Christian rest-day under its threefold aspect: (1) as a divine law of nature (jus divinum naturale), rooted in the constitution of man, and hence instituted (together with marriage) at the creation, in the state of innocence, for the perpetual benefit of body and soul; (2) as a positive moral law (jus divinum positivum), given through Moses, with reference to the primitive institution (‘Remember’) and to the typical redemption of Israel from bondage; (3) as the commemoration of the new creation and finished redemption by the resurrection of Christ; hence the change from the last to the first day of the week, and its designation ‘the Lord’s day’ (dies Dominica). And it requires the day to be wholly devoted to the exercises of public and private worship and the duties of necessity and mercy.
To this doctrine and practice the Presbyterian, Congregational, and other Churches in Scotland, England, and America have faithfully adhered to this day. Yea, twenty-seven years before it was formulated by the learned divines of Westminster, the Pilgrim Fathers of America had transplanted both theory and practice first to Holland, and, finding them unsafe there, to the wild soil of New England. Two days after their landing from the Mayflower (Dec. 22, 1620), forgetting the pressing necessities of physical food and shelter, the dreary cold of winter, the danger threatening from wild beasts and roaming savages, they celebrated their first Sunday in America…” (The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 776-782).
Sixteenth Century Reformers’ Sabbath Views
The views of Reformers in the sixteenth century regarding the Sabbath are clearly demonstrated through quotes from two key confessions of that time: the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566).
Augsburg Confession, AD. 1530
Art. VII.—Of Ecclesiastical Power.
“The Scripture, which teacheth that all the Mosaical ceremonies can be omitted after the Gospel is revealed, has abrogated the Sabbath. And yet, because it was requisite to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the [Christian] Church did for that purpose appoint the Lord’s day: which for this cause also seemed to have been pleasing, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the observation, neither of the Sabbath, nor of another day, was of necessity.” (Ibid., vol. 3, p. 69).
Schaff explains that “Christian” is placed in brackets to indicate that this term does not appear in the original Latin text of the Confession, although it is present in the German version.
Second Helvetic Confession, AD. 1566
CHAPTER XXIV.—OF HOLYDAYS, FASTS, AND CHOICE OF MEATS.
“Although religion be not tied unto time, yet can it not be planted and exercised without a due dividing and allotting-out of time. Every Church, therefore, does choose unto itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and it is not lawful for any one to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure. For except some due time and leisure were allotted to the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men would be quite drawn from it by their own affairs.
In regard hereof, we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord’s Day itself, ever since the apostles’ time, was consecrated to religious exercises and to a holy rest; which also is now very well observed by our churches, for the worship of God and the increase of charity. Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day, or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself acceptable to God. Besides, we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Jewish Sabbath, and that with a free observation.” (Ibid., p. 899).
Later Views Regarding the Sabbath Command
The doctrine of the Sabbath, as outlined in the Irish Articles of Religion and the Westminster Confession that Schaff refers to in the previous historical sketch, is expressed in the following quotations from these creeds:
Irish Articles of Religion, AD. 1615
OF THE SERVICE OF GOD
“56. The first day of the week, which is the Lord’s day, is wholly to be dedicated unto the service of God; and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy exercises, both public and private.” (Ibid., p. 536).
Westminster Confession, AD. 1647
CHAPTER XXI—OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THE SABBATH DAY
“VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.” (Ibid., pp. 648, 649).
Schaff’s Comment on the Augsburg Confession Sabbath Doctrine
The statements from Protestant creeds clearly illustrate what Schaff means regarding the evolving perspectives of Protestantism on the authority of the fourth commandment. In a footnote about the Sabbath doctrine mentioned in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, Schaff notes:
“This view of the Christian Sabbath, which was held by all the Reformers, and still prevails on the Continent of Europe, overlooks the important fact that the Sabbath has a moral as well as a ceremonial aspect, and is a part of the Decalogue, which the Lord did not come ‘to destroy, but to fulfill’ (Matt. v. 17, 18; comp. xxii. 37–40; Rom. iii. 31; x. 4). As a periodical day of rest for the body, and worship for the soul, the Sabbath is founded in the physical and moral constitution of man, and reflects the rest of God after the work of creation (Gen. ii. 3). Under this view it is of primitive origin, like the institution of marriage, and of perpetual obligation, like the other commandments of the Decalogue. A lax theory of the Sabbath naturally leads to a lax practice, and tends to destroy the blessing of this holy day. The Anglo-American churches have an unspeakable advantage over those of the Continent of Europe in their higher theory and practice of Sabbath observance, which dates from the close of the sixteenth century. Even Puritan rigor is better than the opposite extreme.”(Ibid., p. 69, footnote).
In the early 1900s in the United States, the Lord’s Day Alliance was a prominent advocate for the sanctity of Sunday, endorsed by most Protestant denominations. This alliance asserts the importance of observing a weekly holy day based on the belief that the fourth commandment remains applicable. The following quotation illustrates this point clearly:
The Lord’s Day Alliance on the Sabbath Doctrine
“The Alliance holds that the fourth commandment is still in full force and effect. It believes that the Sabbath was given,not merely for one nation, but for all people, and that the world needs it today more than ever, both as a day of rest from excessive activity and as a day for religious inspiration in an age of worldliness and doubt. It holds that Christ did not abolish the fourth commandment, as some have held, but rather that in freeing the Sabbath from narrow and technical interpretations He strengthened and spiritualized the holy day. He said He came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law.
The change of the observance of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week did not end an old institution or begin a new one, but added new life and significance to the divine command. Thus not only was the day of the resurrection of Jesus celebrated, but the Sabbath was cleansed from the technicalities and traditions by which its free sanctities had been obscured.” (Supplement to the January-February, 1921, Lord’s Day Leader, official publication of the Lord’s Day Alliance).
The Proposition Narrowed Down
In English-speaking countries, when discussing the Sabbath with those who adhere to the widely accepted belief that Sunday is based on the fourth commandment, the conversation often simplifies to this key question: Where in the Bible is there a text that proves the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week?
Conversely, when engaging with those who subscribe to the Continental view of the Sabbath, as articulated in the Augsburg Confession and similar documents, the question shifts to: Where is the biblical evidence that the fourth commandment pertains only to a ceremonial requirement, especially considering that the entire Ten Commandments are recognized as the binding moral code for Christians?
It should never be necessary to traverse countless arguments about grace and the supposed abolition of the law before addressing the central issue of the Sabbath. Evidence from Protestant creeds indicates that rejecting the Ten Commandments fundamentally undermines one of the core beliefs of Protestantism.
