Historical Department by Eld. E. Goodrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 5, 1867

Historical Department.

By Eld. E. Goodrich

Prophecy is History in Advance.

History—Mosheim’s Testimony.

BY ELD. E. GOODRICH.

By those who regard Sunday as the true Christian Sabbath—the day having been changed, as they think, from the seventh to the first day of the week—there is perhaps no one testimony so much relied upon to prove this change as that of Dr. Mosheim which reads, “All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.”

The object of the following remarks or criticism is an inquiry whether the above is, or is not genuine history; and if it is, what does it teach? To accomplish this purpose it may be proper to ask,

What is history?
Is the above veritable history? and if it is,
What does it teach?

History is a record of past events; or it is a system by which events are recorded as they pass; and like every other system of knowledge or truth, it has its principles by which the true is separated from the false. The principles of history are time, place, action, and evidence. Every event that occurs must have a time; it must have a place; it must have action; and there must be evidence, or witnesses, of said action. Otherwise we do not know when to find it, where to find it, when it is found, nor by whom to find it. A picture of a boy twelve years old, if it be faithfully drawn, is a history of how the boy looked at that age. A deed of a farm, if it be properly executed and witnessed, becomes a very valuable record of purchase, and evidence of the right of possession forever.

Let us open our Bibles and read a few verses of history. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins. Matt. iii, 1, 2, 5, 6.

We have in the above all the demands of the principles of history answered. We have represented at a certain time, in a certain place, a certain prophet, preaching a certain message to a certain people, with certain results.

It may be proper to observe that there is counterfeit history. A document or representation may contain all the characteristics of genuine history, and yet be a forgery; the same as a note of hand or check may be perfect in itself, yet be forged. There are always the proper means by which counterfeits and forgeries are detected—of these I need not speak.

As to the different kinds of history, we have an endless variety. We have histories of nations and kingdoms, histories of men and things, civil history, political history, religious history, and in short, histories of all the varied pursuits, inventions, and occupations, of men.

Again, history may be divided into two classes; viz., ancient and modern. And again, we have ancient history in modern form. The principle involved in writing history is that the historian must always be contemporary with the events recorded. This principle is not violated when a modern historian writes concerning ancient events; for in this case the work is eclectic, and the historian only selects, arranges and compiles, from ancient records. In writing this latter kind of history, as the sources of information are always more or less imperfect, and as our views and feelings and the light that shines upon us from our own peculiar stand-point, become the rule by which we judge of unknown things, the historian, especially if he has formed any opinion of the events or doctrines of which he is writing, in attempting to fill up with inferences and probabilities the omissions and vacancies found in ancient records, is almost sure to give to the entire work a form and coloring as much in harmony with his own views as possible.

This work of converting testimony to our own use, may be done either in omitting to speak of those facts that weigh against us, or in painting in strong language those evidences that appear to favor us. Wherever there is interest, there is prejudice; and where there is ignorance or want of testimony, a man, although honest, may err in rendering judgment. And as the work of writing history is arduous, and as historians are not supposed to be infallible, no one should enter into a hasty judgment against a historian, although his work is measurably faulty. So far as possible, the good should be sifted out, and received, and the wrong passed over in charity.

But we have, as all are aware, other means of obtaining a knowledge of the past, than history. We have tradition. By traditional knowledge we understand the knowledge that is passed from one person to another; as from father to son, and from son to grandson, through many generations. The difference between history and tradition is, that while the events of the former are impressed upon enduring if not imperishable substance, the objects of the latter, like drift-wood are thrown out upon the stream of time and subjected to all the changing influences of wind and tide. Tradition sustains about the same relation to history as the muddy waters of a low, sluggish stream do to those of a pure fountain. Tradition is always more or less laden with the party interests and prejudices of those through whom it passes, so that the life of a man through the tradition of his friends, would be a very different thing from the life of the same man through the tradition of his enemies.

From these considerations it is manifest that history is much more reliable than tradition. And for the same reasons, Protestantism if it be consistent, is superior to Catholicism.

With the foregoing remarks before us, we are prepared to ask, Is the language of Mosheim, as quoted above, genuine history? Whatever our views of the correctness or incorrectness of the same may be, it seems evident beyond doubt that if the historian has expressed the truth, he has done it, to say the least, in the strongest language, and given to it the highest coloring warrantable. He has not only declared certain things, but he has interwoven and adorned his language with those qualifying words and well-arranged sentences, calculated to impress the mind of the reader with a sense of awe and authority.

Let us read a few of those expressions: “All Christians were unanimous.” “Triumphant Saviour.” “Solemn celebration of public worship.” “This pious custom.” “Express appointment of the apostles.” “Who consecrated.” “The same sacred purpose.” “Observed universally.” “United testimonies.” “Most credible writers.” The emphasis in these quotations of course is mine.

The above are remarkable passages, the like of which are rarely, if ever, found on the pages of history; and it appears only possible that so many strong expressions should occur in so short a space. Had the historian lived at the time when the events of which he is speaking are said to have occurred, and had he been personally acquainted with every individual Christian, and had the church seen eye to eye as the watchmen will when God shall bring again Zion, he could then have been very positive in his manner of expression, and not have been obliged to conclude by saying, “as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.”

But we will waive all these and consider the entire passage in the light of historic principles. And in doing this it will be pardonable, if not interesting, to turn back and read portions of the same chapter in which the same author speaks of the rites ordained by our Saviour, and the different forms of worship, manners, and customs of the early Christians. We will begin with the chapter and read:—

“The Christian religion was singularly commendable on account of its beautiful and divine simplicity, which appears from the two great and fundamental principles on which it was built, viz., faith and charity. This simplicity was not, however, incompatible with certain external rites, and positive institutions, which, indeed, are necessary, in this imperfect state, to keep alive a sense of religion in the minds of men. The rites instituted by CHRIST himself, were only two in number; and these were designed to continue to the end of the church here below, without any variation. These rites were BAPTISM and the HOLY SUPPER.”

Let those who think that our Saviour had anything to do in abolishing the ancient Sabbath and ordaining Sunday in its stead, read this testimony again.

Under section 2, we read: “There are several circumstances which incline us to think that the friends and apostles of our blessed Lord, either tolerated through necessity, or appointed for wise reasons, many other external rites in various places. At the same time we are not to imagine that they ever conferred upon any person a perpetual, indelible, pontifical authority, or that they enjoined the same rites in all churches. We learn on the contrary, from authentic records, that the Christian worship was, from the beginning, celebrated in a different manner in different places, and that, no doubt, by the orders, or at least with the approbation, of the apostles and their disciples. In those early times, it was both wise and necessary, to show, in the establishment of outward forms of worship, some indulgence to the ancient opinions, manners, and laws of the respective nations to whom the gospel was preached.”

The above may be regarded as a kind of key by which we may understand the reason for the augmentation of those rites and ceremonies with which the church soon became loaded, of which I have not time to speak.

In the latter part of section 3, we read: “In a word, the external forms of worship used in the times of old, must necessarily have been regulated and modified according to the character, genius, and manners, of the different nations on which the gospel arose.”

We will now begin and read from section 4, from which our first quotation is made: “Since, then, there was such a variety in the ritual and discipline of the primitive churches, it must be very difficult to give such an account of the worship, manners, and institutions, of the ancient Christians, as will agree with what was practiced in all those countries where the gospel flourished.”

And yet notwithstanding the above picture, the historian turns himself and says: “There are, notwithstanding, certain laws, whose authority and obligation were universal and indispensable among all Christians; and of these we shall here give a brief account.”

The reader will notice that the author has here promised to give an account of certain laws whose authority and obligation were universal—we will see whether he has or has not done as he promised. And bearing in mind that no one can write an authentic history of events that have passed hundreds of years before his day only as he does it by referring to those acknowledged authors who were familiar with those events and faithfully recorded them, we read “All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship.”

As a kind of general statement this language is sufficiently plain and comprehensive; but when considered as history, it is indefinite; for it lacks in delineation and in those essential principles that entitle it to confidence.

And as time may be regarded as the first principle of history, and as the act spoken of is that of setting apart the first day of the week for public worship, we may ask, When were all Christians unanimous in this action? We look through the entire passage and yet we find no time given either in the form of periods or in the form of events; as, at a feast, conference, or council. We know when the battle of Waterloo was fought, when the declaration of American independence

was made, and a thousand other events of national and individual interest; yet we do not know when the first day of the week was consecrated.

Again as every action that is done must of necessity have a place, the question is proper, Where did this action of setting apart the first day take place? Where were all the Christians when they set apart the first day of the week?

And as action itself is an indispensable principle of history we inquire, What was the nature of the action here spoken of?

The historian does not tell us how the first day was set apart, nor in what the act of consecration consisted. He neither defines the principle upon which the action rested, nor does he give us the ordinance of consecration. And as the early Christians, both as churches and individuals, were very much scattered, as well as divided in sentiment, and with but very limited means of communication, it is a question how this unanimity of action took place. Was it by letter? Was it by delegates? Or, was it by a general gathering at which unanimous resolutions were passed?

But we read, ‘This pious custom which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem.’ What pious custom? It is not easy to understand what the author here means; for this sentence seems to detract from the former one in which he speaks of the setting apart of the first day of the week. Are we to understand that it was a custom to set apart the first day of the week? or, does the word custom apply only to the observance of the day? To say that the word custom applies to the act of setting apart the day, would not read well; and if we use the word to denote the observance of the day, then what has been said of setting apart the day does not signify what it ought; for there is a difference between creating an ordinance and the observance of the same; and we are not to regard custom the same as those laws that are of “universal authority and obligation.”

But we continue to read, ‘Was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose.’ This is certainly very strong language to use concerning those events that lie so far back in the uncertain past; and we may ask, Where have we a record of any express appointment of the apostles or any act of consecration by which the first day of the week was set apart from all others? And if we have such a record, what duties are enjoined by said express appointment, and how does the act of dedication read? And we may continue to ask, when, where, and how did the action take place? and were all of the apostles present, or were some of them absent? and if so, how many? It is not enough to say, ‘as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers,’ in the absence of those records, which plainly embody historic principles.

And although Dr. Mosheim may have been an honest man, a good Christian, and generally a reliable historian, yet his language here will not bear the criticism of well-defined history. It reads more like tradition; and he speaks very much as one would who wished to sustain a case. And what confirms one in this view of the matter is, that while Protestants profess to have history for Sunday-keeping, the Roman Catholic church, the church through which almost all the sacred records have come down to us, only claim to have tradition.

But if it be admitted that what the author has here written is genuine history, we come to the third question, and ask, What does it teach? And in seeking to gain a knowledge of those events that have long since passed, and of those persons who lived in other ages, surrounded by circumstances different from our own, we should avoid making our own views and feelings, and the times in which we are living, the rule by which to judge; but we should, so far as we can, go back in our minds and occupy the very place of the person or things spoken of. And in answering the question just asked, as the reader is familiar with what the historian has said, instead of speaking of what is taught, we may notice what is not taught. And in looking for these “laws that are of universal authority and obligation,” of which the author promised to speak, we find no trace of any such law, either in the form of precepts, in the form of well-defined ceremonies, or in the form of penal statutes. And touching the setting apart of the first day of the week, there is nothing said about

its being consecrated a Sabbath, much less that it was ordained to occupy the place of the seventh day; neither is there one word said about its being observed by divine authority.

But let us continue to read: ‘The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, not by the Christians in general, but by such characters only as were principally composed of Jewish converts; nor did the other Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful.’

The reader will notice that following the word “festival,” he is referred to a note below in which the author says, ‘It is in vain that many learned men have labored to prove that in all the primitive churches, both the first and last days of the week were observed as festivals.’ Whether the “many learned men” spoken of, were or were not more successful in their efforts in searching after and stating the truth than Dr. Mosheim, the reader of course will judge for himself. The only authority that Mosheim offers to sustain his view is the letter of Pliny to Trajan of which we read in the remainder of the note: ‘The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks in his letter to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of public worship;’ and Mosheim adds, ‘and that was, undoubtedly, the first day of the week, or what we call the Lord’s day.’

What reason or what right Mosheim had as a historian for saying that the day upon which the churches of Bithynia worshiped was upon the first day of the week, does not appear. It would seem much more probable in the absence of any direct testimony, especially if we give to Bible history any weight, that if the early churches had but one stated day of worship, it would be the day set apart by divine appointment, and sanctioned by the custom of many generations.

But, be this as it may, if we take the testimony as it is, and admit that the first as well as the seventh day of the week was observed, there are several facts, that may be both positively and negatively stated, that we should not lose sight of. (1.) These days were not rival days, but each day was observed for reasons peculiar to itself. (2.) The first day of the week was not observed as a Sabbath. (3.) It was not observed for Sabbath reasons. (4.) It was not observed in place of the seventh day, and (5.) It was not observed by divine authority; but it was observed as a church memorial, and only by church authority.

And we may continue to read in the same place what Mosheim says, concerning other feast days ordained by the same authority and observed for similar reasons: ‘It appears, moreover, that all the Christian churches had two great anniversary festivals; the one in memory of Christ’s glorious resurrection; and the other to commemorate the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles. To these we may add the day on which the blessed martyrs laid down their lives for the truth, which days were probably dignified with particular solemnities and marks of veneration from the earliest times.’

And in this connection it may be proper to turn and read section 13 of the author’s introduction to this volume in which he says: ‘After giving an account of the rulers and doctors of the church, the ecclesiastical historian proceeds to exhibit a view of the laws that are peculiar to this sacred community, that form, as it were, its center of union, and distinguish it from all other religious societies. These laws are of two kinds. The first are properly called divine, because they are immediately enacted by God himself, and are contained in those sacred books which carry the most striking marks of a divine origin. They consist of those doctrines that are the objects of faith and reason, and those precepts that are addressed to the heart and the affections. To the second kind belong those laws that are merely of human institution, and derive their authority only from the injunctions of the rulers of the church.’

Now, if we could find clearly defined on the pages of history a human law requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath instead of the seventh day, as this law would conflict with a divine law, we should have no hesitancy in rejecting the former, and receiving the latter. But we have no such law, neither have we any history for the observance of the first day of the week by the early Christians as the true Sabbath.

Touching the seventh day of the week, it was observed, (1.) For Scriptural and Sabbatical reasons. (2.) It was observed both by divine appointment and authority. (3.) It was observed in memory of the work of creation, it being the order of time, and the rest, ordained at the beginning. (4.) Wherever the seventh day of the week is spoken of in the Bible, it is always called the Sabbath; and (5.) Whenever the people of God are referred to in connection with the Sabbath, they are always represented as keeping it, or upbraided for not doing it.

With the above facts and considerations before him, the reader will of course judge for himself whether the first day of the week is or is not the Christian Sabbath, and to how much weight the testimony of Mosheim is entitled.