Facts vs. Misrepresentations.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
EDITOR SIGNS OF THE TIMES—Dear Brother: I have before me the December number of the Richmond Star, a paper published monthly at Richmond, Ind., by Milton Wright, a preacher and, I believe, bishop of the church of the United Brethren in Christ. The motto of the paper is: "First pure; then peaceable." On the first page is an article which I give below, and I wish to know if it is true. "SABBATARIAN MISREPRESENTATIONS."
"Perhaps scarcely any class of Christian professors practice false quotation from authorities so much as Seventh-day Adventists. They have widely asserted that Dr. Mosheim states, in his celebrated 'Church History,' that it was by a decree of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, that the Christian day of worship was changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. A few quotations from Dr. Mosheim's 'Church History' will show that he testifies the very opposite from what he is represented by these Sabbatarians as doing." "In the history of the first century of the church, chap. iv, sec. iv, Mr. Mosheim says:— " '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 at Jerusalem, was founded on the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred Christian churches, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers. The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, not by Christians in general, but by such churches only as were composed of Jewish converts; nor did the other Christians censure this custom as criminal or unlawful.'" "Dr. Mosheim, in his history of the second century chap. iv, sec. viii, says:— " 'The first Christians assembled for the purpose of divine worship, in private houses, in caves, and in vaults where the dead were buried. Their meetings were on the first day of the week; and in some places they assembled on the seventh, which was celebrated by the Jews. Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion.'" "Now after the foregoing most explicit testimonies concerning the universal observance of the first day of the week for Christian worship during the first and second centuries, Dr. Mosheim, in his history of the fourth century, uses the language which has been so misrepresented by Seventh-day Adventists. He says in his history of the fourth century, chap. iv, sec. v:— " 'The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of Christians, was in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.'" "How different are these testimonies of the learned and judicious Dr. Mosheim from those stated by Seventh-day Adventists to deceive the unlearned and ignorant. It is a great injustice to pervert a wise historian's testimony to just the opposite of what he has testified. It seems to be the work of 'those who love and make a lie.' [Ed.]" To the brother's inquiry we reply that the article is both true and false—principally false. Seventh-day Adventists do not claim that Mosheim states in his "Church History" or anywhere else, that the Sabbath was changed by the decree of Constantine. No such claim can be found in any of our writings. It will be noticed that the writer of the article does not attempt to substantiate his charge, by showing just where the false quotations may be found. It is very easy to make charges in a general manner, but an accusation, in order to be valid, must be backed up by proof. But of this he had none, and he is therefore guilty of what he charges upon us—misrepresentation. Now as to the truth of his quotations. If the brother will take the pains, he will find them all in "The History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week," by Eld. J. N. Andrews, for sale at this office. (See advertisement in this issue.) This work, which is complete on this subject, contains these and many other quotations from first-day historians. In fact, all that is quoted from early writers in support of the Sunday, will be found in this book. Instead of claiming that the Sabbath was changed in consequence of Constantine's law, evidence is given to show that Sunday was kept long before his time. It may not be amiss, in passing, to call attention to the first quotation from Mosheim, in which it is stated that "all Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week," etc. This passage is taken from Maclaine's translation of Mosheim's history, and is always quoted by first-day writers, because it accords nearly with what they wish to prove true. Now Maclaine did not profess to give a strictly accurate translation of Mosheim. He himself says in his preface: "I have sometimes taken considerable liberties with my author, and followed the spirit of his narrative rather than adhering strictly to the letter; and have often added or changed sentences to render an observation more clear, a description more clear, a portrait more finished." What Dr. Mosheim really said, as compared with what his translator Dr. Maclaine says, proves that the latter has interpreted his author's sentiments in such a manner as to make them consistent with those held by the translator, and not in the text. This makes it impossible for a mere English reader to distinguish the truth, in divers instances he has entirely contradicted the author in the translation of Dr. Murdock, who has produced a literal version. Although the passage is materially modified, Mosheim states that Sunday was observed in the first century, he does not state that "all Christians were unanimous" in so doing. As far as we are concerned, however, we are willing to let the passage stand as quoted. We mention it merely to show that first-day writers are not over-scrupulous as to the means they use to advance the interest of the Sunday. As for ourselves, we are anxious that the exact truth on this Sunday question should be given in every instance; for the more the truth shines upon it, the more clearly it is seen that there is no divine authority for Sunday-keeping. And now what do Seventh-day Adventists claim in regard to Constantine's law? They claim, not that Sunday was not kept previous to its enactment, but that it was the first law ever given in favor of Sunday observance. And that we do not make this claim rashly, the following testimonies will prove:— "It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius, appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman Empire."—Encyclopædia Britannica, art. "Sunday." "Chambers' Encyclopædia," published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., under the heading "Sabbath," says:— "But whatever may have been the opinion and practice of these early Christians in regard to cessation from labor on the Sunday, unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A. D." There is no one who will presume to dispute these authorities. There is no one who can find any law for Sunday-keeping prior to this edict of Constantine. From these authors we learn that while many Christians did keep the day before Constantine's time, they did it voluntarily, and not on account of any law which had been given. From "Chambers' Encyclopædia," article "Sabbath," we quote again as follows:— "At what date the Sunday, or first day of the week, began to be generally used by Christians as a stated time for religious meetings, we have no definite information either in the New Testament or in the writings of the Fathers of the church. By none of the Fathers of the fourth century is it identified with the duty of observing it grounded by the fourth commandment or on the example of Jesus or his apostles, or on an antecedent law promulgated to mankind at the creation and in force after the coming of Christ." If any one doubts this statement, he will find in a little work, "The Testimony of the Fathers Concerning the Sabbath and First Day of the Week," for sale at this office, the writings of the Fathers of the first three centuries, in which an allusion, or even a support, by an allusion, is made to the Sabbath or first day.67Kitto, in his "Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature," in the article "Lord's Day," after noticing the texts commonly adduced in favor of Sunday observance, says:— "Though in later times we find considerable reference to a sort of consecration of the day, it does not seem at any period of the ancient church, to have assumed the form of such an observance as some modern religious communities have contended for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege any divine command, or even apostolic practice, in support of it." Now for another quotation from Mosheim. We are always pleased when it is brought forward in favor of Sunday observance. We give the passage as quoted by our reverend critic:— "The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of Christians, was in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been." That law of Constantine's reads as follows:— "Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn or planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven." If, as Mosheim states, the Sunday was, in consequence of this law, "observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been," the reader may well wonder how much sacredness was attached to Sunday before this time. Not much, certainly. This statement of Mosheim is not of much use to the Sunday cause. But our opponents will still say with a triumphant air: "Nevertheless the Sunday was kept by the express appointment of the apostles, or at least on account of their example." Why, how do you know that? "Because Mosheim says so." Very well, and how did Mosheim find it out? Did he live in the apostles' time? Did he converse with them? They will be compelled to answer that he did not; that he was a modern writer, born more than two hundred years after the discovery of America. How then did he learn what the apostles wrote? He had the New Testament, wherein their writings are contained. But we have the same, and so have our first-day friends; why, then, instead of quoting from Mosheim that the apostles commanded the observance of Sunday, do they not go direct to the writings of the apostles, and point out the passage wherein such command is made? For the very reason that no such passage can be found, as they very well know. But why does Mosheim say that Sunday observance was founded on the express appointment of the apostles, if it is not really so? For the same reason that many first-day theologians of the present time make reckless assertions which they cannot prove. He believed in Sunday sacredness, having been taught it from his youth. In his reading of early history he found that some Christians kept that day; and since he could find no commandment any where else for Sunday-keeping, he straightway concluded that the apostles themselves must have commanded it. If they did not, who did? Sure enough, who did? We are not at all alarmed for the Sabbath, when told that Sunday was kept very soon after the apostles' time. We learn that the fourth day of the week and likewise the sixth was observed also. We learn also, according to Tertullian, that the custom of praying for the dead was common in the second century, and that the invocation of saints, the superstitious use of images, the sign of the cross, etc., were common in the fourth century. Apostolic authority was claimed for all of these. Will our first-day friends accept them on this authority? Certainly not. And why not? "Because," they will tell you, "these things are forbidden in the Bible, and we find nothing in the writings of the apostles sanctioning them." Exactly; and so we say about the Sunday. It matters not how early a custom was established, so long as it does not have the sanction of divine authority. We find that an abominable practice (1 Cor. 5:1) was prevalent among certain Christians, even while the apostles were yet alive; shall we therefore conclude that Christ sanctioned robbery? Assuredly not. Even among Christ's chosen twelve there was a thief, yet we do not conclude from this fact that Christ sanctioned robbery. Paul knew that abuses would creep into the church, and warned the disciples against being led astray. Acts 20:29, 30. He stated that even in his day the "mystery of iniquity" was working, and the great apostasy had commenced. 2 Thess. 2:7. Let no one think it strange, then, that we find men in the early centuries adopting the Sunday festival, along with other heathen customs. Sin has always existed even within the professed church of God, and will continue to exist until He shall come "whose fan is in his hand," to "thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner," and to "burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."