The History of the Sabbath, Chapter xv— How Impeached.
By John Nevins Andrews
I have given an analysis of each chapter of the first edition of the History of the Sabbath, which Eld. Preble has attacked, and have shown the nature of his reply. I have thus given chapters 12, 13, and 14, stating the several points made in those chapters, and giving the authorities for those points. Then I have given all the points in his professed impeachment, with the evidence on which he founds it. I have thus shown, 1. That he has attempted to answer but few of the points, and generally those which he has noticed were not the most important. 2. That he has not answered fairly a single point. 3. That, while writing with the purpose of showing the History of the Sabbath to be a fraudulent work, he has taken the notes of a modern editor of Justin Martyr, and given them to his readers as the words of Justin himself. I have an object in this examination. The second edition of the History of the Sabbath is now given to the public. If it is a truthful work, the importance of its historical statements can hardly be overestimated. Now we have, in the case of Eld. P., a man of some historical knowledge, who makes a most determined effort to impeach the veracity of the work. If he succeeds with respect to the first edition, the second may be esteemed worthless. But if he fails most signally, the reader may be sure that he undertook more than he was able to accomplish. I now briefly state the points made in chapter 15, with the evidence on which each was made, and shall then note Eld. P.'s reply:— ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
1. Sunday a festival very generally observed by the heathen at the opening of the Christian era. Testimony of Noah Webster, J. E. Worcester, LL. D., the North British Review, Verstegan, and Dr. Jennings. 2. This heathen observance very powerfully contributed to the establishment of Sunday as a festival in the Christian church, as proved from the statements of the North British Review, Chasie, and Morer. 3. Sunday one of three voluntary festivals in the early church, and holding but slight pre-eminence over the other two, sustained by citations from Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. i. part 2, c. 4, note ‡; and cent. ii. part 2, c. 4, sect. 8; and Dr. Heylyn's Hist. Sab., part 2, c. 1, sect. 12; and part 2, c. 3, sect. 4; and part 2, c. 1, sect. 10; and Domville's Examination of the Six Texts, Sup. pp. 6, 7. 4. Justin Martyr, the first witness for Sunday, A. D. 140, speaks of this day as a voluntary festival. Justin Martyr's First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127. 5. Justin shown by the American Tract Society to be utterly unreliable as a witness concerning tradition. See their book entitled “Spirit of Popery,” pp. 44, 45. 6. Justin Martyr an out-spoken no-Sabbath man, and therefore unfairly claimed as a witness for the change of the Sabbath. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, Brown's translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64. 7. The testimony attributed to Irenæus in behalf of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath shown to be a quotation from an interpolated passage in a spurious epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. Domville's Ex. of Six Texts, pp. 128–132. 8. The first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Bower's Hist. of Pope's, vol. i. p. 18; Dowling's Hist. of Romanism, p. 32. 9. Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, A. D. 200, assigns no divine authority for the observance of Sunday by Christians, but excuses such observance on the ground that it was not to worship the sun, but to put a difference between themselves and those who kept the Sabbath. Reeves' Translation of Tertullian, vol. i. pp. 238, 239. 10. Tertullian is the first writer who applies the term Lord's day to Sunday, or that makes even an allusion to abstinence from labor on that day. Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, Art. Lord's Day. Rose's Neander, p. 186, marginal note. 11. The first great effort of the Romish church to render the Sabbath despicable was by making it a fast day, while Sunday was made a day of joyful celebration. Heylyn's Hist. of Sabbath, part 2, c. 2, sect. 3. James' Sermons before the University of Oxford, p. 166. Rose's Neander, p. 186. Hase's Ancient Ch. History, part 1, div. 2, A. D. 100–312, sect. 69. Lord King's Inquiry into Constitution of the Primitive Church, chap. vii. sect. 11. The points presented in the above analysis are very important in their bearing upon the early history of the Sabbath. Now how many, and what ones, of them does Eld. P. impeach? Not a single point! What, then, constitutes his answer to this chapter? Two things, the first of which is that I did not give the whole of Webster's definition of the name Sunday. Observe that my first point is this:— “Sunday, a festival very generally observed by the heathen at the opening of the Christian era.” Among the witnesses which I cited in support of this statement is Dr. Webster. I was showing the origin of the word, and so I quoted his dictionary thus:— “Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week.” He complains (First-Day Sabbath, p. 413) because I did not give the remainder, which is as follows:— “A day consecrated to rest from secular employments, and to religious worship. It is called also the Lord's day. Many pious persons, however, discard the use of Sunday, and call the day the Sabbath. (See Sabbath.)” This is the ground of his insinuation. But I gave all that Webster (edition of 1859) says concerning the derivation of the word Sunday, which was the only point under consideration, and I proved that anciently the day was a heathen festival. I also gave Webster's theological views on the Sabbath question by continuing his definition thus: “The Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week.” As I did in no sense conceal Webster's views, and as what is omitted adds no fact not stated, or understood to be implied in what I gave, no candid critic can complain. The omission saved over one-half the space, which was an important consideration where so many authors were to be quoted in one small book. But in the second edition, all that Webster gives under the word Sunday is quoted. Every one can see, however, that the ancient heathen festival of Sunday is not denied nor modified by what is added. Eld. P. also gives Webster's lengthy definition and statement under the word Sabbath, as though I ought to have given that also, if I quoted Webster as to the derivation of the word Sunday! This is Eld. P.'s method of answering my first point. My second point is that “This heathen observance very powerfully contributed to the establishment of Sunday as a festival in the Christian church, as proved from the statements of the North British Review, Chasie, and Morer.” Now, what answer does Eld. P. make to this point? How does he dispose of it? He does not even attempt to do it. He charges me with unfairness (p. 414) in quoting Morer. Though I gave almost one whole page of Morer, containing his entire testimony relative to Sunday as an ancient festival of the heathen when taken up by the fathers as a Christian festival, he says that I “garble the testimony of this witness,” because I do not give the next page also in which Morer in nowise modifies what he said as to the heathen festival, but simply argues that the fathers “might safely” choose that day, “because it was the day on which the Lord Christ arose from the dead,” and might retain, as they did, the name of Sunday, because Christ is “the Sun of Righteousness.” This is the substance of the page, and it amounts to nothing so far as detracting from, or changing, what I gave from Morer is concerned. And now what answer does he make to the nine remaining points in this chapter, as shown in the foregoing analysis? Here it is:— “We now pass over J. N. A.'s work from p. 227 to p. 243, with feelings of regret that any man should be so misled as to devote his energies to a cause so unworthy a Christian! It is not often we find so much sophistical reasoning as is contained in the above-named pages. History has been garbled, and another attempt made to impeach the testimony of the early Christian fathers, so as to turn the scale of evidence in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath!” Pages 415, 416. Several things are evident: 1. That Eld. P. saw not one point in this chapter which he could successfully attack. 2. But, that he might appear to do something, he charges me with unfairly quoting Webster and Morer, and, as I have shown, does this without any ground for his charge. 3. That he might dispose of the remainder of the chapter, he calls it “sophistical reasoning,” when he has not yet pointed out one instance of misstatement nor of false reasoning in the book. He also says that I attempted to impeach “the early Christian fathers.” I have not impeached them, but I have impeached those first-day writers who (for instance) make Irenæus testify that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath; for every word of that testimony is a fabrication! This exposure is one of the things in this chapter which Eld. P. so lightly passes over, and yet with the knowledge that not one word of this pretended testimony of Irenæus is to be found in that father. He professes, on pp. 73, 74 of his book, to quote this fraudulent testimony as the genuine words of Irenæus!