A Specimen Sunday Falsehood.
By Editor
SUNDAY is a counterfeit of the Sabbath, and in its support all manner of deceptions are practiced. Many readers of the SIGNS will remember the letter which we published, received from a gentleman in Harlem, Belgium, in which he said there was a publication circulated in that country, professedly translated from the English, giving an account of a man who built a boat on a lake in California, and, in contempt of the Sunday, named it "The Sabbath-breaker;" how it upset on its first sail, and all on board perished; all of the boat that could be seen out of the water was the part on which was painted the ominous name. Thus, it was claimed, did Providence frown upon all who refused to keep Sunday. We called upon the people of this State to verify the occurrence, if it were a fact. We were sure it was a falsehood—a "pious fraud"—but gave opportunity to the friends of Sunday to defend the story if they could. The only letter we ever received was from a friend in Washington Territory, who had heard something to the same intent, professedly in another State. But the fact as related never occurred. In a religious paper published in the East, we find an article in answer to a question concerning Sunday, in which is the following paragraph:— "The persecutors of the Christians were accustomed to put to them this question: 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' If they had they were marked as Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death. And when they continued steadfast, what was their answer? 'I am a Christian; I cannot omit it. It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it of course keep the Lord's day, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion.' (Baron. An. Eccles. A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc.)" Passing over the fact that no one can bring a particle of Scripture proof that Sunday is the Lord's day, or any historical evidence that it was so called in the days of the apostles, we confidently assert that the Annals of Baronius contain no such statement as is given in the above-quoted paragraph. And what is worse for the writer, he knew that this Sunday fraud had been thoroughly exposed by different writers when he penned these words. Baronius distinctly says that the question proposed to the Christians who suffered for their fidelity to the faith had reference to the celebration of the mass, or the Lord's Supper; it had no reference to the Sunday. These are his words:— "It has been shown above, in relating these things, that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment." And again: "Though it was a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum that only the sacrifice of the mass can be understood." Dr. Justin Edwards in the "Sabbath Manual," a very popular book advocating the Sunday, says the martyrs were asked that question, "Hast thou kept the Lord's day," but gives no authority. Perhaps he thought his cause was safest to make the assertion without offering any authority, as he knew many would swallow all that was held out to them as proof for Sunday, and if no authority it would be all the more difficult to disprove! Mr. Gurney, an English writer in favor of Sunday, quoted the story as from Bishop Andrews, who ascribed it to the "Acts of the Martyrs," giving, however, no instance or reference to any place in those legends where it might be found. But Sir Wm. Domville, another English writer, exposed the deception. He said:— "I have carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm that among the questions there stated to have been put to the martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two hundred years afterwards, the question, Dominicum servasti? does not once occur, nor any equivalent question." And no Sunday writer has ever attempted to show that Domville was wrong in this statement; no one has pointed to any place in the "Acts of the Martyrs" where it might be found. Notwithstanding, they continue to use it with as much assurance as if it had not been proved to be a falsehood! The Sunday-Sabbath is only a fraud, and to support it fraud must unavoidably be the resort. But Gilfillan has written a large work entitled, "The Sabbath," and while he did not dare to make the reference used so successfully by others in the face of the exposure of Sir Wm. Domville, he could not afford to lose a story which has already done so good service for Sunday. He therefore repeats it, and ascribes it to Baronius, as given by the writer of the first paragraph quoted in this article. But Eld. J. N. Andrews, author of the "History of the Sabbath" (which is often advertised in our paper), made a thorough examination of this matter, and has fairly convicted Gilfillan of duplicity in his pretended quotation. Two facts, which cannot be disputed, establish the matter. 1. Baronius never used the expression "Dominicum servasti?" as asserted by Gilfillan, and from him quoted by this writer in the Eastern religious paper. 2. Baronius distinctly defines the word Dominicum to refer to the mass, or the Lord's Supper, and says that by it "only the sacrifice of the mass can be understood," as quoted above. Whether he had really consulted Baronius or not, as we suppose he had, his words are actually a fabrication. Baronius does not leave the subject so obscure that the reader might make an honest mistake, and infer that he spoke of the keeping of Sunday. No; he distinctly says the question referred to the sacrifice of the mass, and to nothing else. And we have sufficient reason to believe that the writer to believe that the writer to this article, who follows Gilfillan in the quotation, was well acquainted with the exposure of his inexcusable untruth in reference to the statement of Baronius. We have no hesitation in expressing our firm belief that there is no other question or doctrine which was ever foisted upon the Christian world, in favor of which so much deception has been used and so many falsehoods told, as that of the Sunday—the falsely-styled "Christian Sabbath." The Baptists take pleasure in pointing to the fact that infant baptism is sustained only by tradition, having no foundation in the word of God. In this we think they are right. But they cannot produce a tithe of the false reasoning and flagrant deceptions used to uphold infant baptism that are produced to uphold the Sunday. Consistency demands that the Baptists repudiate the Sunday as a traditional error. The very fact that so many deceptions and "pious frauds" (minus the pious!) are practiced to hold it up, is sufficient to cause every thinking Bible believer to regard it with just suspicion. And when it is considered that nothing better than bare inferences are ever brought from the Bible, without a single direct statement in its favor, or a basis for these deceptions, the case ought to be settled in every candid mind. The truth is that if any Bible evidence could be produced resort would not be had to these deceptions; they would not be necessary. It is sad to contemplate that Protestantism has degenerated to that degree that almost the best of her denominations will cling to a dogma which has no sure foundation except that of tradition; no direct evidence but that of "the church;" no law in its favor but that of legislatures! A Catholic priest whom we told that we kept the seventh day and not the Sunday, said to us: "You are genuine Protestants; you have nothing of the Catholic Church left to you." This is exactly the position which we wish ever to occupy. If this is our position; if we are successful in keeping the "commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus," unadulterated by any of the institutions and requirements of "the beast and his image," we shall hope by divine favor to meet our Lord with joy when he comes to reap the harvest of the earth. Rev. 14.