Elder Preble on the Thirteenth Chapter of the Sabbath History.
By John Nevins Andrews
In a former article, we showed what kind of an answer Eld. P. makes to the twelfth chapter of the History of the Sabbath, the chapter with which his attack commences. We now briefly state the contents of chapter thirteen, and the reply made to it by him. ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER XIII.
EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY.
1. Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander. Mosheim affirms the apostolical institution of first-day observance. Neander declares that the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance. Maclaine's Mosheim, cent. 1, part 2, c. 4, sect. 4. Rose's Neander, p. 186. 2. The ecclesiastical writers of the first century, the age referred to by Mosheim and Neander, are the proper standard of appeal to determine which is right. These are Barnabas, Pliny, and Ignatius, the only writers outside of the New Testament, prior to A. D. 140, who are supposed to mention the first day of the week. 3. The Epistle of Barnabas quoted, and shown to be a forgery on the testimony of Mosheim. Eccl. Hist., cent. ii., part 2, c. 2, s. 21, and Hist. Commentaries, cent. i., s. 53, and of Neander, Rose's Translation, p. 407, Prof. Stuart in Gurney's Hist. Sab., p. 86, Dr. Killen, Anc. Church, p. 368, Prof. Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 251, Mr. Milner, Hist. Church, cent. i., c. 15, or Kitto, Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's Day; Relig. Encyc., art. Barnabas, Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., b. 3, c. 25, Sir Wm. Domville, Ex. of the Six Texts, p. 233, Coleman's Anc. Christianity, c. 1, s. 2, and specimens of the Epistle itself cited in proof of its spurious character. 4. The Epistle of Pliny quoted, and shown not to designate the day of the week used for divine worship. He says merely that they were accustomed to meet on a stated day. Coleman says that whether this was the first or last day of the week does not appear. Buck's Theol. Dict. makes it entirely indefinite, art. Christians. W. B. Taylor speaks of it in the same manner as Coleman, ob. of Sabbath, p. 300. Bochner asserts that it was the Jewish Sabbath. Mosheim's Eccl. Com. cent. i., s. 47. 5. The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians examined. Only three of the fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius are acknowledged by critics as genuine, and among these is not found the epistle to the Magnesians which contains his reputed testimony in behalf of Sunday. Dr. Killen, Anc. Church, pp. 413, 414, pronounces them all a grave imposture. John Calvin condemned every one of them, Anc. Ch. p. 407. Prof. Hudson does not acknowledge the epistle to the Magnesians as genuine. Future Life, p. 290. Domville, Ex. of the Six Texts, p. 237, and Robinson, Ed. Researches, c. 6, likewise speak of the doubtful character of these epistles. But were the epistle to the Magnesians genuine, it would say nothing about Sunday had not the word day, ἡμέρα, been fraudulently inserted in the text. For proof, see Kitto, Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's Day, Morer, Dialogues on Lord's Day, pp. 206, 207, Domville, Ex. of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251. The first of these points is, that Mosheim and Neander contradict each other, one asserting that first-day observance “was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles,” and the other declaring that it “was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect.” Eld. P. replies by attempting to show, first, that Mosheim is more worthy of credence than Neander, and, secondly, that after all there is no contradiction between them. To show that Neander is less worthy of our confidence than Mosheim he quotes the translator of Neander's last edition to the effect that the changes in the work were so extensive that he could not use the translation of the former edition, but must translate this edition anew. This Eld. P. offers as proof that Neander changed the doctrine of his first edition. But Torrey does not affirm this. Many years having elapsed since his former edition, he wished to combine new matter and to present the entire work in a new form, and for this reason re-wrote his history. Neander never repudiated his first edition as untruthful or unworthy of credit. But it is claimed that Neander virtually retracted the statement that Sunday was always only a human ordinance, by omitting this language in his last edition. The truth is, he maintains therein precisely the same doctrine on this point as in his first edition, though he states it in language less calculated to offend the observers of Sunday. Thus he states the several things which made up the observance of Sunday in the early church. “Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts, and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his resurrection, had raised up fallen man again to heaven.” Torrey's Neander, vol. 1, p. 295, ed. 1852. This is Neander's entire summary of Sunday observance in the early church. It is exactly what the early fathers describe it to be. And no Sunday-writer will deny that if Neander has truthfully stated early first-day observance, it was indeed only a human ordinance, for not one feature of this above-named Sunday-keeping was ever commanded by the apostles. Eld. P.'s remarks, p. 394, that Neander was born of Jewish parents, and that he changed his book when he became better acquainted with Christianity, are therefore of no account, for his first edition is as plainly opposed to Judaism as is his second; and his second maintains the same doctrine respecting the Sabbath and first-day as does the first. But another method of setting aside this testimony of Neander is to assert that he did not mean to deny that the apostles established a divine command for Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, but meant to assert that they did not establish a divine command for Sunday as a Catholic festival! But Neander expressly denies that the apostles either constituted or recognized Sunday as a Sabbath, and he represents Sunday as a mere festival from the very first of its observance, and established only by human authority. Eld. P.'s final method of disposing of Neander's testimony is to show as well as he can (395) that Mosheim, in affirming that Sunday observance “was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles,” and Neander in affirming that “it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect,” do not contradict each other! Neander also declares that it was far from the intention of the apostles “to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.” This was manifestly written to head off the modern seventh-part-of-time theory by which the fourth commandment is made to sustain and enforce Sunday. Eld. P. tries to parry this blow by saying that Neander meant to say that the apostles did not transfer the stoning system, and the prohibition of fires, which is a most absurd supposition, as it makes Neander refute what no person ever maintained! Eld. P. has not the fairness to state the fact that the History of the Sabbath determined the question between Mosheim and Neander by quoting and examining all the writers who lived in the age covered by the statements quoted from them. Whoever will candidly do this will see that Neander states the truth rather than Mosheim. Next, Eld. P. states that I impeach the fathers, and compares my work to that of infidels who attempt the overthrow of the authenticity of the Scriptures. Pages 395, 396. But the synopsis of chapter 13 enables the reader to see just how the writers of the first century were treated in the first edition of the History of the Sabbath, and the reasons and authorities for what was done.29Thus the so-called epistle of Barnabas was shown by the strongest evidence not to be his production; the epistle of Pliny was also shown to be no evidence in support of Sunday, and the allusion to Sunday in Ignatius was proved to be an interpolation. Eld. P. does not bring before his readers any of this evidence, but gives a long, rambling reply. Pages 396–406. I give all his points. On page 397, he wishes to know why I spoke of Mosheim as speaking in behalf of early first-day observance as a divine rather than as a historian. My reason is that divines when writing in behalf of Sunday take liberties with facts that historians dare not take. As an example of this, I cite the fraud of Gilfillan, exposed in the REVIEW of Nov. 11, 1872, page 172; and, to come nearer home, I refer to his own extraordinary quotations, as shown in the REVIEW of Dec. 9, 1873, page 204. He asks why then I cite Mosheim as witness in the case of Barnabas. My answer is, that as I was showing that there was nothing to sustain Mosheim's strong Sunday statement, it was entirely pertinent to show that even Mosheim regarded the epistle of Barnabas as written by a later hand. He asks how I can say that there is nothing to sustain the Sunday testimony of Mosheim when Justin Martyr speaks of Sunday as he does? My answer is, that Mosheim testifies respecting the first century, while Justin Martyr speaks of things in the middle of the second. He quotes authorities to show that the epistle of Barnabas is an ancient document, all of which I freely admit. It was not written by the apostle of that name, but was written, probably, about the middle of the second century. But now comes something very remarkable. Eld. P. says (p. 400):— “One more of your witnesses we will bring to the stand: ‘Justin Martyr, A. D. 140,’ and see what he will say about the epistle of Barnabas.”
And so, after thus saying that he would give Justin's testimony concerning Barnabas, what does he do but quote from notes written by a modern editor of his Dialogue with Trypho. Justin himself never alludes to the epistle of Barnabas. If Eld. P. supposed these notes were written by Justin, his blunder is most extraordinary. But if he knew them to be the work of the editor of Justin's Dialogue, and there is no reasonable doubt that he did, then no words of mine can fitly set forth such dishonesty. As Eld. P. again sneers at my reference to doctors of divinity, I cite his present use of Justin as a further illustration of their course when Sunday is concerned. The synopsis shows that the History of the Sabbath proved Ignatius to have said nothing respecting Sunday only as it has been interpolated into his epistles. Eld. P. does not meet this point at all—for no man can do it—but contents himself in quoting from Domville a classification of the epistles of Ignatius, but which has no bearing upon the case. He also quotes two pages from Reeves to the effect that genuine writings should be not condemned because there are some spurious ones, but he does not touch the point at issue at all. I am not specially at variance with this quotation. Such is the force of Eld. P.'s impeachment of chapter 13. It is of value in one thing. He convicts himself, in quoting the editor of Justin as though it was Justin himself, of extraordinary ignorance or of inexcusable dishonesty. J. N. A.