SUNDAY HISTORY | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 17, 1879

SUNDAY HISTORY.

How long are we to be treated to a re-iteration of the stale, old historical forgeries which are urged in behalf of Sunday-keeping in opposition to the Sabbath of the Bible? B. Wilson in The Restitution, and P. R. Russell in Messiah's Herald, appear the past week, gravely handing out such testimony as the epistle of Barnabas, and Ignatius to the Magnesians, as evidence of the early sabbatical observance of the first day of the week. Why they did not also bring in the “Dominicum servasti,” of Pliny’s time, and Justin Martyr’s Lord’s-day testimony, and then Theophilus, and Dionysius, and Melito, and Irenæus, is passing strange. Can it be that they had learned that no such question as “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” was ever put to the Christians in the time of Pliny, nor at any other time? and that Justin Martyr does not use the term Lord’s day at all? and that Theophilus and Irenæus are quoted as saying what they never said, the testimony being a complete forgery? and that Dionysius does not identify the day he calls the Lord’s day, and Melito says nothing about such a day? But if they had known this, they would have known that the so-called epistle of Barnabas is a contemptible forgery, and the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians a double forgery.

The accuracy with which historical testimony is quoted by these men is illustrated by the following statement by Mr. Russell. He says: “It is a common thing for seventh-day Sabbatarians to say that Sunday, as a sacred day, originated with Constantine in A. D. 325. This is a great mistake.” He might just as well have said, “It is a common thing for seventh-day Sabbatarians to say that Sunday as a sacred day came down from the moon in 1879. This is a great mistake.” We say the one just as much as we do the other.

But what shall be done to prevent the stale repetition of the historical falsehoods above referred to? What powerful irritant is there that can be rubbed through the literary cuticle of such men to arouse them to some sense of the dishonor of such historical inaccuracy? We have challenged them to the proof of their statements. For years the testimony has been before the world exposing these so-called declarations of the fathers. That testimony, as found in the History of the Sabbath, has not been disproved. If it can be, let us have the refutation. We do not want the parrot-like statements of Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual, which so many are parrot-like repeating. We want to know where these parrots find the original of their story. No such testimony for Sunday can be found in the writings of the fathers as is attributed to them.

We must have something better. A few worn-out slurs about Judaizers and Judaism, the attempt to give a few texts a general application, which pertain only to particular subjects, such as Acts 15:28, 29; Rom. 14:5, 6; Col. 2:14-17, and the re-iteration of these forgeries about the fathers, are never going to stop the Sabbath reform. They will hasten rather than hinder it. For the minds of men are waking up to the merits of the question, and nothing but an intelligent, logical treatment of it will satisfy them. And when it is seen that this is the best the opponents of the Sabbath have, they might as well retire from the field.