"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
THE next Father who is quoted as authority for the observance of Sunday is Ignatius. We quote here all that Mr. Bailey claims for him. "Ignatius was the bishop or pastor of the church of Antioch in Syria from the year 70 to 107. He was a disciple of John, and was pastor at Antioch for twenty-five years before John's death. In his epistle to the Magnesians 3:3 he says: 'Wherefore if they who were brought up in these ancient laws come nevertheless to newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day, in which also our life is sprung up by him, and through his death, whom some deny.'" "Also Ignatius (quoted by Edwards in 'Sabbath Manual,' p. 113) says: 'Let us Christians no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord's day.' 'Let everyone that loves Christ keep holy the Lord's day, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.'" "Ignatius was arrested at Antioch when the Roman Emperor, Trajan, came there about the year 107, and was sent to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, being torn in pieces by wild beasts. Did this early martyr and disciple of John, who for thirty-seven years was pastor at Antioch in Syria, a church which had the ministrations of inspired apostles—did he teach the people falsely in regard to the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath and day of worship? Incredible!" For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the Fathers we will state that all of the epistles credited to Ignatius exist in two forms, the longer and the shorter. It is very evident, even allowing that Ignatius wrote any epistles, that both these forms cannot be correct. And there is no question, even among scholars who indorse Ignatius but that the longer form is a corrupt text. In the above quotation the reader will notice that two statements concerning the Sabbath are credited to Ignatius. When we state, however, that these are the same, both being taken from the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Magnesians, the first from the shorter form, and the second from the longer, the reader will see that it is found necessary to multiply even spurious testimony, in order to uphold the Sunday institution. We might state, moreover, what is the case, that in the original text of this so-called epistle by Ignatius, there is no reference whatever to the "Lord's day." But inasmuch as that statement, although a truth, must be taken by the general reader upon our word, we will allow the assumption that the epistle has been correctly translated, and will give argument upon which the reader can judge for himself. It will be noted that considerable capital is made of the fact that Ignatius suffered martyrdom for the truth, and that therefore his testimony concerning the Sunday Lord's day must be valued. Thus Mr. Bailey says: "Did this early martyr and disciple of John, who for thirty-seven years was pastor at Antioch in Syria, a church which had the ministrations of inspired apostles—did he teach the people falsely in regard to the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath and day of worship? Incredible!" To this question we have two answers:— 1. Because a man lived in the days of the apostles, and even in a church which had their inspired ministrations, it adds nothing to the weight of his testimony. Hymenæus and Philetus had the benefit of the labors of the apostle Paul, yet they overthrew the faith of many Christians, by teaching that the resurrection was already past. 2 Tim. 2:17, 18. Diotrephes was not only one who loved to have the pre-eminence in the church, but he held a position of influence, since he had power to cast people out of the church; yet he openly rejected the teaching of the apostle John, and cast out of the church those who would receive it. 3 John 9, 10. Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29, 30. From this we know that very early in the history of the Christian Church, men who were pastors in the church began to teach heresies; and that the heresies which they taught were not trivial is shown by Peter, who after writing about the giving of the prophecies said: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." 2 Peter 2:1. The fact that Ignatius was a bishop, and that too in the first century, would not make his teaching any more to be believed than though he lived in the present day. Nay, more. When that teaching directly contradicted the teaching of the Scripture, it would only make him the more blameworthy. But we need not impeach the integrity of Ignatius, for:— 2. There is no reason to believe that Ignatius of Antioch ever wrote any epistle at all. In support of this assertion we shall make a few quotations. The translators of the so-called Ignatian epistles, in their introductory notice, after stating that there are fifteen of them, say:— "It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated bishop of Antioch.
"But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius ('Hist. Eccl.' iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or the other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius." "But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his 'Credibility of the Gospel History' (1743): 'I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. . . . But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question.'" Mosheim says:—
"A regard for truth requires it to be acknowledged that so considerable a degree of obscurity hangs over the question respecting the authenticity of not only a part, but the whole of the epistle ascribed to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case of much intricacy and doubt."—"History of Christianity," cent. 1, sec. 52. Neander says of the so-called epistles of Ignatius: "Even the shorter and more trustworthy edition is very much interpolated." Dr. Schaff ("History of the Christian Church," Vol. 1, sec. 119), says:—
"The doctrinal and churchly views of the Ignatian epistles are framed on a peculiar combination, and somewhat materialistic apprehension of John's doctrine of the incarnation, and Paul's idea of the church as the body of Jesus Christ. In the 'Catholic Church'—an expression introduced by him—that is, the episcopal orthodox organization of his day, the author sees, as it were, the continuation of the mystery of the incarnation, on the reality of which he laid great emphasis against the docetists; and in every bishop a visible representative of Christ, and a personal center of ecclesiastical unity, which he presses home upon his readers with the greatest solicitude, and almost passionate zeal. He thus applies those ideas of the apostles directly to the outward constitution, and makes them subservient to the principle and institution of the growing hierarchy. Here lies the chief importance of these epistles; and in this respect we have found it necessary to distinguish them already in the section on the organization of the church.
"It is remarkable that the idea of the episcopal hierarchy should be first clearly and boldly brought out, not by the contemporary Roman bishop, Clement, but by a bishop of the Eastern church; though it was transplanted by him to the soil of Rome, and there sealed by his martyr blood. Equally noticeable is the circumstance that these oldest documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud, that it is to-day almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper- and pseudo-Ignatius of tradition." Dr. Killen says:—
"It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, that, upwards of three hundred years ago he passed a sweeping sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. At the time many were startled by the boldness of his language, and it was thought that he was somewhat precipitate in pronouncing such a decisive judgment. But he saw distinctly, and he therefore spoke fearlessly. There is a far more intimate connection than many are disposed to believe, between sound theology and sound criticism, for a right knowledge of the word of God strengthens the intellectual vision, and assists in the detection of error wherever it may reveal itself. . . . Calvin knew that an apostolic man must have been acquainted with apostolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the productions of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obscured. Hence he denounced them so emphatically; and time has verified his deliverance. His language respecting them has been often quoted, but we feel we cannot more appropriately close our observations on this subject than by another repetition of it. 'There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius.'"—"Ancient Church," period 2, sec. 2, chap. 3, par. 12. We might quote much more to the same effect if we had space, but it is not necessary. The argument from Ignatius may be summed up thus: First, the testimony credited to him is in direct contradiction to the Scripture teaching. Second, the whole thing is a forgery. Third, it is quoted twice so as to increase the effect. This is the kind of testimony which is invariably quoted to supplement the so-called argument from Scripture in favor of Sunday. Since it is customary to reserve the strongest argument for the last, this affords a good comment on the strength of the argument from Scripture for Sunday. w.
(To be continued.)