The "Teaching of the Apostles."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE reader must bear in mind the reason why these articles are written. It is not because we attach any importance whatever to the document called the "Teaching of the Apostles," but because some people were lauding it to the skies, and claiming that it would completely overturn all seventh-day observance. Our object was to show just how much weight it does have, so that none can have the "Teaching" as an excuse for Sunday keeping. In our investigation we have found, (1) That when correctly translated, the document does not mention the "Lord's day;" (2) That it is not claimed by its most zealous defender that the "Teaching" was written by any of the apostles; (3) That no one knows when it was written, but they suppose that it was in the first, the second, or the third century; (4) That no one pretends to know who wrote it; (5) That the fact that it was written early in the Christian era adds nothing to its value, because writers on church history agree that it was a common thing to forge the names of eminent men, and that to deceive and lie in a good cause was thought to be commendable, even by those calling themselves Christians; and that even when we concede honesty of purpose to them, we cannot depend on what they say, because they were in every way unfitted to be expositors of Bible doctrine. Still further, we found that the immediate company in which it was found does not recommend it, because the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas" is universally conceded to be a forged document, besides being full of blunders, and puerile and absurd to the last degree. Concerning the two "Epistles of Clement," we found that one is not an epistle at all, and is not claimed by scholars to be the production of Clement, and that the other bears no author's name, so that nobody knows who wrote it, and, more than all, is admitted by all to have been the object of much interpolation. And as for the "Epistles of Ignatius," they are declared by high authority to be base forgeries, "the last shifts of a grave imposture," "utterly spurious," and fit only to be "swept away from among the genuine remains of early church literature with the besom of scorn." Such is the company in which this document that is to upset all the calculations of Sabbath-keepers was found. And now comes the venerable Bishop Bryennios himself, the one to whom the world is indebted (?) for the discovery of this wonderful production, and says that of the sixteen chapters that compose the "Teaching," the "last ten chapters are entirely distinct, and have no authority whatever, except so far as the writer happens to be correct in his injunctions." And the Independent of October 16, the one from which the last quotation is taken, commenting upon it, says: "European and American scholars have not claimed that any part of the 'Teaching' is authoritative; the first six chapters no more so than the last ten. They only insist that the whole document has value and significance as a reflection of the teachings and usages of the sub-apostolic age." Surely we need quote no more testimony. The learned Bishop grants that the last portion of the "Teaching" has no authority, "except so far as the writer happens to be correct in his injunctions." That is a great concession. Now we can answer for seventh-day keepers that they are not disposed to regard any writings whatever as having authority, except so far as the writer is correct; the standard of correctness must invariably be the Bible; and when any writer makes a statement that agrees with that standard, we accept it, not because a certain writer said so, but because it does agree with the standard. The Independent's statement that the whole of the "Teaching" has value only "as a reflection of the teachings and usages of the sub-apostolic age," is a confession that the document is simply one of the forgeries so common in the early centuries. It purports to be the "teaching of the apostles," when it is nothing of the kind. This proves the truth of what we said in the second article, that nobody really believes that the "Teaching" carries with it any weight of authority. Then why did the Advance say that it would tend strongly "to make keepers of the seventh day change their observance to the first day, and keepers of the first day more confident of their position then heretofore"? There can be but one answer: Advocates of first-day observance having no Scripture authority for their claims, have fallen into the habit of accepting anything which seems to support them, even though they know their witnesses to be false. That this conclusion is not ill advised, appears from an examination of the quotations in our last article, concerning the so-called epistles of Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Those quotations were made for a twofold purpose. First, to show the writings from whose company the "Teaching" derived so much of its honor, and second, that our readers might know the foundation upon which the Sunday institution is built. For, be it known, these same writings,—those attributed to Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius,—are constantly quoted in behalf of Sunday observance. The statements found in them, together with a few from other "Fathers," equally untrustworthy, are the strongest proofs brought to bear in favor of Sunday-keeping. Men who write "D. D." after their names, who have graduated at theological seminaries, where church history is a most prominent branch of study, and whose text-books in that study were those from which we have made our quotations, will quote the words of these "Fathers," with as much assurance as though they were inspired. We will not question the honesty of such men, but we think that the following words are fulfilled in them:— "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouths, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Isa. 29:13, 14. The reader will have little difficulty in estimating at its true value the evidence that has formed the basis for Sunday observance, when he reads the statement of the Advance, that the "Teaching" will tend to "make first-day keepers more confident of their position then heretofore." Vain confidence! As though any number of untruths could be made to equal one truth. Truly, when men turn away from the commandment of God, and are determined to abide by the "precept of men" their perceptions become blunted, and they become unable to distinguish truth from error. In closing, we would say to all who desire to establish Sunday observance, that it cannot be done unless they can bring a "Thus saith the Lord" in support of it, because the storm that is coming will "sweep away the refuge of lies," but "the word of the Lord abideth forever." Nothing will stand that is not built upon this foundation.