HISTORY vs. FORGERY by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 28, 1859

HISTORY vs. FORGERY.

By Editor

THE reader is prepared this week to hear from "Awleph" a few more contradictions of plain statements of history, on a subject where passion and prejudice are allowed to supply the place of argument. We bring up the statements of this writer, while Bro. Andrews' history is before the reader, to show that it is not a man of straw that is being demolished by a disproval of the authorities upon which first-day observers usually rest, touching the history of their institution, by presenting a recent and actual example of the use that is made of them, and the confidence with which they are urged. Had "Awleph" been anything more than a servile copyist of the errors of those who have preceded him in blind devotion to tradition, he would have been saved from making the declarations he has. The danger of such a course is shown in the falsity of the testimony which has thus become current for the genuine history. Great must be their credulity who can imagine that a stream rising where the "mystery of iniquity" was already at work, and continuing through the dark ages of papal usurpation and superstition, can be otherwise than impure. The waters of this stream, we can assure them, are brackish; and no Elisha can be found to cast in the all-healing salt to render them sweet and pure.

But to the question. In last week's REVIEW the epistles of Barnabas, Pliny, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, &c., were expressly noticed. We find all these sources unsuspectingly appealed to by A., in favor of Sunday. Of Ignatius he speaks thus:

"Ignatius, who was born in Syria, educated under St. John, ordained bishop of Antioch by St. Paul, A. D. 67, and suffered martyrdom at Rome, A. D. 107, has written decidedly in favor of this change. In his epistle to the Magnesians, he declares it to be absurd and erroneous for a Christian to Judaize, that is, to keep the Jewish Sabbath, and after showing the difference between Judaism and Christianity, he expostulates thus: 'Let us not sabbatize, but keep the Lord's day on which our Life arose.'"

Last week the original of this testimony of Ignatius was given, which showed that the word day never would have appeared there if fraud had not placed it there. There is nothing said about the first day whatever in his testimony. Nevertheless, says "Awleph," he "has written decidedly in favor of the change."

He continues: "Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, says, 'We observe the eighth day with gladness, on which Jesus rose from the dead.' The early Christian writers often called the first-day Sabbath the eighth day, because it is the next day after the seventh."

The so-called epistle of Barnabas not only from its own inherent character, but from the testimony of many witnesses, is shown to be a gross forgery. But we must hear his version of Justin Martyr:

"Justin, surnamed the Martyr, one of the earliest writers of the Christian church, who was born at Neapolis, in the province of Samaria, converted to Christianity about A. D. 132, and beheaded for the Christian religion under Marcus Aurelius, 167, is very explicit on this subject. In his dialogue with Trypho, he says that the Christians did not keep the Jewish Sabbath; but in two places, in nearly the same words, in his apologies for the Christians, he speaks of the first day as the Christian Sabbath. In his first apology he says: 'On Sunday we all assemble and meet together, as being the first day wherein God, parting the darkness from the rude chaos, created the world, and the same day wherein Jesus Christ our Saviour, rose from the dead; for he was crucified on the day before Saturday, and the day after, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples.' Justin says again, 'On the day called Sunday we all assemble in one place, both those who live in the city, and they who dwell in the country, where the memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets are read so long as time permits.' He then gives an account of the sermon delivered by the bishop at the same meeting, the concluding prayer the celebration of the Lord's supper, and the weekly collections for the support of widows and orphans, the sick, the poor, and all who were necessitous. This father often declares that it was the uniform practice of the Christians of his day, to observe the first day as their weekly Sabbath, but the seventh he says they did not observe."

The reader will recollect the extremely doubtful character of the works ascribed to Justin, and that he was a no-Sabbath man, heaping the most ridiculous abuse upon the Sabbath institution itself, and giving no divine reason for Sunday; yet, it is claimed that he is "very explicit on this subject."

"Awleph" also quotes from Irenaeus, Dionysius, Clement, Eusebius, Athanasius, &c., on the side of a Sunday Sabbath. But Sunday-keepers make a ludicrous mistake in this; for it must be confessed that the import of all their testimony is for no Sabbath. They speak of the Sabbath as abolished, and of the first day, not as taking the place of it, or engrossing the authority of the fourth commandment, but as directly opposed to, and contrasted with, it; which sufficiently attests the grievous wolfishness of their nature. Acts xx, 27. We have not space here to give any of their language; but whoever quotes them in support of Sunday as a divinely appointed Sabbath, knows not the work in which he is engaged.

Our quotations this week are from the "Wesleyan" of Aug. 4, 1858. In the number for Aug. 18, the writer introduces, as might be expected, fresh from Edward's Sabbath Manual, that famous quotation, "Dominicum servasti? &c. Hast thou kept the Lord's day? I am a Christian: I cannot omit it." This has long been bandied about like a poor orphan of whose pedigree people were either ignorant or ashamed. But the reader was last week made acquainted with its parentage. It was conceived and brought forth in fraud. Fraud was its father and mother; and being once fairly started in the world, ignorance has since been its nurse and supporter.

Thus we have spread before us the field usually entered by Sunday historians; and we know how to close it against them. Fraud or perversion may be stamped on nearly all their witnesses. But we will not anticipate the history. We are confident the reader will lose none of his interest in the subject as he continues to trace the steps by which Sunday, like an artful usurper, has made a shift, as occasion required to maintain its existence and supremacy.