THE LORD'S DAY | AdventAI

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 26, 1858

THE LORD'S DAY.

In the Advent Herald of Aug. 14th, 1858, we notice a short article on "The Lord's Day, or First Day of the Week," composed of the usual list of insipid inferences, and winding up like most of its predecessors with a "hint" from the Fathers. Mosheim is summoned to the stand to testify "that in the first century, all churches were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week for public worship." A few lines below this, that most holy epistle of St. Barnabas! is introduced for the sake of the testimony it contains that "we keep the eighth day joyfully in which Jesus rose from the dead."

Now if the writer really has confidence in Mosheim as a historian, why does he not take his testimony on one point as well as another? He would, were it not his evident intention to take only those portions of history which chance to favor his notions, and discard every thing prejudicial thereto. Mosheim not only testifies concerning the early church, but he also testifies concerning this very epistle of Barnabas from which this writer so triumphantly quotes. Hear what he says: "The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this (the first) century, and whose mean abilities, and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show

that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." Church Hist., Vol. i, p. 41. Baltimore ed., 1832.

Does the writer believe this testimony of Mosheim's concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, proving it to be but a despicable forgery? If he does, he is dishonest in appealing to that Epistle in support of his theory; but if he does not believe it, how can he appeal with confidence to his testimony on the other point? To quote from a historian on a contested point, and then, in a few lines thereafter, to quote from a work which the same historian denounces as a forgery, carries with it a very prominent air of suspicion. Those who have read the Epistle of Barnabas, and noticed the absurd, silly and obscene stuff which help compose it, or have acquainted themselves with the testimony of history on the point, must be aware that it is a fraudulent and not a genuine work. To appeal to it, therefore, because it contains an expression which may be construed in favor of Sunday-keeping, thereby carrying the impression that an actual companion of Paul's has testified in favor of the observance of that day, cannot be other than an act of downright dishonesty and intended deception; and any cause which is compelled to call in such aid as that, needs no other proof of its own weakness.