HISTORY OF THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 18, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH.

The book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period which is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers were upon the stage of action, and under their watchcare the churches of Christ preserved, to a great extent, their purity of life and doctrine. These apostolic churches are thus set forth as the proper examples for all coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four evangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus joins together the whole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this inspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed by inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is, unfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon:

"The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as she descended from heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings."—Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv.

What says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the labors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul said:

"For 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 xx, 29, 30.

It follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive the teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how these are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, this is the proper answer: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

What say the apostolic epistles relative to this apostasy? To the Thessalonians it is written:

"Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. . . . . For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 2 Thess. ii, 3, 4, 7, 8.

To Timothy in like manner it is said:

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. iv, 2-4; 2 Pet. ii; Jude 4; 1 John ii, 18.

These texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the church, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced. The Romish church, the eldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its apostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians, already quoted, that great anti-Christian body may indeed find its claim to an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character most emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration of the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental circumstance of originating in the days of the apostles. At its commencement everything is either right or wrong. If right, it may be known by its agreement with the divine standard. If wrong at its origin, it can never cease to be such. Satan's great falsehood which involved our race in ruin has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years have elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this, ye who worship at the shrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of the truth of God, he was thereby dishonored. How then can he accept them as a part of that pure devotion which he requires at our hands? They that worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth. How many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed into divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting the great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of ecclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling in his "History of Romanism," thus remarks:

"There is scarcely anything that strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise, than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a vast and hideous system of superstition and error, as is that of popery. . . . . Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was deserving of strong reprehension. . . . . The worship of images, the invocation of saints, and the superstition of relics, were but expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died for the truth."—Book ii, chap. 2, sec. 1.

Robinson, author of the "History of Baptism," bears the following testimony:

"Toward the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and now modeled the cause."—Eccl. Researches, chap. vi.

The working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the Christian church, is thus described by a recent writer:

"During these centuries the chief corruptions of popery were either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so effectually sown, as naturally to produce those baneful fruits which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin Martyr's time, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the element sent to the absent. The bread which at first was sent only to the sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home by the people, and locked up as a divine treasure for their private use. At this time too, the ordinance of the supper was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints, the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity which was already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of Christianity."—The Modern Sabbath Examined, pp. 123, 124.

Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship:

"And yet perhaps religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches, as early as the end of the third century, and the walls of the church were painted in the same way."—Rose's Neander, p. 184.

The early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon the authority of inspiration, not less than upon that of ecclesiastical history. "The mystery of iniquity," said Paul, "doth already work." We are constrained to marvel that so large a portion of the people of God were so soon removed from the grace of God unto another gospel.

What shall be said of those who go to this period of church history, and even to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would arise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who should speak perverse things, and that men should turn away their ears from the truth, and should be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period of sufficient importance to make void God's word? The learned historian of the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language:

"To avoid being imposed upon we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. . . . . False and lying traditions are of an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them."—Hist. of the Popes, Vol. i, p. 1, Phila. ed., 1847.

Mr. Dowling bears a similar testimony:

"The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combatting those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles? More than this, we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenæus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of popery, which, however, is by no means admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles? . . . . He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism, upon the same authority."—History of Romanism, book ii, chap. 1, secs. 3, 4.

Dr. Cumming of London thus speaks of the authority of the fathers of the early church:

"Some of these were distinguished for their genius, some for their eloquence, a few for their piety, and too many for their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr. Delahogue (who was professor in the Roman Catholic college of Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the fathers who were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for martyrdom, to commit anything to writing; and therefore by the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the full and fair exponent of the views of all the fathers of the earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges. . . . The most devoted and pious of the fathers were busy teaching their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time in preparing treatises. If all the fathers who signalized the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might have had a fair representation of the theology of the church of the fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by the writings of the few fathers who are the only surviving representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward Irving."—Lectures on Romanism, p. 208.

Dr. Adam Clarke bears the following decisive testimony:

"But of these we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine, their authority is, with me, nothing. The word of God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church to know what they believed, and what the people of their respective communions believed; but after all this, I must return to God's word to know what he would have me to believe."—Commentary on Prov. viii.

In his "Life," he uses the following strong language:

"We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects, they blow hot and cold."—Autobiography of Adam Clarke, LL. D., p. 184.

The following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of the fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies:

"The church of Rome having been conscious of their error and corruption, both in faith and manners, have sundry times pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and, reprinting them, make them speak as they would have them. 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them."—Christianography, part 2, p. 59, London, 1686.

And Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact:

"The church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time, place, and power, to establish the kingdom of darkness; and that in coining, clipping, and washing the primitive records to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to themselves, is notoriously evident."—Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, Vol. ii, p. 375.

The traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as reliable as the language of the holy Scriptures. A single instance taken from the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the amount of reliance that can be placed upon it:

"When Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following; (which also leaned on his breast to supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?) Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" John xxi, 20-23.

Here is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very bosom of the apostolic church, which nevertheless handed down to the following generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word of God corrects this error.

Two rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these is the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions of the church. Here they are:

RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.

RULE OF THE ROMANIST.

"If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it."—Note of the Douay Bible on 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.

It is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the first of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such an institution. The second of these rules is necessarily adopted by all those who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. For the writings of the fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the testimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first rule is to acknowledge that the first-day Sabbath is a human institution. To adopt the second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right; for it is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural dogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, states this point with great clearness:

"The triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed complete and unanswerable. . . . . It should present a subject of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance, that will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in sustaining the various other 'holy days' appointed by 'the church.'"—Obligation of the Sabbath, pp. 254, 255.

Listen to the argument of a Roman Catholic:

"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of the Lord, and to keep it holy: you [Protestants] without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said the first day of the week. [Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2; Rev. i, 10.] Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath-days in which these meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained that they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God."—A Treatise of Thirty Controversies.

Whoever therefore enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, must of necessity do this—though perhaps not aware of the fact—under the banner of the church of Rome.

THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY.

The first day of the week is now almost universally observed as the Christian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us as the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church historians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a question of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth. Thus Mosheim writes respecting the first century:

"All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers."—Maclaine's Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii, chap. 4, sec. 4.

Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance:

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin."—Rose's Neander, p. 186.

How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither of them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer of the eighteenth century, and Neander of the nineteenth. Of necessity therefore they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of that period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony which can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are, first, the inspired writings of the New Testament; second, the reputed productions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the first day; viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the letter of Pliny, governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan, and the epistle of Ignatius. These are all the writings prior to the middle of the second century—and this is late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim's statement—which can be introduced as even referring to the first day of the week.

The questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles set apart Sunday for divine worship? (as Mosheim affirms,) or does the evidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance? (as is affirmed by Neander.)

It is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday for the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that there is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such observance. The New Testament therefore furnishes no support for the statement of Mosheim.

The three epistles which have come down to us as written in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age next come under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more extended than that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the first century only; but we summon all the writers of that century and of the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, who are even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader is furnished with all the data in the case. The epistle of Barnabas speaks as follows in behalf of first-day observance:

"Lastly he saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths I cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths, says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested himself to his disciples, ascended into heaven."—Epistle of Barnabas, xiv, 9, 10.

It might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would place great reliance upon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat better suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything previously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle is spurious. Thus he says:

"The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the brightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who was St. Paul's companion."—Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii, chap. ii, sec. 21.

In another work Mosheim says of this epistle:

"As to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little of either truth, dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed."—Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sec. 53.

Neander speaks thus of this epistle:

"It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul."—Rose's Neander, p. 407.

Prof. Stuart bears a similar testimony:

"That a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I with many others must doubt."—Note appended to Gurney's History, Authority, and Use, of the Sabbath, p. 186.

Dr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language:

"The tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably composed in A. D. 135. It is the production apparently of a convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretations of Scripture."—Ancient Church, p. 368.

Prof. Hackett bears the following testimony:

"The letter still extant which was known as that of Barnabas even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine."—Commentary on Acts, p. 251.

Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnabas as follows:

"It is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which goes by his name, to be his."—History of the Church, cent. 1, chap. xv.

Kitto speaks of this production as,

"The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century."—Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's Day.

Says the Religious Encyclopedia, speaking of the Barnabas of the New Testament:

"He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle."—Rel. Encyc., art., Barnabas' Epistle.

Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the catalogue of spurious books. Thus he says:

"Among the spurious must be numbered both the book called, 'The acts of Paul,' and that called, 'Pastor,' and 'The Revelation of Peter.' Besides these the books called, 'The epistle of Barnabas,' and what are called 'The Institutions of the Apostles.'"—Eccl. Hist., Book iii, chap. xxv.

Sir Wm. Domville speaks as follows:

"But the epistle was not written by Barnabas; it was not merely unworthy of him, it would be a disgrace to him, and what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony of some unknown writer of the practice of Sunday observance by some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for believing that period to have been the first century."—The Sabbath, or an Examination of the Six Texts commonly adduced from the New Testament in proof of a Christian Sabbath, p. 233.

Coleman bears the following testimony:

"The epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystical, allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority."—Ancient Christianity, chap. i, sec. 2.

As a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this epistle, the following passage is quoted:

"Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena: that is, again be not an adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such. And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female."—Epistle of Barnabas, ix, 8.

Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the case, we are authorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read its ninth chapter—for it will not bear quoting—will acknowledge the justice of this conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting to come from the first century, except the New Testament, in which the first day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday observance, even Mosheim acknowledges.

The next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan. He says of the Christians of his province:

"They were accustomed on a stated day to assemble before sunrise, and to join in singing hymns to Christ, as to a deity; binding themselves as with a solemn oath not to commit any kind of wickedness; to be guilty neither of theft, robbery, nor adultery; never to break a promise, or to keep back a deposit when called upon."—Milner's Hist. Church, cent. 2, chap. 1.

This epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday observance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says of this extract:

"This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as holy time, but whether it was the last or the first day of the week does not appear."—Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi, sec. 2.

Charles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this epistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite translation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle:

"These persons declare that their whole crime, if they are guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of God."—Buck's Theological Dictionary, art., Christians.

Mr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows:

"As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the sun's day [if not even more so], it is just as probable that this 'stated day' referred to by Pliny, was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though the latter is generally taken for granted."—Obligations of the Sabbath, p. 300.

Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no new feature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day observance. Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny's as a chief support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another learned man:

"B. Just. Hon. Boehmer, would indeed have us to understand this day to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath."—Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sec. 47.

This testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded by the apostle Peter. It is certainly far more probable that this church, only forty years after the death of Peter, were keeping the fourth commandment, than that they were observing a day never enjoined by divine authority. It must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves nothing in support of Sunday observance.

The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch so often quoted in behalf of first-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as saying:

"Wherefore if they who were brought up in these ancient laws came nevertheless to the 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 yet some deny: [by which mystery we have been brought to believe, and therefore wait that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only master;] how shall we be able to live different from him; whose disciples, the very prophets themselves being, did by the Spirit expect him as their master."—Ignatius to the Magnesians, iii, 3-5.

Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some of them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the epistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do they say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle to the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the word day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of the first of these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr. Killen speaks as follows:

"In the sixteenth century fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the mantle of hoary antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was aroused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture."—Ancient Church, pp. 413, 414.

The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:

"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."—Id., p. 427.

Of the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F. Hudson speaks as follows:

"Ignatius of Antioch was martyred probably A. D. 116. Of the eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans."—Future Life, p. 290.

It will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as genuine do not include that epistle from which the quotation in behalf of Sunday is taken, and it is a fact also that they contain no allusion to Sunday. Sir. Wm. Domville, an anti-Sabbatarian writer uses the following language:

"Every one at all conversant with such matters is aware that the works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted than those of any other of the ancient fathers; and also that some writings have been attributed to him which are wholly spurious."—Examination of the Six Texts, p. 237.

Robinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century, expresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, Barnabas, and others:

"If any of the writings attributed to those who are called apostolical fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp at Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hermas, who was brother to Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine, of which there is great reason to doubt, they only prove the piety and illiteracy of the good men. Some are worse, and the best not better, than the godly epistles of the lower sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the civil war in England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both of these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular geniuses."—Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi, ed. 1792.

The doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently attested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of the three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still further to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day, were it not for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator has used in inserting the word day. This fact is shown with critical accuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day scholars. Thus he presents the original of Ignatius with comments and a translation as follows:

"We must notice one other passage as bearing on the subject of the Lord's day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A. D. 100.) The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. The passage is as follows:

"Εἰ οὖν οἱ παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες, εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον — μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες — (ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι' αὐτοῦ, &c.)

"Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that after κυριακὴν [Lord's] the word ἡμέραν [day] is to be understood. . . . . Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which αὐτοῦ can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of ἡμέραν. Now if we take κυριακὴ ζωὴ as simply 'the life of the Lord,' having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to αὐτοῦ. Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus:

"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him, &c.) . . . .

"On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term 'Lord's day,' (for which it is often cited), since the material word, ἡμέραν [day] is purely conjectural."—Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's Day.

The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this statement of Kitto's. He renders Ignatius thus:

"If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living according to the dominical life, &c. . . . The Medicean copy, the best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because ζωήν is expressed and determines the word dominical to the person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection."—Dialogues on the Lord's Day, pp. 206, 207.

"Sir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:

"Judging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the literal translation of the passage in discussion, 'no longer observing sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's life,' appears to give its true and proper meaning; and if that be so, Ignatius, whom Mr. Gurney [a first-day writer, author of the 'History, Authority, and Use of the Sabbath'] puts forward as a material witness to prove the observance of the Lord's day in the beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact, it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he does not even mention the Lord's day, nor in any way allude to the religious observance of it, whether by that name or any other."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251.

It is manifest therefore that this famous quotation has no reference whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord's day. The evidence is now before the reader which must determine whether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in the case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament and in the uninspired writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing to sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas, Pliny and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the second speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the third, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing of any day, if the advocates of Sunday had not interpolated the word day into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion that Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as a historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth, we say with Neander, "The festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance."