BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Editor
Preble.—"This brings me once more to speak on the subject of the 'first day of the week' as the Sabbath. In the closing part of my last number I referred to the fact that neither of the apostles ever attended another seventh-day meeting after the one mentioned in Acts xviii, 4. And I will now add, that this is the last time the word Sabbath is found in our version of the New Testament, except in Col. ii, 16. And no Sabbatarian will admit for one moment that that refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. Hence, it is proved that when Paul said, 'From henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles,' (Acts xviii, 4–6,) he did do it; and after that there is an entire silence in the New Testament in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath as a day of worship." REPLY.—We are happy to find Eld. P. coming back to the subject of the Sabbath. He speaks of the "first day of the week as the Sabbath." To the institution of the Sabbath the idea of holy or sacred time is inseparably attached; but if Sunday is the Sabbath, there is, according to Eld. P.'s own confession, nothing sacred about it; for he distinctly admitted in the first part of his article, that "if there is now one day more holy than another, made so by the express or direct command of Almighty God, then the seventh day is the one." Vol. xxiii, No. 18. The statement which Eld. P. has here repeated about Paul's turning to the Gentiles, and after that keeping silent about the Sabbath, will be found more at length, and the reply to the same, in No. 2, present volume. Preble.—"After this, the disciples held their meetings on the 'first day of the week,' as the following will prove: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Acts xx, 17." REPLY.—The original argument on this passage, and the reply, will be found in No. 2 as above. Preble.—"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. xvi, 2." REPLY.—For an exposition of this passage of Scripture, see also No. 2. Preble.—"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. i, 10." REPLY.—For a reply to the argument usually based on this Scripture, and proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is here unmistakably referred to, see Vol. xxiii, No. 24. Preble.—"What was the practice of the early Christians in regard to the Sabbath? The following unanswerable testimony is here presented in proof that the first day of the week was observed by the early Christians as the Sabbath, or Lord's day." REPLY.—We now leave the unerring record, the firm ground, of the Holy Scriptures, and take our way into a region where the bogs and mire of error, corruption, and superstition, surround us on every side. Into this region the advocates of first-day sacredness almost invariably deem it necessary to go, for the support of their darling institution. With how much safety they can appeal to the records of a time when the inspired writers had all left the stage of action, may be determined from the fact that Paul declared that even in his day the mystery of iniquity already worked, and that after his departure grievous wolves should enter in, not sparing the flock, and that men of their own selves should arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 2 Thess. ii, 7; Acts xx, 29–30. Without the most careful discrimination, those who appeal to this age, are liable to receive as honest Christians some of those "grievous wolves," and take as the genuine records of truth, those "perverse things," against which Paul has warned us. Discerning writers have often cautioned us against the use that is made of the pretended testimony of the fathers. Says Bower, in his History of the Popes, Vol. I, p. 1: "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." Dowling, in his History of Romanism, book ii, chap. 1, says: "'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." Dr. Adam Clarke in his life, p. 134, 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 these subjects, they blow hot and cold." In commenting upon Prov. viii, he says: "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 point 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." For a further statement concerning the authority of the fathers, and how their writings have been corrupted by the Romish church, the reader is referred to the History of the Sabbath pp. 193–204. This is plainly the principle to ever bear in mind, respecting the testimony of the fathers: If they found in the word of God, what they taught, we can find it there too; if they did not find it there, of course it is no authority with us. How much Eld. P. has found in the word of God to sustain his position, the reader can judge from the examination of his theory thus far, and also, whether any amount of testimony from the scaly ages that succeeded the days of the apostles will be able to save it. But Eld. P. completes his array of evidence in behalf of Sunday by bringing in what purports to be the testimony of the Christian Fathers. What Eld. P. has given us under this head is simply a slice from the Sabbath manual. Unfortunately, Eld. P. has quoted the manual, not always the most reliable authority, without taking the trouble to test the correctness of the quotations. Had he done this, he never would have endorsed as "unanswerable testimony," that which turns out to be, principally, but the fossil remains of a few contemptible forgeries. The first witness is Ignatius, as follows: Preble.—"Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 101, who died only about half a dozen years after the death of the apostle John, speaks of the Lord's day familiarly and without explanations, as if everybody understood it. And he gives this title to the first day of the week exactly after the manner of the apostle himself. 'Let us (Christians) no more sabbatize,' he says, (that is, keep the seventh day, as the Jews did,) 'but let us keep the LORD'S DAY.' 'Let every one that loves Christ keep holy the LORD'S DAY, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.'" REPLY.—Ignatius says no such thing. The epistle from which this quotation is taken is the "Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians." And what is the character of that epistle? It is spurious. It is a forgery. Ignatius never wrote it. The writers who have borne witness to this fact are Calvin, Dr. Killen, Sir Wm. Domville, Robinson, and C. F. Hudson. The testimony of these persons, and a reference to the sources from whence it is taken, the reader will find in the History of the Sabbath, pp. 211–214. But more than this: This passage in this forged epistle of Ignatius would say nothing about the Lord's day whatever, had not the word day been fraudulently inserted by the translator. The words "Lord's day" are not found in the original at all. It speaks of "Lord's life," but says nothing about "Lord's day." Our authorities on this point are Kitto in his Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Morer, and Domville. See Hist. Sab., pp. 214–216, where the facts are stated at length. Thus, this "unanswerable" testimony of Ignatius, which has bolstered up thousands in the false idea that the first Christians kept Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is found to rest only upon a two-fold forgery. In some of the earlier centuries of the Christian age, persons of mean abilities fell into the very laudable and innocent (?) habit of writing shallow treatises, and then, to give them notoriety, ascribing them to some great names in the church. This will account for the number of such works that originated in that period. Preble.—"Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: 'Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the LORD'S DAY, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.'" REPLY.—Kitto, in his Cyclopedia of Religious Literature, Art. "Lord's Day," says that the earliest authentic instance in which the name of Lord's day is applied to Sunday is not till it is so used by Tertullian, A. D. 200. And the celebrated historian, Neander, says that perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of the Sabbath law to Sunday had begun to take place, and quotes the words of Tertullian to prove it. If this is correct, that the earliest authentic instance of its use is A. D. 200, the assertion that Theophilus so used it in A. D. 162 cannot be authentic. For this latter statement, no authority is given. For the other, we have the authority of Kitto and Neander, and hence we choose this. Our opponents can take that which they think most creditable to their candor and honesty. Preble.—"Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says, 'On the LORD'S DAY every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.'" REPLY.—Irenæus says no such thing. Sir Wm. Domville, an able, English, anti-Sabbatarian writer, speaks as follows concerning this quotation from Irenæus: "I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenæus, and can with certainty state that no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1538), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question." Dr. Dwight is referred to as authority for this language of Irenæus, whenever any reference is given. On this point, Domville remarks: "Where, then, did Dwight obtain this testimony, which has so many times been given as that of Irenæus? It is recorded in a biographical memoir, prefixed to his theology, that by some disease in his eyes he was deprived of his capacity of reading and study from the early age of twenty-three. The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned was almost exclusively at second hand, by the aid of others." The same writer states another fact which unquestionably gives us the origin of this quotation. "But although not found in Irenæus, there are in the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians [that forgery which we have just noticed], and in one of its interpolated passages [forgery upon forgery], expressions so clearly resembling those of Dr. Dwight's quotation, as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted." On this testimony no better remarks can be made than those found in the History of the Sabbath, pp. 235, 236: "Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenæus, who had it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the world by a man whose eye-sight was impaired; who in consequence of this infirmity took at second-hand an interpolated passage from an epistle falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the genuine testimony of Irenæus. Loss of eye-sight, as we may charitably believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of natural eye-sight, was of reading Irenæus for himself. This case admirably illustrates tradition as a religious guide: it is the blind leading the blind until both fall into the ditch!"45 Preble.—"Tertullian, who died A. D. 245, says: 'The LORD'S DAY is the holy day of the Christian church. We have nothing to do with the Sabbath (that is, the Jewish Sabbath). The LORD'S DAY is the Christian's solemnity.'" REPLY.—We should have been glad if Eld. P., or Justin Edwards, had told us in what part of Tertullian's writings this extract was found. It is certain, from what testimony can be found from him, that appears to be genuine, that he did not base the observance of Sunday on the fourth commandment, nor believe in spending the day in devotion altogether. Milman, in his notes on Gibbon, speaks thus of Tertullian: "It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticism." And Dr. Heylyn says: "Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when, in a hundred years after Tertullian's time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church." It also appears that the great reason he assigned for keeping Sunday was opposition to those Christians who kept the Sabbath. See Hist. Sabbath, pp. 238–241. Preble.—"Barnabas, who, if not a companion of the apostles, lived in the apostolic age, says, 'We (Christians) keep the eighth day'—that is, the first day of the week—'as a joyful holy day, on which day also Jesus arose from the dead.'" REPLY.—And here is Barnabas; the epistle of Barnabas, the most barefaced forgery of all! Barnabas, whose epistle, or the one ascribed to him, contains things too indecent for public print! The very ink should blush that is used to write down this Barnabas as a genuine Christian father. A few sentences will serve to show the sweeping condemnation passed by standard authorities on this unworthy epistle. "The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew of mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, . . . a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion."—Mosheim. "Impossible that it could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed."—Id. Neander, Dr. Killen, and Prof. Stuart speak in a similar strain. "The letter still extant which was known as that of Barnabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine"—Prof. Hackett. "The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century."—Kitto. Eusebius says, "Among the spurious must be numbered . . . the epistle of Barnabas." Domville says, "The epistle was not written by Barnabas; it would be a disgrace to him, . . . a disgrace to Christianity." Coleman says, "The epistle of Barnabas . . . is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic, allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority." And Robinson speaks of it as the contemptible revery of a wild and irregular genius. See Hist. Sabbath, pp. 206–209, 214. With great pity for the cause that is dependent upon the support of such weak impositions, we pass on. Preble.—"Athanasius, who died A. D. 326, says, 'The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the LORD'S DAY.'" REPLY.—Like all the rest, there is no reference given us to the chapter and verse where this testimony from Athanasius can be found. He is represented as saying "The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the Lord's day." If so when did he do it, or where has he inspired any of his servants to record the fact. Point us to the testimony and it sufficeth us. It will be noticed that the date of this testimony is A. D. 326. As this was subsequent to the days of Constantine, a statement of a few facts may here be in place. 1. Up to the time of Justin Martyr A. D. 140, more than a hundred years after the resurrection of Christ, no authentic testimony can be found that Sunday was observed in any manner by the Christian church. 2. The first authentic instance of the application of the term Lord's day to Sunday, was not till A. D. 200. 3. No law existed enforcing Sunday observance previous to the edict of Constantine, A. D. 321. Constantine's edict is the fourth commandment for Sunday keeping. 4. Until the days of Constantine, Sunday had not been devoted to rest from labor, even by those who did in some measure regard that day; for Constantine's law did not prohibit husbandmen from laboring on that day, but restrained only those who dwelt in the cities, yet Mosheim tells us that this law caused Sunday to be observed with greater strictness than it had formerly been. 5. But this edict of Constantine's, this fourth commandment for Sunday, was issued by him while he was yet a heathen, and was in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival; for the date of this edict is A. D. 321, and it was not till A. D. 323, two years later, that his nominal conversion to Christianity took place. 6. After his conversion, and when, as it is expressed, the empire had become Christian, this edict remained unrepealed; whereupon, Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome, while Constantine was emperor, formally gave to Sunday the imposing title of Lord's day, and the unrepealed heathen edict of Constantine was seized upon as a Christian ordinance, by which to enforce it. Heathenism had thus prepared the institution of Sunday from ancient time; a heathen emperor had raised it by an imperial edict to the highest pitch of power, and now the bishop of Rome, the embryo pope, seizes it and changes it into a Christian institution, and puts it into the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. From henceforth, Sunday became the peculiar foster-child of papacy; and the constant efforts of that apostate church, and the man of sin, have been directed to the suppression of the Sabbath, and the higher and higher elevation of Sunday, until the two institutions occupy the relative positions that they now do in the world. Let us be thankful that the time draws near when God will arise to vindicate the honor of his own name and law; when the man of sin who has thought to change times and laws, shall be consumed with the spirit of Christ's mouth, and destroyed by the brightness of his coming; and when, alas! all who have willfully made themselves drunk with this wine of the mother of harlots, will be involved in the fearful ruin. Concerning the secular history of the Sabbath, we will just add that an unbroken succession of observers of the true Sabbath can be traced from the church of Jerusalem to the present time. Reliable authorities for the facts above stated, and multitudes of others equally to the point, the reader will find in the History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews, to which reference has already so frequently been made. In the light of these facts, what matters it how much testimony can be found in behalf of Sunday this side of Constantine! We have seen that the institution, historically considered, is entirely detached from the church in the apostles' days, and from the church subsequent to those days, so long as she maintained her primitive purity, no trace of it being found till more than a hundred years after the resurrection of Christ. Preble.—"Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who died A. D. 397, says: 'The LORD'S DAY is sacred, or consecrated, by the resurrection of Christ.'" REPLY.—We are not told where this language of Ambrose can be found; neither does Ambrose, if this be his language, tell us where any authority for this change is found in the Bible. Preble.—"Augustine, who died A. D. 430, says: 'The LORD'S DAY was by the resurrection declared to Christians; and from that very time it began to be celebrated as the Christian festival.'" REPLY.—See the genuine version of Augustine's testimony in Hist. Sabbath, p. 268, the substance of which is, not that Christ or his apostles changed the day, or that they kept it, but that the "holy doctors [?] of the church" did it. The bishop of Ely thus testifies concerning St. Jerome, who was the cotemporary of Augustine: "In St. Jerome's days, and in the very place where he was residing, the devoted Christians did ordinarily work upon the Lord's day, when the service of the church was ended." Preble.—"The persecutors of these Christians were accustomed to put to them this question: 'Dominicum, servasti?'—'Hast thou kept the LORD'S DAY?' If they had, they were marked as Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity. And if they said they had, and would not recan', they must be put to death. And when they continued steadfast, what was their answer? 'Christianus sum; intermittere non possum'—'I am a Christian; I cannot omit it. It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of course keep the LORD'S DAY, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion.'" REPLY.—About all that need be said to this quotation is, that there is not a word of truth in it. It was not till the early part of the seventeenth century that this story was brought forward. Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, England, then produced it to refute Thrasko, who was contending for the seventh day. He claimed to have taken it from the "Acta Martyrum." But Sir Wm. Domville states that he has carefully consulted the most complete edition of that work, and he affirms that no such question as that can be found as having ever been put to the martyrs. Forgery. But what about this work called "Acta Martyrum?" Is it an authentic work? Mosheim states that it is spurious, entitled to no sort of credit whatever. Another forgery. So here we have it again, forgery upon forgery. Surely the prophet used appropriate language when he spoke about a "refuge of lies." Isa. xxviii, 17. Preble.—"Eusebius, 'one of the most learned and eloquent men of the Christian church,' and called the 'Father of Ecclesiastical History,' and who died about A. D. 339, in his 'Commentary on the Psalms,' in commenting on the ninety-second Psalm, says: 'The Word (Christ) by the new covenant, translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving LORD'S DAY; the first (day) of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death.' On this day, which is the first of the light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths—even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world—and do those things, according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing.'" REPLY.—Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, book i, chap. iv, distinctly affirms himself to be a no-Sabbath man. He may have borne the testimony relative to the first day of the week here ascribed to him; for he was but the flatterer and satellite of the emperor Constantine. See testimony concerning him in Hist. Sabbath, p. 263. Preble.—"Theodoret, another Ecclesiastical Historian, who died about A. D. 460, speaking of the Ebionites, a party of Judaizing Christians, says: 'They keep the Sabbath according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the LORD'S DAY in like manner as we do.' Hæret. Fab. ii. 1. 'This,' says Prof. Stuart, 'gives a good historical view of the state of things in the early ages of the church. The zealots for the law wished the Jewish Sabbath to be observed as well as the LORD'S DAY; for about the latter there appears never to have been any question among any class of Christians, so far as I have been able to discover. The early Christians, one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred.'"—Sabbath Manual, No. 2, pp. 3–126. REPLY.—It seems that, since Prof. Stuart penned the above, others "have been able to discover" further testimony relative to this question. Some of this has already been laid before the reader, and reference given him where more may be found. Enough has been given to show that so far from the early Christians, one and all of them, holding the first day to be sacred, not one of them held it to be sacred previous at least to the heathen edict of Constantine, A. D. 321. Preble.—"Says Mosheim:—'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 testimony of the most credible writers.'"—Schlegel's Mosheim, Cent. 1, part II, chap. 4, Sec. 4. REPLY.—Mosheim was a writer of the eighteenth century. Of course then, he was dependent on the writings of the early ages of the gospel dispensation,46for the facts which he here states. The only writings that are extant previous to the time of Justin Martyr A. D. 140, are the epistle of Barnabas, Pliny's letter to Trajan, and the epistle of Ignatius. The epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius are both forgeries, as we have seen. The letter of Pliny speaks of a "stated day" but says nothing of what day it was. Hence there is nothing to support Mosheim's statement. On the contrary all history sustains the statement of Neander who was a writer of the nineteenth century, and equally credible with Mosheim. He says, "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 law of the Sabbath to Sunday."—Rose's Neander, p. 186. Preble.—"Enough of such testimony has been presented to prove that two SABBATHS were observed in the days of the apostles and early Christians. The 'party of Judaizing Christians' kept the seventh day. Those who followed Christ and the apostles kept the first day. And thus it has been and is now; those who follow the Jews, or the teaching of the old dead 'school-master,' will of course contend for the seventh-day Sabbath. But those who have followed, and still do follow, the teachings of the LIVING JESUS and the apostles, will observe the first-day Sabbath." REPLY.—From the few brief facts which we have thus far introduced into this reply, it will be evident that those who adhere to the word of God, and reverence the testimony of the Father and the Son, will adhere to the Sabbath which God instituted, blessed and sanctified for man; while those who choose to follow the "mother of harlots," will bow to the offspring of paganism and papacy, which she has chosen to adopt as the badge of her authority and power, and keep the first-day Sabbath. We agree with Eld. P. that "enough of such testimony," as he has adduced, has been presented; for on matters which pertain to our eternal interests, we want testimony that is reliable and true, not that which is born of corruption and fraud, and handed down to curse future generations, through the medium of a "pious credulity."