Your ShelfYour Projects

Who is N. J. A.?

5%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 17, 1865

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 25, No. 8.

Read the full edition

Who is N. J. A.?

By John Nevins Andrews

We should undoubtedly be considered excusable for not deigning to notice the attacks of our opponents on the Sabbath or any other question, until they can examine our works with sufficient attention to give the initials of their authors correctly.
Mr. I. C. Wellcome in the World's Crisis of Jan. 3, 1865, appears to be greatly distressed over a work called the "History of the Sabbath" by N. J. A. ! and four times in his article the writer of the work is referred to as N. J. A. !! Nevertheless that the reader may see how he endeavors to get over a knotty point in history, relative to the Sunday, we will present the facts.
On pages 204 and 205 of the History of the Sabbath, conflicting statements in relation to Sunday are given from Mosheim and Neander. Mosheim's statement is as follows:
"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. iv, sec. 4.
In opposition to this, Neander states as follows:
"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect. Far from them, and from the 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 began to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin."—Rose's Neander, p. 186.
That Neander should be made to appear to contradict Mosheim in this statement, the article in the Crisis thinks a great perversion on the part of N. J. A. (?) The article is headed, "Wrestling History;" and as the writer has a happy faculty of illustrating his own subject, we will let him speak for himself.
After quoting the statement of Neander, he comments upon it as follows:
"What does the Doctor mean? Those who read N. J. A., and the language with which he has clothed the above extract, are led to think the Doctor asserts that the christian observance of Sunday was only of human origin, and which the apostles and early church did not observe. Does the Doctor teach this? Never. He says, 'The FESTIVAL of Sunday was always only a human ordiuance.' Note this. Well, then he means that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper 'was' always only a human ordiuance,' does he? If the festival of which the Doctor speaks is the Lord's Supper, then he means this and nothing else."
Who has said anything about the Lord's Supper? Neander certainly does not in the language above quoted. We might just as well say, "If the festival of which he speaks is Christmas then he means this and nothing else!" But there is no evidence that Neander refers to Christmas, and no more that he refers to the Lord's Supper.
Then what does he mean by the "festival of Sunday? The article in the Crisis answers as follows:
"This festival was a Catholic corruption of Christ's institution of the Supper, and by this corruption, Sunday became a day of feasting, and gamiug, and ceremonies, instead of a day of worship and rest."
Indeed! Can the Crisis tell us about what time this was brought about, and by what means. And then we would like a little authority for it, just a little to relieve the statement from some of its barrenness; for we shall be excused if we cannot place the most implicit oonfidence in mere assertions. The festival, then, that Neander refers to, was "a Catholic corruption of Christ's institution of the Supper !" (?)
Let us read Neander's language with this definition. "The Catholic corruption of Christ's institution of the supper, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect! Far from them and from the apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to a 'Catholic corruption of Christ's institution of the Supper !' Perhaps at the end of the second century, before Catholic corruption existed, the 'Catholic corruption of Christ's institution of the Supper,' began to be considered sinful!" Splendid sense this, is it not! But Neander says no such thing. He speaks of the transfer of the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. He speaks not of the festival of the Lord's supper, but of the festival of Sunday. It is classed with "other festivals." Says the Encyclopedia Americana, "Sunday became a weekly holiday in memory of the resurrection, and at the same time a substitute for the Sabbath of the Jews. The division of festivals into classes are very various. They are, weekly, as Sunday," &c. Again it says, "In the most ancient times, we find besides Sunday, only Good Friday, Easter, Whitsunday, and some not very precisely fixed commemorative festivals of certain martyrs, introduced among Christians as holy times." This is what Neander designs to say; that Sunday rests upon the same foundation as all these other festivals, namely upon human authority as ordinances of the church; and it was far from the apostles or the apostolic church to furnish any divine command for Sunday celebration, or any transfer to it, of the law or sanctity of the ancient Sabbath. This is too plain to need further notice. The Crisis continues:
"Also, in this time of corruption, the laws which had governed the Jewish Sabbath were applied to the first day, and labor on that day considered sin; which 'was far from the intention of the apostles and apostolic church to transfer.'"
It is here admitted that it was far from the intention of the apostles to transfer to Sunday any sacredness from which it would be considered siuful to work on that day. Then in what does the sanctity of Sunday consist?
In regard to the statement of Mosheim that all Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, &c., he says it was founded upon the express appointement of the apostles. Now we would like to see that appointement. That is all we have to say. Just show us the appointement. If he found any such thing in the writings of the apostles we can find it there too. If he could not find it there, his assertion is good for nothing.
In the History of the Sabbath these statements of Mosheim and Neander are fully tested by a critical and impartial examination of the testimony on which they rest. The best antidote to anything we have yet seen published against either the History of the Sabbath or Both Sides, is the books themselves. Let them be circulated.