Chapter VII: Part 7

Again, as it regards the moral complexion of the act, it will not be objected by our reviewer that it was to be avoided from any scruples in that direction, since he believes that such collections were taken up on every first day of the week. On the other hand, taking the second view as being the one which properly expresses the facts, we find that it is in perfect harmony with the circumstances of the case, and consistent with the notion that Paul had a sufficient motive for writing before hand, as he did, concerning the collections. He was about to make a brief visit to Corinth. How long he should remain, he could not tell. While there, he wanted the undivided attention of the people to be given to religious purposes, and also that the money which he expected, should be in readiness, so that no delay might be necessary.

This, however, could not be, since, not knowing the exact time of his arrival, they would not be likely to have it on hand when he should come, unless they laid it by, weekly, at their homes. Should he, therefore, drop in upon them suddenly, they would be thrown into a confusion of mind illy compatible with the purposes of daily worship during his visit, since they would be annoyed and distracted by the necessity of gathering from this direction and that, the amounts of the weekly contribution which they had agreed to make for the benefit of the suffering saints at Jerusalem.

But once more: Having settled the point that the explanation claimed does not satisfactorily account for the mention of the subject in an epistle, while the one which we present meets the requirements of the case in every particular—since it both supplies the money, and furnishes the apostle with a body of Christians ready to listen to the preaching of the word—let us look at the matter from another stand-point.

The plan proposed by Paul could have been arrived at in but one of two ways. Every Christian was expected, either, first, to give a fixed sum, every week, of an amount equal to that which the general valuation of his property would require; or, secondly, he was, as the writer supposes, to pay in a fluctuating amount weekly, that amount to be determined by the gains or losses of the week.

We will suppose, for a moment, that the first theory is correct, and will test the plan in question thereby. While doing so, for convenience’ sake, we will employ the currency of our own time. Here is a Corinthian Christian who is worth, say $10,000. He decides that he will give, for the purposes mentioned, ten dollars per week. He has money in his purse, and nothing to prevent his doing it at any time. Being anxious to obey the injunction of Paul, he proceeds as the writer suggests. On Sunday morning he is at home, knowing just what he must contribute on that day, when he goes to church, having previously decided this point. The amount, as we have seen, is precisely ten dollars. But Paul says he must do something with it “at home,” before going to church. What was he to do with it? The writer says, “to place or devote it.” Well, he takes out his purse; from it he extracts just ten dollars. He holds it in his fingers. Now, what shall he do with it? The writer says he must “_place_ or _devote_ it.” Yes, but we inquire. What does _place_ or _devote mean_, in such a connection as this? In other words, What shall he do with the money at home? Shall he take it out, and turn it over, and look at it, and put it back into his purse again, and then go to church and place it in the contribution box? We answer that this would be a solemn farce. To say, also, that having taken it out of his purse he must not put it back again, but must place it in some other pocket, and then carry it to church, is simply ridiculous. So far, therefore, as the men were concerned whose property was fixed, and whose contributions were the same, weekly, all that was said by Paul about “devoting or placing” at home was pure nonsense, in the light of the exposition offered.[8]

Now for the other class, or the men of fluctuating resources. How shall they proceed? Were they to estimate the amount of their weekly gains, and to collect in the sum, on the last day, which they were to give on the first day of the week? If so, then in their cases, as well as in those of the first order, the whole process was a mere sham, an empty and meaningless form. For they also, at their homes, would simply have to take out their money and look at it, and then put it back and go to the church for the purpose of donating it.

But again; as we have seen, that unless the work of deciding how much they ought to give, and separating the amount for that purpose while at home on the first day of the week, was a part of the plan of the apostle, the whole suggestion had in it neither rhyme nor reason, we now turn to the only alternative left our opponent; which is the conclusion that the work indicated by the term, “place or devote at home,” was that of _deciding upon_, and _separating_ the sum which they could spare to the weekly contribution.

What are the consequences of such a position? We reply, It overturns and utterly uproots the whole theory of Sunday sanctity; for the lesson taught by 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, instead of being favorable to the conception that Paul held to such a theory, shows that he regarded the first day of the week as secular time. Do you ask, How do you reach such a conclusion? I answer, It is inevitable, since the men who were acting under the instruction of Paul could not carry out the work prescribed by him without devoting at least the morning of the first day of the week to worldly business, such as that of figuring up and deciding upon the losses and profits of the preceding week, and, perhaps, collecting from outstanding matters the pro-rata amount necessary for the stated collection at the church.

Should it be objected that our suggestion is open to the criticism that the well-to-do class of Christians could have furnished their means at any time, we answer, Very true; but that, should week after week elapse without the separation, on the part of the wealthy, of the stipulated sum, it might, before the arrival of the apostle, reach figures which it would be difficult even for them to meet without perplexity. And besides, the better, easier, more natural, and we think, spiritually, the more profitable method, even for them, would be found in doing it weekly. We might offer many reasons for this conviction, had we space. Paul was giving a general rule to meet the condition of all classes. The poor comprised the larger portion of these classes, and a principle was laid down, therefore, which, while it was better for the rich than any other, was indispensable, for the purposes in question, to the men of moderate circumstances.

Our interpretation, stated in brief, is simply this: The apostle instructed them on the first day of the week to lay by in store, at home, what they proposed to give to the saints at Jerusalem, hoarding it up until he should visit them, so that at his arrival they might put it into the common treasury; thus avoiding the possibility of being unable, on the one hand, to meet their pledges, and on the other, of being necessitated to have their minds occupied with temporal affairs, during his stay. This conception is free from embarrassments. Even were the gentleman’s translation of the passage correct, it cannot be shown to be unsound. He would read the scripture substantially as follows: “Let every one of you devote at home, treasuring up, that there be no gatherings when I come.” To our mind, there is no tautology, even in the declaration of the apostle thus expressed, which is worthy of mention; for should the term, “treasuring up,” be interpreted to mean the same as placing or devoting at home, it is explanatory, not of the command, but of the purpose of the command. A paraphrase, which is often employed with profit in the writings of Paul, will make it all clear: “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay aside, or devote to the Lord, an amount commensurate with the prosperity which he has bestowed upon you, treasuring it up, so that there need be no gatherings when I come.”

The only difference between the gentleman and myself, therefore, would be as to the _place where_ it was to be treasured up; he insisting that it was at the church, and we, at the house of the individual Christian. We have shown that his opinion is not only unnecessary, but that it is also absurd, since it divides a transaction which Paul does not divide; and, after admitting that a part of it transpired at the home of the individual, it represents the other part as having taken place at the church; whereas, neither the _church_, the _contribution box_, nor the _assembly_, are so much as mentioned. And besides, it presents Paul in an attitude which certainly does not compliment his sagacity. Mark you, it is “every one of you” that he instructs to “lay by at home.” It must therefore be, not the church collectively, but its individual members who are called upon to treasure up, or lay by in store. Just here we submit that the language employed is literal, and not figurative, and that, this being true, the moment that the saints at Corinth placed their funds in the common treasury, they violated the injunction of the apostle, which was that they should treasure it up, or lay it by in store, individually. By way of enforcing our logic, we inquire of the reader, who has doubtless contributed many times to church collections, Can you look upon money thus bestowed as in any proper sense of the term belonging to you individually? or as still treasured up or laid by in store? We think that your answer will not be equivocal. To lay by in store, as before stated, is to put in some safe and accessible place; but money once donated is not accessible to the individual contributor, since he has no longer any individual property in it.

Here we must terminate our remarks on 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. As we do so, we have disposed of the last Bible text which will be cited in the support of a supposed practice of Sunday-keeping on the part of the early church. Error begets error. Having rejected the obvious teaching of Acts 20:7, that Paul, after holding a meeting on the first day of the week, traveled nineteen and a half miles on foot, and having endeavored to explain away this journey by inferring that it took place on the second day of the week, which is not mentioned in the connection, our opponent comes to the consideration of 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, lugging along in his arms a precedent which God had clearly taught him was not designed to teach the lesson which he sought to extract from it. With this precedent, thus illegitimately obtained, he seeks to explain the language of Paul which we have been considering. By this means, he has been led to indorse error. But we need not recapitulate.

In conclusion on this point, we remark: How admirable is the providence of God! He has instructed us in his word, in regard to duty, by clear precepts, and has never told as to study its requirements simply in the light of human example. How remarkable, therefore, that he should have condescended to so order, by his Spirit, the record which has been made in the case of every precedent brought forward, that the text and context would utterly overthrow every effort of him who should attempt to employ them in the interest of a false doctrine. On the day of the resurrection, as if to show that it was not holy time, two disciples are brought to view as traveling fifteen miles; a portion of the distance in company with their approving Lord, and the remainder of it after he had appeared to, walked and conversed with, them. In Acts 20:7, apparently perceiving the use which might be made of it, he places, in the foreground of the sacred record, the apostle, threading a weary journey on foot from Troas to Assos; and lastly, in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, he framed the language so that it should inculcate, not the idea that the first day of the week was holy time, but, on the contrary, that it might be devoted to the secular work of casting up accounts and collecting funds.

With the exposition offered of the words, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” Rev. 1:10, we shall make short work. What we have previously said on that passage is not sufficiently disturbed to warrant extended remark. Be it remembered, then, that, as said above, the passage proves that God has a day in this dispensation. At this point commences our divergence. We say that the term, “Lord’s day,” refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. The writer says that it refers to the first day of the week. The declaration that Christ paid no attention to the seventh-day Sabbath after his resurrection, needs no reply here, except that he was under no obligation to do so, and there was no good reason why he should, since he regarded it strictly in his lifetime, and enjoined it upon his followers. Perhaps, however, it would be well to add that he at least never did anything after his resurrection which might be construed into a desecration of it; whereas, in the case of the only first-day on which it can be _proved_ that he ever met with his disciples, after his death, be devoted a portion of its hours to travel on the highway.

To the objection of the writer that, if the term, “Lord’s day,” in the case before us, does apply to the seventh-day Sabbath, it is strange that it should have been called in every case but this “the Sabbath,” we reply that, were this true, this would simply prove a choice in titles, and implies no disrespect to the day itself, since the term “Sabbath,” equally with that of “Lord’s day,” was a sacred denomination. Not so, however, if he be right in the supposition that the term, “Lord’s day,” applies to the Sunday; for, if he be correct in this, then indeed we have something which is _passing strange_. For, in all the New Testament, that which he is pleased to style the “Christian Sabbath,” and to which, according to his theory, belonged the honorable name of “Lord’s day,” is not only so called but once; but, being spoken of nine times by inspired men, it is mentioned eight times out of the nine by them in an utter disregard of its hallowed nature, in the terms employed, since it is referred to by its secular name, first day of the week, in all these instances. The reader will recollect that, in our positive argument, we showed that the term, “Lord’s day,” was a fitting one for the last day of the week, provided the term translated “Lord” was applicable to God, the Father, as well as to Christ, the Son. 1. Because it was the day which he blessed and sanctified in Eden, thus claiming it as his own (Gen. 2:3). 2. Because, in the commandment, he calls it “the Sabbath of the Lord.” 3. Because, in Isa 58:13, 14, he makes mention of it in the use of the terms, “Sabbath,” “my holy day,” “the holy of the Lord,” &c.

In addition, we might cite other honorable and distinguishing terms by which it is pointed out in the Bible as a day which belongs peculiarly to the Lord our God, but these are sufficient.

If it be replied that the word translated “Lord” in Rev. 1:10, is necessarily limited to Christ, we answer: 1. As we have argued formerly, that he said he was Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28. 2. That the following texts show conclusively that the divine Son of God was engaged, equally with the Father, in the creation of this world; and, therefore, that he undoubtedly shared in the rest which furnished the foundation for the Edenic Sabbath, as well as in the act of blessing and sanctifying it, or setting it apart for religious purposes. “All things were made by him [Christ]: and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” John 1:10. “... Who [God] created all things by Jesus Christ.” Eph. 3:9. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth; ... all things were created by him, and for him.” Col. 1:16. “God ... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Heb. 1:1, 2. Even though we should grant, therefore, which we do not, that the term translated “Lord,” as above, applies exclusively to the Son of God, we cannot see why the seventh day might not, with all propriety, be called after him, the Lord’s day.

In the concluding remarks on this branch of the subject, it will not be considered out of place for us to remind the reader of the protest which we offered, in the rejoinder to the second article of the gentleman of the _Statesman_, against his effort to obtain all the benefit which could be derived from his interpretation of Rev. 1:10, before he had struck a single blow, either in the direction of overturning our construction, or establishing, by fair argument, his own. The reason why this protest was offered is now apparent. The gentleman there, by anticipation, _assumed_ that John meant by the term, “Lord’s day,” the first day of the week. He _promised_ that in due time he would make good his assertion. But how has it proved, now that he has reached the very point where he should have fulfilled this engagement? Every one must see that he has utterly failed. _Proof_ was the very thing which was _promised_, and which was _needed_, right here. It is the very thing, also, which he has neglected to adduce. All that is said in reference to the theory of Wetstein, may have served to give respectability, in point of length, to the treatment of that which he has regarded a most important scripture in his line of evidence; but it was utterly irrelevant to anything which we had said; for the reader will remember that we emphatically planted ourselves on the position that it was the weekly Sabbath to which allusion is made.

To the restatement of the scriptures employed in vindication of this last opinion, there can be no objection, but we inquire again, Where are the passages, where the deductions from Scripture teachings, by which the gentleman has proved that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week? He has not so much as cited one. He has not made even a respectable effort at argument; but, with a haste which is irreverent, if not indecent, he rushes away from the book of God, as if impelled by the conviction that his view will find no support there, and plunges headlong into the regions of patristic myth and moonshine. At this we are not surprised. It is just what we expected. Sabbatarians are as well acquainted with this device as they are with the emptiness of the so-called Bible argument for the Sunday. It simply serves to strengthen their conviction, so often expressed in these articles, that the stronghold of first-day observance will ever be found in writings which have been manipulated, retrenched, and interpolated, by the church of Rome. For, be it remembered, it is from the authorities to which the gentleman now appeals, that the papacy brings its stoutest testimonials for apostolic succession, papistic supremacy, and the other heresies which blacken the record of its apostasy.

All it is necessary to say to the reader here is, therefore, that he should bear in mind that Sabbatarians are willing to leave the arbitrament of this whole question where it can be determined from the standpoint of Bible evidence. It is the opposition, and not we, who make it necessary, in the investigation of this subject, to go upon forbidden ground. “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. 3:16, 17. If, therefore, first-day sanctity has no warrant in the Bible, which we have seen to be the case, then it is not among those things which are _profitable_, or which, as Christian doctrines, are _necessary to furnish the man of God unto all good works_.

Footnote 7:

This point is an important one; and as we are anxious to satisfy the
reader that it is well taken, we append the following remarks of
Albert Barnes, who—though agreeing with the writer in the _Statesman_
that this passage furnishes proof for Sunday observance—nevertheless
frankly concedes, as will be seen, that the construction of the
original phrase for “treasuring up,” is such as to admit of the idea
that the work was to be done at home. He says: “The phrase in Greek,
‘treasuring up,’ may mean that each one was to put the part which he
had designated into the common _treasury_. This interpretation seems
to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it
by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no
trouble of collecting when he should come. Or, it may, perhaps, mean
that they were individually to _treasure it up_, having designated in
their own minds the sum which they could give, and have it in
readiness when he should come.”

Footnote 8:

Instead of selecting a wealthy person, able to contribute ten dollars
per week, as has been done above, let an individual be chosen from the
poorer classes of Corinthians—say from among these who would be able
to donate only twenty-five cents per week—and the reader will be more
forcibly impressed with the unreasonableness of that construction
which makes it necessary that so small a pittance should first be
placed or devoted at home, and then carried to the church, and there
deposited in the general collection.

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE SEVEN.
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

Besides the inspired records of the Scriptures, there have come down to us the writings of men who were contemporaneous with some of the apostles, and the writings of others who lived in the immediately succeeding generations. We shall quote from the writings of those who lived during the two centuries following the close of the canon of inspiration. These writers give evidence enough that they were not inspired, as were the penmen of the Divine Word. But it will be borne in mind that we appeal to them here simply as witnesses to a matter of fact. Many of their opinions and interpretations of Scripture may not be worthy of acceptance; but their testimony to the existence of the Lord’s day, an admitted fact, cannot be disputed. As there has been a great deal of loose citation from the early fathers on this question, we have been at considerable pains to translate carefully from the original in every case, and accompany each quotation with minute and accurate reference.

The first writer from whom we shall quote is Ignatius. This father stood at the head of the church at Antioch at the close of the first century and the beginning of the second. After occupying that position for many years, he was condemned to death, as a Christian, by Trajan, transported in chains to Rome, and there thrown to lions in the Coliseum for the amusement of the populace, probably in the year 107. On his way to Rome, he wrote seven epistles to various churches. Eusebius and Jerome arrange these writings as follows (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians; (3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6) to the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop, or presbyter, of Smyrna. These seven epistles, in connection with a number of others confessedly spurious, have come down to us in two Greek copies, a longer and a shorter. A Syriac version of three epistles has recently been found. Without entering into the controversy concerning these Ignatian Epistles, we give the conclusion reached by Dr. Schaff, which is very generally accepted: “The question lies between the shorter Greek copy and the Syriac version. The preponderance of testimony is for the former, in which the letters are no loose patch-work, but were produced, each under its one impulse, were well known to Eusebius, probably even to Polycarp, and agree also with the Armenian version of the fifth century.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 466.) It is admitted, even by those who do not accept the Greek copy as genuine, that it is the work of the close of the second century, or a little later. In any event, then, it is important testimony. In the epistles to the Magnesians occurs the following language: “Be not deceived with false doctrines, nor old, unprofitable fables. For, if we still live in accordance with Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For even the most holy prophets lived according to Jesus Christ.... If, then, they who were brought up in ancient things arrived at a newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s life, ... how can we live without him?... Since we have been made his disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity.”[9]—_Ad Magnes._ capp. 8, 9; Coteler’s Edition, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20. Amsterdam, 1724.

In this passage, it will be observed, the writer draws a contrast between Judaism and Christianity. To keep the seventh-day Sabbath was to live according to Judaism. To live according to the dominical life, or, as the thought is otherwise expressed, to live according to Christianity, was opposed to the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. The argument of Ignatius tells strongly in favor of the first-day Sabbath. If Jews, he argues, brought up in the old order of things, on turning Christians, no longer keep the seventh-day Sabbath, but live according to the dominical life, observing as part of that life, the dominical day, the day on which the Lord rose from the dead, surely those who never had been Jews should live according to Christianity, and not give heed to Judaizing teachers.

Passing on, we come to a document called “The Epistle of Barnabas.” This letter, though not the composition of the Barnabas of the New Testament, was written in the early part of the second century. It cannot be determined who was the author, but _the early date_ of the letter is fully established; and that is the main point. Its language is: “We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead.”—_Coteler’s Edition of the Apostolic Fathers_, vol. i. p. 47.

The testimony of Justin Martyr is full and explicit. As an itinerant evangelist for many years during the first half of the second century, just after the time of the apostle John, he enjoyed an excellent opportunity of becoming, acquainted with the customs of the whole church. Writing in the year 139 to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in vindication of his Christian brethren, he gives the following account of their stated religious services: “On the day called the day of the sun is an assembly of all who live either in cities or in the rural districts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read;” _i. e._, the Old and New Testaments. Then he goes on to specify the various parts of their first-day services. Just as at the present day, in Christian congregations, there were preaching, prayer, the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the contribution of alms. As reasons why Christians should observe the first day, he assigns the following: “Because it was the first day on which God dispelled the darkness and chaos, and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the dead on it.”—_Robert Stephens’ edition of the works of Justin Martyr_, p. 162. Lutetiæ, 1551.

In another of his works, the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written about the same time as the Apology, from which we have quoted, occurs this passage: “The command to circumcise infants on the eighth day was a type of the true circumcision by which we were circumcised from error and evil through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week; for the first day of the week remains the chief of all the days.” (Stephens’ Edition, p. 59. See also Trollope’s edition of the Dialogue with Trypho, pp. 85, 86.) The careful reader of Justin Martyr will observe that, in addressing Trypho the Jew, he uses different terms for the days of the week from those which he employs in addressing the Emperor Antoninus. Addressing a heathen emperor, he employs the heathen names for both the seventh and the first day of the week.

Two important notices of the Lord’s day, all the more important because of their incidental character, are found in the History of Eusebius. Dionysius, bishop or presbyter of Corinth, A. D. 170, in a letter to the church at Rome, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says: “To-day we kept the Lord’s holy day, in which we read your letter.” (Hist. Eccles. iv. 23, Paris Ed. 1678, pp. 117, 118.) The other of these notices is in regard to a treatise on the Lord’s day, by Melito, bishop of Sardis, A. D. 170. This treatise, Eusebius remarks, along with others by the same writer, had come to the historian’s knowledge.—_Hist. Eccles._ iv. 26, Paris Ed. 1678, p. 119.

Although the letter of Pliny to Trajan is so well known as hardly to need quotation, we shall close this article with its interesting testimony in confirmation, from a pagan quarter, of what has already been adduced from Christian writers: “They [the Christians] affirmed that the sum of their fault, or error, was that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated day—_Stato die_—before it was light, and sing praise alternately among themselves to Christ as God—_carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum, invicem_.” (Plin. Epist. x., 97.) Here we have the fact that Christians in the early part of the second century met regularly on a stated day, and this stated day, as all the Christian authorities of the same date prove, was the first day of the week, the Lord’s day.

Additional patristic evidence will be given in the next article.

Footnote 9:

Not a few eminent writers, such as Dwight, and Wilson, of Calcutta,
who are followed by many lesser authors, quote Ignatius, as saying:
“Let us no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord’s day.” From the literal
rendering of the original above given, it will be seen that these
writers take an unwarrantable liberty with their author. The words of
Ignatius are, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες. To separate the noun
ζωὴν from the preceding adjective, and connect it with the following
participle, so as to read, “Living a life according to the Lord’s
day,” is an unnatural separation of the words of the original. To drop
out the word ζωὴν is unwarranted. If this word were spurious, then the
rendering would be, “Living according to the Lord’s day,” the
adjective κυριακη without the noun for “day” being expressed occurring
frequently for “the Lord’s day.” But there is no ground for rejecting
the word “life.” To color the language of an author for the sake of
giving it point in favor of one side of a question is unworthy of a
seeker after truth. In the present case there is really nothing gained
by departing from the precise language of the writer. Another passage,
often quoted as from Ignatius, is part of the spurious epistle to the
Galatians. It is as follows: “During the Sabbath, Christ continued
under the earth, in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid
him. At the dawning of the lord’s day, he arose from the dead. The day
of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Lord’s day
contains the resurrection.” This certainly has some weight as the
testimony of comparatively early writer, but it must not be ascribed
to Ignatius.

A REJOINDER.
“TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”

There is one feature which has characterized this debate, hitherto, which has been a source of considerable satisfaction. The controversy, up to this point, has been urged purely with reference to the teaching of the Bible, as drawn from its sacred pages. Henceforth, however, this is not to be the case. We are now to have, not the “sure word of prophecy,” with the clear and forcible lines of textual evidence, drawn from its inspired utterances, but that “word of prophecy,” supplemented and explained by the apostolic fathers.

It has been said, and well said, that history repeats itself. If there was one thing which marked the religious impulse that Protestantism gave to the world, it was an utter rejection, in the decision of religious opinions, of everything but Bible authority. The voice of Martin Luther even now seems to reverberate in our ears, as—when fighting the very battles which Sabbatarians am being called upon to fight over again—he retorted in sharp and stinging words upon his cowled and priestly opponents, who were ever citing patristic evidence, The Bible, and the Bible alone, is our rule of faith. Again, as we read the words addressed by him to those friends who were hopefully waiting the expected reply from the Romanists of his time, to a courageous assault which he had made upon them from the stand-point of the Bible, it seems as if they were designed to be prophetic of our time, rather than descriptive of his own. He said: “You are waiting for your adversaries’ answer; it is already written, and here it is: ‘The fathers, the fathers, the fathers; the church, the church, the church; usage, custom; but of the Scriptures—nothing!’”—_D’Aubirgne’s Hist. Ref._, vol. viii., p. 717.

Wearisome as these repeated conflicts may be to the child of God, there is a satisfaction in the thought that we hold in our hands the same weapons, and bear aloft the same banners by which, under the blessing of God, victory, complete and universal, has been attained in the past. The opponents of Bible truth have never yet been able to stand before the thunder of its power, or to balance the ponderous weight of its influence, in the decision of religious questions. The homely phrase of the great reformer is just as potent and irresistible in the present contest as it was in that for which it was framed “When God’s word is by the fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal-sack, which must needs spoil the milk, and make it black; even so, likewise, God’s word of itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear; but through the doctrines, books, and writings, of the fathers, it is very surely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.”

The elegant and convincing logic of Philip Melancthon, the greatest theologian of the sixteenth century—who, in the following brief lines, discussed and summed up the whole question—is just as sound and unanswerable now as it was when, under the blessing of God, it carried confusion and defeat into the ranks of the papacy, three hundred years ago. He says: “How often has not Jerome been mistaken! how often Augustine! how often Ambrose! How often do we not find them differing in judgment—how often do we not hear them retracting their errors! There is but one Scripture divinely inspired, and without mixture of error.” (_Idem._, p. 219.) In fine, we might prove from history that nearly every Protestant writer, for the last three centuries, has forged for us weapons which could be employed with the most telling effect in the controversy in which we are now engaged.

This, however, we have not space to do, but must content ourselves with several brief citations, by which we will show that the authorities of our own times—equally with those of the past—are uniform in their expressions of contempt for testimony which is so largely relied upon by our reviewer in the present discussion. “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.—_Archibald Bower._

“But of these, we may safely state that there is not a _truth_ of 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 it 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.” (A. Clark, Com. on Prov. 8.) “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.” (Quoted in Hist. of Sab. from Autobiography of Adam Clarke.)

“Most of the writings, bearing the name of the apostolic fathers, are regarded as spurious by various modern critics. The genuineness of all has been disputed; but the fragments that remain are curious as relics of an early age, and valuable as indicating the character of primitive Christianity.” (Am. Cyc., Art. Apostolic Fathers.) Thus much for the estimate which Protestants place upon the authorities which are brought forward by the gentleman in the _Statesman_. Assuredly, he would never have appealed to them, had he not felt that his cause was hopeless one, when left to the arbitrament of Scripture.

Should it be pleaded in extenuation of his cause that they have not been advanced with a view to influencing the judgment of the reader in reference to the continuity of the old Sabbath, but were introduced simply to furnish, as suggested in the outset, a criticism showing the use of the term, “Lord’s day,” in the first three centuries, then, we inquire, why cite Ignatius at all? It will be perceived at a glance that, according to the rendering which he has given us—and for which, and his note thereon, he will receive our thanks, since it will save us much labor—there is not in it a single mention of the term, “Lord’s day.” If the passage conveys any meaning at all, it is either that the Sabbath should be observed in a manner differing from that in which it was kept by the Jews, or else that it should not be observed at all.

But the last of these propositions, the writer will not admit to be sound, since he has fairly repudiated such a conception, and has, in so many words, stated that he heartily agrees with us in the perpetuity of the Edenic Sabbath. He has also stated that the fourth commandment—which it will be admitted commences with the words, “Remember the _Sabbath day_, to keep it holy”—is a Sabbath law which is still binding, and which, the words of Ignatius to the contrary notwithstanding, forever settles the question that this is not a Sabbathless dispensation.

What shall be done, then, with the language of the venerable father? We are well acquainted with the office which it has performed hitherto, and are anxious to know where it is to throw its baleful shadow hereafter. In the past, hundreds of individuals whose consciences have been aroused by appeals to the Bible on the subject of the perpetuity of God’s holy day, have had their fears quieted, and have been lulled into security by the very extract with which we are here favored. Why, they have said, was not Ignatius a disciple of John, and did he not therefore know what John believed? Did he not also prove his integrity by becoming a martyr to the faith? Since, therefore, he was possessed of both knowledge and piety, and since he has called the first day of the week the Lord’s day, are we not justified in keeping the day which he kept, and rejecting the day which he rejected? Supported and encouraged in this position, as they have been by the brethren of the writer who—having either less candor, or less scholarship, than he—have insisted again and again that Ignatius did call the first day of the week the Lord’s day, it has been in many cases utterly impossible for Sabbatarians to disabuse their minds of this impression. With gratitude, therefore, we shall add the name of the gentleman to the rapidly increasing list of scholars who, headed by Kitto, and others of equal distinction, frankly concede that Sabbatarians have been in the right, and that Ignatius did not speak of the Lord’s day at all, but simply alluded to the Lord’s life.

But what shall we say for those who have been deluded upon this point, and have thus been prevented from doing what they felt that duty required? There is a terrible responsibility somewhere. For the scholars who have abetted this deception, there can be no defense. For the unfortunate victims of the fraud, it may be said that their situation would be more hopeful had they not brought themselves into the difficulty by going upon forbidden ground. Should one be led astray by an incorrect translation of the Scriptures, God would undoubtedly pardon the mistake; for the person had done the best he could under the circumstances, and had sought for light where God had instructed him so to do. But to those who, having left the only true source of trustworthy knowledge, have allowed any class of persons, ancient or modern, to shape their belief differently from what it would have been had they relied wholly upon the Bible, we fear that Christ will say—as he did to those in like circumstances in his day, who, having followed the traditions of their ancestors, were found violating the law of God—“In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Before closing on this point, and in order that the citation may not be employed in the interest of no-Sabbath views, let the reader consider, for a moment, another feature, and a very important one in this argument. Having seen that Ignatius—if he wrote the above—did not mention the Lord’s day, it is proper now to inquire whether it is certain that he ever penned the language in question, at all? To this it may be replied, that it is very far from being so. Nay, it is in the highest degree probable, as the following extracts will prove, that the venerable man either never wrote a word of those which are cited, or, if he did, what he said has been so manipulated that it is very far from conveying the impression which he intended. “From Smyrna, he (Ignatius) wrote to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Trallia, Rome, and Philadelphia, and on his voyage, to Polycarp, and the church at Smyrna. These letters are still extant, though the genuineness of the first three is doubted by some learned men.” (_Cyc. Relig. Knowl. Art. Ignatius._)

The distinguished historian and scholar, Kitto, speaks on this point in his Cyclopedia, Art. Lord’s Day, 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 evidently obscure, and the text may be corrupt.” Originally, there were fifteen letters attributed to Ignatius. Centuries ago, however, eight of them were rejected as hopelessly spurious. The remaining seven have been also denounced as forgeries, by many writers, with John Calvin at their head. Others, while holding on to four of the seven, have condemned three, and among them the letter to the Magnesians, from which the citation which we are considering was taken. A poor stone, this, which purports to come from Antioch, for the head-stone of the corner of the temple of patristic testimonials to the Sunday.

The way is now prepared for the consideration of the second extract, namely, that of Barnabas. Here, again, the confession of the gentleman is of service to us, by way of saving labor, since he unequivocally admits that the Barnabas who wrote the letter from which he quotes, was not the Barnabas of New-Testament fame. It becomes important, however, that we should know just who he was who wrote this epistle, before it should be received as authority in a grave religious discussion. Few persons would have the temerity to commit their spiritual interests to the hands of nameless individuals who lived 1700 years ego, unless they could feel some assurance that the men in whom they were thus confiding were persons whose judgment should have weight in the decision of matters of faith.

It is not enough that it should be established, even beyond doubt, that the writer in question lived in the second century. For no one will insist that _all the men_ who lived at that time were proper exponents of the views held by Christians in that period. It is, therefore, but reasonable that, before any man is brought forward to testify in so important a matter, he should have either a name which will show that he was qualified, both morally and intellectually, to act the part of a public teacher of the opinions held in his time, or, at least, that what he has written must be of a nature to commend his utterances to our judgments. Neither of these requisitions, however, is met in the case of the Barnabas (if his name was really Barnabas) quoted above.[10]

That his epistle has been employed in a gigantic fraud, no one will dispute. It is headed, “The general Epistle of Barnabas.” At its close, as given in the apocryphal New Testament, is the subscription, “Barnabas, the apostle, and companion of Paul.” Now, if he wrote these words himself, the gentleman will admit that he is unworthy of the slightest confidence, since he has told a deliberate falsehood. If, on the other hand, it be insisted that this was the work of subsequent generations, then we must move with extreme caution. In the region where this epistle lies, are the unmistakable footprints of men base enough to pervert the facts, and to employ its contents for an unworthy purpose.

The only alternative left us, therefore, since the author of the document is unknown to history, is that of examining what he has said, with reference to its character. Before doing this, however, it will be well to state—by way of putting the reader on his guard—that the history of this epistle is of a nature to awaken the most serious suspicion. By consulting the Am. Cyc., Art. Epistle of Barnabas, he will find it there stated that this epistle was lost to the world for eight hundred years, namely, from the ninth to the seventeenth century, and that, when it came to the surface after its long disappearance, it was found in the hands of one Sigismond, a Jesuit of that age. The desperate character of the order to which this man belonged, and the recklessness with which its members treat documents of the most sacred character, when they can thereby serve a favorite purpose, need no comment here.

Prof. Stowe, while arguing favorably to the epistle, in some respects, employs the following words, which have in them great significance, in view of what has been said above: “We admit that the epistle of Barnabas is strongly interpolated.”—_Hist. of Books of the Bible_, p. 423.

It is now time to ponder, for a moment, the words of the nondescript writer quoted above. They are as follows: “We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead.” In them is found not a single fact which, granting their authenticity, is at all decisive in the matter at issue. For, be it remembered, the controversy is not as to whether the ancients were in the habit of holding convocations for any purpose whatsoever, on the first day of the week, but, whether they called it the Lord’s day. It will, therefore, be admitted that the term, Lord’s Day, is not so much as mentioned; whereas, the day which it is supposed was entitled to the honor of being thus designated, is termed the “eighth day, the one on which Jesus rose from the dead.” Nor is it so much as intimated that the day in question was observed as a Sabbath, or esteemed as holy. The statement employed is that “they celebrated it with joy.” But this could be said with perfect propriety of any day of the week on which there regularly occurred a religious festival.

As an illustration of this, it might be mentioned here that a historian of the present time, while mentioning the usages of this period, could not be charged with inaccuracy should he declare that the 25th of December, which is supposed by some to be the day of the Lord’s nativity, is regularly celebrated. Should he do so, and should coming generations infer therefrom that it is now regarded as holy, you will readily perceive the mistake into which they would fall. What we want, if we must have recourse to such _miserable material_ as that which we are handling over, is something positive and definite. This the text undeniably fails to give. We leave it, therefore, as worthless; 1st. Because we do not know _who_ wrote it. 2d. Because we do not know _when_ it was written. 3d. Because it is found in an epistle so corrupted by interpolations that it is not at all reliable as authority. 4th. Because it has no direct bearing upon the subject. 5th. Because its author—by the absurd and ridiculous sentiments to which he gave expression—manifestly had a judgment too weak to allow us to suppose that, in the providence of God, in which nothing falls out by mistake, he should constitute a pillar in any way necessary to the establishment of sound religious doctrine.

The third authority brought forward is Justin Martyr. From him we learn that, on the day of the sun, the church at Rome were in the habit of convening, partaking of the Lord’s supper, listening to preaching, engaging in prayer, and in the contribution of alms.

It will be at once perceived that here is the nearest approach yet made to the accomplishment of the task which our reviewer assigned himself, and for which he has led the reader away from the oracles of God to the opinions and practices of men liable to error and mistake. Let it not be forgotten that the _prominent_ object to be gained by this departure, was the production of patristic authority for the use of the term, Lord’s day, in the first three centuries. That this purpose has not been accomplished, hitherto, all must admit. The next inquiry, therefore, is, should all points of dispute respecting the reliability of what has been quoted above, be waived, and should it be granted that Justin Martyr said what is attributed to him, Has the desired object been reached? The answer is emphatically in the negative. Justin Martyr avoids the application of Lord’s day to the day of the sun, as if prevented from using it by the same fatality which has withheld all the others from doing so, who have thus far been cited.