Chapter VIII: Part 8

Here we might pause, and insist that the gentleman has utterly failed, in the citation before us, to prove anything which is really relevant to the subject. It is in vain that he urges, in extenuation of the fact that Justin calls the first day of the week, the “day of the sun,” that he is addressing a heathen emperor. He was not afraid to speak to that emperor of the Old and New Testaments, of the preaching of the word, of the Lord’s supper, and of the resurrection of Christ; and why should he thus carefully avoid mention of the Lord’s day? Surely, he did not wish to convey the impression that Christians observed the day of the sun because of its heathen character, since he gives the reasons for their doing so.

But, again, it is claimed that at this period the chosen and peculiar appellation which had been given by the Holy Spirit, was that of Lord’s day, and that the Lord’s day, or the Sunday, had become the holy Sabbath which God commanded. This being true, assuredly we might expect that, in the work of Justin entitled, “A Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,” he would set forth, in the use of its peculiar title, the claims of that day which had been elevated, by divine command, to the position of the ancient Sabbath. But does he do this? The gentleman does not urge it. He does say that, in writing to the Jew, he drops the heathen titles of Sunday and Saturday, and speaks of the first, and the seventh, day of the week. But mark again; it is not urged that he anywhere calls the first day the Lord’s day. Once more, therefore, he has failed on this branch of the subject.

Now it will be well to regard the matter from the other side of the question. It must be conceded, as remarked above, that what Justin Martyr says furnishes stronger support for the idea of worship on the Sunday than anything else which has been adduced. But here again, we protest that the Bible, alone and unexplained, is sufficient for the settlement of this point. Others, if they like, may form their religious faith upon the practice of uninspired men, handed down to us through the perilous transit of the ages, protected and shielded from corruption and innovation by no denunciation of divine wrath against those who change its phraseology; but we much prefer to stand under the covering ægis of these words: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18.) Nor do we think that the gentleman himself would seriously urge that this position is unsound. Let us test it. Justin Martyr is assumed to be a fair exponent of the religious sentiment of his time. Now, therefore, what he believed they believed; and what they believed, we ought to believe, if our position, taken above, is not correct. Proceeding a step farther, we inquire, what was the faith of Justin Martyr and his contemporaries, allowing his writings to be the criterion of judgment? To this it may replied:

1st. That they believed in no Sabbath in this dispensation. Proof: “For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of Sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was, by the determinate counsel of God, born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham, without sin.” (Dial. of Trypho.) Does the writer believe this? The reader well knows that he does not, for he has nobly repudiated it, again and again.

2d. They believed that the Sabbath was imposed upon the Jews for their sins. Proof: “It was because of your (_i. e._, Jews) iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe the Sabbath.” (_Idem._) But our reviewer holds—as must all who accept the words of Christ (Mark 2:27, 28)—that it was given to Adam in the garden of Eden, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in the world.

3d. They believed that, in the administration of the Lord’s supper, water should be employed. Proof: “At the conclusion of this discourse, _i. e._, that of the Bishop on Sunday, we all rise up together and pray; and prayers being over, there is bread, and wine, and water offered.” (First Apol. Tras. by Reeves.) But modern Christendom look upon this as an innovation of popery.

4th. They believed that the reasons why Christians should observe the first day of the week were found in the facts that God dispelled the darkness and chaos on the first day of the week, and that on that day, Christ rose from the dead. Proof: Extract given above by the writer in his article. But the first of these opinions, modern Christians will not admit at all, and the latter furnishes only one-half of the obligation, since it ignores all positive law upon the subject.

So we might proceed, but enough has been said to show that Justin Martyr, as quoted above, is no criterion for the faith of those who have the Bible in their hands, from which they can learn, contrary to his views: 1st. That we have a Sabbath. 2d. That it was given to all mankind as a blessing, and not to the Jews for their sins. 3d. That both the bread and the wine belong to the laity, as well as to the priests. 4th. That the reasons for the observance of the Lord’s day do not rest upon the circumstance that God dispelled the darkness on the first day, but upon an explicit command of Heaven.

If the reader would satisfy himself from other sources that the statements of Justin Martyr are to be taken with extreme caution, and that his judgment was so easily imposed upon as to render him an unsafe guide in the plainest matters of fact, he will read the following extract from a publication of the Am. Tract Society: “Justin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine Deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of the impostor, Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by a modern writer, in relating a historical fact, exposure would immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward be suspected. And, assuredly, the same measure should be meted to Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact alluded to by Livy, the historian.”—_Spirit of Popery_, pp. 44, 45.

In concluding the remarks which will be offered here—in reference to those productions which are attributed to Justin Martyr, and which have been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the mind of the reader in favor of a cause which has found no support in the Scriptures—it is proper to state that their authenticity is by no means above suspicion; or, to speak more accurately, that some of them have been tampered with, is a matter which is settled beyond dispute. Already the reader has seen that by some means they have been made to contribute to the interests of the Romish doctrine of the use of water in the sacrament, as early as the first part of the second century. If it be granted that the statement in question is historically true, then the leaven of the papacy had begun to work so manifestly in the lifetime of Justin, that the opinions of his associates, as well as of himself, ought to have no weight with us who have repudiated the great apostasy.

On the other hand, should it be denied that water was then employed, as stated by the venerable father, there remain but two conclusions between which the reader can take his choice; either, 1st. Justin did not correctly represent the faith of his time; or, 2d. What he did say originally has been molded and fashioned by the plastic hand of the man of sin, until it is made to support the heresies of the hierarchy. To our mind, the latter conclusion is undoubtedly the true one. Below will be found an extract from a distinguished historian of the church, which proves that what is said above respecting the treatment which the writings of Justin Martyr have received is correct: “Like many of the ancient fathers, he [Justin] appears to us under the greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost, and others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his; and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.”—_Milner’s History of Church_, Book 2, Chap. 3.[11]

The fourth historic mention of the Lord’s day, as brought forward, is in the following words of Dionysius. “To-day we kept the Lord’s holy day, in which we read your letter.” By turning to Eusebius, the curious reader will discover that the citation incidentally given occupies but little more space than is required for the words as quoted. Their importance in this discussion does not demand for them any more room than was assigned them by the historian from whom they are extracted. The dispute is not whether there is indeed a Lord’s day, for both parties are agreed respecting this question. What we wish to ascertain is, Which day of the week is entitled to this appellation? The reference before us in no way helps in the settlement of this point. It simply states that the letter was read on the Lord’s day. Whether that was the first or the seventh in the cycle of the week is not stated, so we pass the language as unworthy of further consideration.

The allusion to the fifth authority is even more unsatisfactory than that of the fourth. It seems that Melito, bishop of Sardis, had written a discourse on the Lord’s day, which had been seen by Eusebius. As to its contents, the letter says not one word, neither shall we; for, as it is not now in existence, it is impossible that any person should be able to decide which view it would favor, provided it were in being.

The sixth proof is brought from the writings of Pliny. It is couched in these words: “They [the Christians] affirmed that the sum of their fault, or error, was, that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated day, before it was light, and sing praise alternately among themselves, to Christ, as God.” Without debating the propriety of bringing forward a heathen writer to prove the practice of a Christian church, we proceed to examine the testimony itself. Its utter inability to fill the place assigned to it will be discerned by every intelligent person who examines its phraseology. In it is the declaration that Christians were in the habit of assembling on a stated day, at which time they sang praises alternately among themselves, to Christ, as God.

Now that the statement of the facts is not incompatible with the idea that they were observers of the seventh day, all must admit. For surely, there is no incongruity in the notion that it would be in the highest degree proper for the observers of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord to devote its sacred hours to the delightful task of singing hymns of praise, and worshiping Christ, as God. That the language itself as completely harmonizes with this view, as with any other, will be felt when we remember that the writer does not say that they assembled on the first day of the week, or the Lord’s day, at all; but, simply, that it was on a stated day that they gathered themselves together for the purposes of worship. A stated day is one which recurs at fixed intervals. The Sabbath might have been the stated day; or, so far as anything to the contrary in the passage is concerned, the Sunday might have been the one. Pliny does not decide the point for us. His declarations, therefore, have not the slightest force in proving anything favorable to the opinions of the gentleman.

Furthermore, if inference is to be taken at all, the preponderance would rather be in favor of the last day of the week, since, in devoting it to the worship of Christ, they would not only bring upon themselves the wrath of the heathen, because of their acknowledgment of our Lord’s divinity; but, also, in the sum of their fault would be found the fact, that they ignored the sacredness of the day of the sun, and celebrated another, as holy, by divine command.

Thus much for the uninspired witnesses, brought forward from the first, and the early part of the second, century of the Christian era. Had they flatly contradicted what we have seen the teachings of the Bible to be, they would not have moved us one hair; for we remember that the great apostle has said, that, though “an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed.” But, strangely enough, their testimony is utterly worthless for the purpose for which it has been introduced. Not one of them has styled the Sunday the Lord’s day; not one of them has called it the Sabbath; not one of them has stated that it was regarded as holy, or that its hours might not, without sin, be devoted to secular pursuits. Here, then, we leave them, and wait for a fresh inundation of such as will answer the purpose for which they are called in a more satisfactory manner than the foregoing.

Footnote 10:

Did it not appear to be indispensable to the enlightening of the
reader, as to the consummate folly of the author of the epistle of
Barnabas, we should not append, as we do, his language in the
following note, since it is hardly worthy of a place in a chaste and
dignified discussion. For its citation we hold those, responsible who
have made this action necessary, and who value the testimony of a man
so utterly devoid of common-sense: “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.”
Chap. 9:8.

Footnote 11:

Since, writing the above, the following interesting item in the
_Christian Union_, for Feb. 19, has been brought to my notice, and
will serve to show that continued investigation on the part of
scholars is rendering the authenticity of the writings of Justin
Martyr more and more doubtful:—“Dr. Franz Overbeck has lately
examined, with great care, the ‘epistle to Diognetus,’ which has been
regarded as one of the most precious relics of the age succeeding that
of the apostles. He urges several reasons for coming to the conclusion
that the work was written later than the era of Constantine, and was
intended by its author to pass as a work Justin Martyr’s. Critics had
already proved it no genuine work of Justin, and if Dr. Overbeck is
right, it can no longer be assigned to the age of Justin.”

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE EIGHT.
PATRISTIC TESTIMONY TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

The testimony already adduced from the early fathers in our last issue will be regarded by most of our readers as sufficient in itself. But for the sake of giving a complete view of the patristic testimony to the first-day Sabbath up to the close of the third century, we shall occupy some additional space with extracts, on the accuracy of which our readers may confidently rely.

First among the witnesses now cited is Irenæus, bishop or presbyter of Lyons, A. D. 178. Let it be remembered that in the case of this witness we have the testimony of one who was brought up at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple and companion of the Apostle John. The first point to be noted in the testimony of Irenæus is the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath. As the rite of circumcision was no longer required, so the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath had ceased. Each was a sign or shadow of the substance to come. This thought is dwelt upon at great length. (See _Contra Hæreses_, book iv. ch. 30, Grabe’s Edition, Oxford, 1702, pp. 318, 319; also Benedictine Edit., Paris, 1710, p. 246.)

Lest his statements might be understood to be opposed to the authority of the ten commandments, Irenæus adds the following sentences: “The Lord spoke the words of the decalogue in like manner to all. They remain, therefore, permanently with us, receiving, through the Lord’s advent in the flesh, extension and increase, not abrogation.” (Book iv. ch. 31, p. 320.) Thus the law of the Sabbath remains, though not binding to the observance of the seventh day.

We now come to this writer’s clear and distinct testimony, in its more positive aspect, to the Lord’s day. Irenæus took a prominent part in what has been called the Quarta-Deciman controversy. The question at issue was—Should the anniversary of the Lord’s resurrection be in connection with the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week that might occur, or on the Lord’s day invariably? This question first arose on a visit of Polycarp, bishop or presbyter of Smyrna, to Aniest, bishop of Rome, about 160, and was discussed for many years. Irenæus, acting as the representative of the Christians in Gaul, wrote to Victor, then bishop of Rome, in these terms: “The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day.” (_Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ book v. chap. 23, 24; Paris ed., 1678, pp. 155, 156.) It will be remarked here that while there was diversity of view in regard to the _yearly_ celebration of the Lord’s resurrection—a celebration of which we have no account whatever until the year 160, there was no question concerning the sacred observance of the first day as the _weekly_ commemoration of the Lord’s rising from the dead.

“We simply add a reference to one of the best known of the fragments of Irenæus in which there is further explicit testimony to the Lord’s day—testimony all the more important, because it occurs incidentally in a treatise concerning the passover, and in connection with a statement in regard to Pentecost.” (_Fragmentum lib. de Pascha_, Bened. ed., Paris, 1742, p. 490.[12])

For the sake of presenting a complete view of the testimony of the fathers for the first three centuries, we had thought of quoting from Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194; Minucius Felix, 210; Commodian, about 270; Victorinus, 290; and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 300. But as the testimony will be perfectly conclusive without these witnessess, and as space is valuable, we shall cite only three more authorities—three well-known fathers, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.

At the close of the second century, Carthage, the metropolis of Northern Africa, was the center of numerous flourishing Christian congregations. Living in Carthage for many years, Tertullian knew well the practice of the African churches. And although he became, about 202, one of the errorists known as Montanists, his testimony, however unreliable as to doctrines, is still indisputable as to facts. From the frequent references to the Lord’s day in this author we select the following: “By us, to whom the [Jewish] Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons and festivals once pleasing to God, the Saturnalia, January, and mid-winter feasts, and Matronalia [of the heathen] are frequented. O better fidelity of the heathen to their own religion! They would not share with us the Lord’s day, nor Pentecost, even if they knew them, for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians.” (_De Idolatria_, cap. xiv, Semler’s edit., Halæ Magdeburg, vol. iv., pp., 167, 168.) The testimony of this passage is decisive in three points: (1.) The Jewish, or seventh-day, Sabbath was not observed by Christians. (2.) They were enjoined not to observe heathen festivals. (3.) To the Lord’s day, as the proper day for Christian service, belonged the honor to which Jewish and heathen days had no claim.

The exercises of the Lord’s day, when Christians assembled for public service, are described by Tertullian in a manner very similar to that of Justin Martyr, whose account has already been quoted. Prayer, reading the Scriptures, exhortation, and collections for benevolent purposes are all mentioned. (_Apol._, cap. xxxix, vol. v., pp. 92-94.) It is to be noted that Tertullian, like Justin Martyr, in addressing the heathen, calls the first day of the week “the day of the Sun,” as he also designates the Jewish Sabbath by its heathen name. (See _Apol._, cap. xvi.)

We close these citations from Tertullian, with one which is of the greatest importance in proving that the early Christians observed the first day of the week, not as a mere holiday, but as a day of rest and worship—a holy Sabbath to the Lord. “On the Lord’s day, the day of the Resurrection, we should not only abstain from that,[13] [bending the knee,] but also from all anxiety of feeling, and from employments, setting aside all business, lest we should give place to the devil.” (_De Oratione_, cap. xxiii., vol. iv., p. 22.)

Contemporary with Tertullian at the beginning of the third century was Origen of Alexandria, one of the most scholarly and learned of all the early fathers. This writer contrasts the Lord’s day with the Jewish Sabbath, and shows the superiority of the former. We may not agree with him when he maintains that the superiority was indicated by the giving of manna to the Israelites on the first day of the week, while it was withheld on the seventh. His testimony to the fact of the sacred observance of the Lord’s day instead of the seventh-day Sabbath is valid, though his reasons for the admitted superiority may not all be satisfactory. In the same connection he remarks: “On our Lord’s day the Lord always rains manna from heaven.” (_Comment on Exodus_, Delarue’s ed. of Works of Origen, Paris, 1733, vol. ii., p. 154.) In another of his works he contends that it is one of the evidences of a true Christian “always to keep the Lord’s day.” (_Contra Celsum_ lib. viii, vol. i., pp. 758, 759.)

The most important passage in the writings of Origen is found in his Homilies on the Book of Numbers. Here we first meet with the name “Christian Sabbath” for the first day of the week, or the Lord’s day: “Leaving, then, the Jewish observance of the Sabbath, let us see what the observance of the Sabbath by the Christian ought to be. On the Sabbath should be performed no worldly acts. If, therefore, you desist from all secular works, and do nothing of a worldly nature, but occupy yourselves with spiritual duties, assembling at the church, listening to the sacred readings mad instructions, thinking of celestial things, concerned for the hopes of another life, keeping before your eyes the Judgment to come, and looking not at the things which are present and visible, but at those which are invisible and future—this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath.” (_Hom. xxiii in Numeros_, vol. ii., p. 358.)

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about the third century, gives this explicit testimony to the Lord’s day: “Since in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh the eighth day was celebrated, the ordinance was foreshadowed in the future, but completed in truth at the coming of Christ. For inasmuch as the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was the day on which the Lord rose and gave us life and spiritual circumcision, this eighth day, that is the first after the Sabbath and the Lord’s day, preceded in an image, which image ceased when the truth afterwards came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.” (_Epistle_ lxiv., Works of Cyprian, Bremæ, 1690, vol. ii., p. 161) The weight of this testimony is not a little augmented by the fact that the epistle, in which it is found is a synodical epistle, which was sent forth in the name and with the authority of the Third Council of Carthage, A. D. 253. The epistle bears this inscription at its head: “Cyprianus et ceteri Collegæ qui in concilio affuerant numero LXIV. Fido patri Salutem.”

With this authoritative statement of Cyprian and his sixty-six colleagues, or co-presbyters, we close our citations from the fathers. The testimony of succeeding writers is equally clear, but it simply confirms what has already been fully proved. And now, with the facts of history in view, as we have learned them from inspired writers and their immediate successors, it remains for us to examine opposing theories of the institution of the Sabbath. We shall endeavor to dispose of this concluding, and perhaps most interesting part of our subject, in two or three articles.

Footnote 12:

The culpable carelessness of Dwight, Wilson, and other authors, in
citing from the early fathers, is nowhere more noticeable than in the
case of Irenæus. These writers quote him as saying: “On the Lord’s
day, every one of us Christians, keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the
law, and rejoicing in the works of God.” There is no reference given
to the writings of Irenæus. And for good reason. After a most careful
examination, we are persuaded no such passage is to be found in his
writings. The mistake was probably first made by President Dwight,
whose weakness of sight compelled him to depend upon an amanuensis.
“For twenty years of his presidency,” we are informed by his
biographer, “he was rarely able to read as much as a single chapter in
the Bible in the twenty-four hours.” (_Dwight’s Theology_, London,
1821, vol. i. pp. 91, 95.) Others followed this high authority.

In order to guard our readers against injuring the cause they would
advance, we must mention another important instance of considerable
negligence. In a number of works on the Sabbath, Dr. Justin Edwards’
“Sabbath Manual,” for example, we find not only the blunders already
noticed, but another quite as bad. The language—“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,” is ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D.
162. The words quoted are in reality those of another Theophilus, who
was bishop of Alexandria, at the close of the fourth century. We hand
over these criticisms upon advocates of the first-day Sabbath to our
seventh-day Sabbatarian friends, trusting to their honor and fairness
not to separate them from the rest of this discussion. For our own
part, whether it may be pleasant to the advocates of the seventh-day
Sabbath, we desire to have for ourselves, and to aid others to have,
the whole truth. It was in this spirit that we gave room in our
columns for a full presentation of the arguments on the other side of
this question.

Footnote 13:

As a matter of independent interest and importance, we would ask all
who are interested in the question of the posture in prayer of
worshipers in the early church, to compare with Tertullian’s
statement, that of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300, who says:
“We keep the Lord’s day as a day of joy, because of Him who rose on
that day, on which we have learned not to bow the knee.” (_Bibl.
Patrum, apud Gallard_, vol. iv., p. 107.) To the same effect is the
decision of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, requiring, as there were
certain ones who bent the knee on the Lord’s day, that it should be
the uniform practice to give thanks to God, standing. (_Canon_, xx.)

A REJOINDER.
“PATRISTIC EVIDENCE TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”

In the rejoinder to the previous article on patristic testimony, the attention of the reader was called to the fact that our opponent had utterly failed to find a single instance in which the first day of the week was called the Lord’s day, by the authorities which he cited, or in which it was stated by them that it was observed by divine command. Had we possessed the space necessary for the purpose, the significance of this failure would have been enlarged upon; for it must be borne in mind that in the one hundred and thirty-nine years which intervened between the death of Christ and the writing of the latest citation produced in his seventh article, lies the most important, and the most promising, field for such testimonials as would be of the highest value to the opposition. This is so, not only from the fact that the period in question was the one in which it is alleged that the transition from the old to the new Sabbath occurred; but, also, because it was one, which, from their premises, was the most likely to yield reliable evidence in regard to apostolic faith, since it lay the nearest to apostolic times. It is true that even then apostasy had begun its career; for Paul states that, in his time, “the mystery of iniquity had begun to work.”

But all will agree that the farther we come this side of the fountain-head, the more natural it would be to find that the pure waters of the original stream should become steadily darker and more turbid, until they lost themselves in the sloughs of those corrupt teachings, which were so far to excel all others, that they were thought to be of a nature to demand especial attention in the prophecies. But here we are, as already remarked, seventy-five to eighty years this side of the cross, and the case of our reviewer in no-wise helped by his effort. In fact, not only has he failed to place his Sabbath upon the foundation of the successors of the apostles, but he has also greatly weakened his probabilities for the future, since in the territory over which we have passed, we have seen not only the utter unreliability of the fathers themselves, as teachers, but, also, that their sayings have been tampered with by the “man of sin,” who, reaching backward as well as forward, is reckless in his efforts to make everything contribute to the power and authority of the hierarchy.

But we must proceed in the examination of those individuals who are now introduced as additional witnesses for the Christian Sabbath. The first in order is Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 178. It will not be necessary to consider the language of the gentleman, in which he states that Irenæus taught the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath, since we have not quoted that father in the defense of an institution which _God has commanded_. Nor shall we enlarge upon the fact that Irenæus inculcates the binding obligation of the ten commandments, since it is enough for us to know that this doctrine is plainly set forth in the Bible.

The witness is the gentleman’s. He has brought him forward to prove that, in his time, the year of our Lord 178, the term, Lord’s day, was applied to the Sunday. Has he succeeded, at last, in the achievement of his purpose? If so, it is the first instance in which he has accomplished the desired object. Apparently, he has triumphed here. But let us proceed with caution. Has he produced the writings of Irenæus himself? No, he has not. The words quoted are these: “The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day.” By turning to the Hist. of Eusebius, book v., chap. 23, the reader will find that the language employed does not purport to be that of Irenæus, as penned by himself, but that of Eusebius, who is giving an account of a decree passed by certain bishops, which decree was in harmony with a letter from Irenæus. We quote enough in the 23d chapter to verify our statement:—

“Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops, on this question; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches, in all places, that the mystery of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant, even now, of those who were assembled at the time.... There is an epistle extant, on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle, also, of the bishops of Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided, ... and epistles from many others, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote, and this their unanimous determination was the one already mentioned.”

It will be observed here that the historian does not quote the language of the decree as being the exact language of the bishops; also that he does not pretend to give the precise words of Irenæus, but that he simply recounts the fact that the epistle of Irenæus was in harmony with the decree which he had previously given. This it was legitimate for a historian to do. Eusebius died one hundred and fifty years after Irenæus, and in his time, we frankly admit that the term, Lord’s day, was frequently applied to the first day of the week. The historian, therefore, using the nomenclature of his own period, represents the bishop of Lyons as favoring the celebration of the Passover on the Lord’s day, simply because he had said it ought to be observed on the first day of the week. If we are right in this, then, of course, our opponents will throw up the whole passage as irrelevant to their present purpose—since they have not assumed to employ Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, as a witness—but have cited his statement because it was supposed to contain the declaration of Irenæus, who lived at a much earlier period.

For the purpose of clinching the argument, and showing that the historic fact is in harmony with what we have said, we quote the following on the point from Eld. J. N. Andrews, in which it will be seen that in the original, the term, first day of the week, and not the Lord’s day, as supposed, might have been employed:—

“Observe ... Eusebius does not quote the words of any of these bishops, but simply gives their decisions in his own language. There is, therefore, no proof that they used the term, Lord’s day, instead of first day of the week; for the introduction to the fiftieth fragment of his lost writings, already quoted, gives an ancient statement of his words in this decision, as plain first day of the week. It is Eusebius who gives us the term, Lord’s day, in recording what was said by these bishops concerning the first day of the week.”

That which has been said above in reference to the testimony found in book v., chap. 23, of Eusebius, will largely apply, in principle, to the citation found in chap. 24, of the same book. In the latter, as in the former, case, the historian is not giving the exact utterance of Irenæus, but simply declares, in substance, his decision in regard to the proper time for the celebration of the passover festival.

Before passing from Irenæus to the consideration of another case of the fathers, it would be proper to commend the candor of our opponent, as manifested in his hearty condemnation of the looseness of Dwight and others in their statements of historic facts. In making the concession which the gentleman has, he will doubtless bring upon himself the condemnation of those who exalt success above truth. He has taken from such one of their most potent weapons. The language of Irenæus, which is here admitted to be of spurious origin, has figured largely in the discussion of this question, in the past. It was pointed and decisive, and seemed to furnish just the material necessary to the satisfactory making out of a case, otherwise sadly deficient in the proofs which it needed. It will, therefore, be yielded up with reluctance. Nevertheless, we hope that the acknowledgment, made by our opponent in this article, will lead clergymen, for the future, to desist from the use of it, until they are able to refute what the writer in the _Statesman_ here asserts.

In the meanwhile, the reader must not allow himself to suppose that the gentleman, by saying what he has, has really brought Sabbatarians under obligation to hint for new light, since what he here asserts is but a fact with which they have been familiar for years, and which they have iterated and re-iterated until they have almost despaired of bringing their opponents to an acknowledgment of the real state of things. Occasionally, others outside of their ranks have, as does the gentleman, borne testimony to the accuracy of their statements. If the reader would have an illustration of this, taken from the writings of an anti-Sabbatarian author, he will find it in the works of Domville, in which, substantially, the same conclusions are reached, Mr. Domville not only tracing the mistake to Dr. Dwight, but also allowing that the language cited was probably taken from the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.

Up to this point, we have carefully examined, one by one, the historic quotations from ancient writers, which have been presented for our consideration; henceforth, we shall pursue a different course. As we have now reached, in the person of Tertullian, the close of the second, and the opening of the third, century of the Christian era, we find ourselves in a period when it is so generally acknowledged that the work of apostasy was so manifest that the utterances of the men of those times—even though they were pointed and explicit in regard to the sanctity of the first day of the week, as looked upon by themselves—could furnish no reliable standard of Christian faith in our day.

The gentleman himself is compelled to admit that his own witness, Tertullian, became, in the second year of the third century, an ardent advocate of the errors, follies, and heresies, of Montanus. Not only so, but the writings of that father are proverbial, among scholars, for the fanciful conceits and the false notions which are so conspicuous upon their pages. Tertullian was a fiery zealot and a bitter partisan, manifestly credulous beyond bounds, and more earnest for his sect than anxious for the reliability of the sources of his information. Zell, in his popular Encyclopedia, speaks of him as follows:—

“After he was past middle age, he embraced the doctrines of Montanus, to which his ardent, sensuous imagination, and ascetic tendencies would incline him. He is said to have been determined to that course by the ill-treatment he received from the Roman clergy. Whether he remained a Montanist till his death, cannot be decided.... They [his works] are characterized by vast learning, profound and comprehensive thought, fiery imagination, and passionate partisanship, leading into exaggeration and sophistry. His style is frequently obscure.”

Montanus was a false prophet of the second century, who believed himself to have received, from the Holy Ghost, revelations which were withheld from the apostles; he denied the doctrine of the trinity, the propriety of second marriage, and the forgiveness of certain sins. The disciple of such a man is surely a strange witness to be found in the employ of orthodoxy. Should his appearance, however, be excused, as it is above, by the statement that he was introduced, not because of the reliability of his own opinion, but simply to testify of the usage of his own times; it may be replied, first, that an ardent partisan, a person of strong imagination, and a notorious heretic, is hardly qualified to speak reliably, even in a matter of this nature, since, from the very constitution of his mind, he would almost of necessity allow what he said to be warped by prejudice, or biased by conceptions of interest; secondly, that in the quotation presented from his pen, it is not a little remarkable that, instead of asserting a general usage of Sunday-keeping, he is manifestly finding fault with a large class of his fellow-Christians for not regarding the day in the same light, and observing it with the same rigor, that he did; thirdly, that it is by no means impossible that the very men, whom in his fiery zeal he thus upbraids, were, after all, sounder than himself in the faith, and would, could they be fairly heard upon this subject, vindicate their supposed desecration of the first day, from the same grounds as do the Sabbatarians now, _i. e._, because they did not look upon it as holy time.

If the above responses are not satisfactory, and if it be insisted that the testimony of the witness shall, after all, he received, then we propose that he be called to the stand once more, and be allowed to fill up the measure of what he has to say upon this subject. We have seen that, according to his opinion, many of his fellow-disciples were lax in their Sunday-keeping habits, and that to one who believed that no labor should be performed upon it, whatever, they treated it very much as men would treat a mere festival occasion. But where did Tertullian and his sympathizers obtain their notions of the manner in which Sunday should be kept? Was it from the Scriptures? We shall see; here is the witness; let him speak for himself:

“As often as the anniversary comes around, we make offerings for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day, to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege, also, from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign (of the cross). If for these and other such rules, you insist upon leaving positive Scripture injunctions, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”—_De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4.

The reader will at once observe that tradition is the foundation which is here laid for that kind of Sunday observance for which Tertullian was so great a stickler. Not only so, but the fact is brought to light, also, that the men whom he represented were in the habit of offering prayers for the dead; of signing themselves with the sign of the cross; and going through other ceremonies, which to us, at the present time, are not only ridiculous in the extreme, but bear upon their face the impress of the man of sin so unmistakably that none will be deceived.

If Tertullian was indeed a fair specimen of the Christian men of his time; if his writings have not been tampered with; and if the opinions of the men of his day, as expressed by himself, should have weight with us in the decision of religious questions, where shall we stop in our acceptance of their creeds? If, because they believed with him in the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, this fact should have weight with us in bringing us to the same conclusion, independently of Scripture proof, then how can we stop short of their faith in other particulars? such as the acceptance of tradition in doctrinal matters, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, etc., etc. In fact, how can we avoid becoming papists ourselves, in the largest sense of the term, since, having gone as far as we have for the purpose of making out Sunday sanctity, we have surrendered nearly all the distinctive principles of Protestantism?

Of course each individual is at liberty to use his own discretion as to the measure of confidence which he will give to the writings before us; so far as we are concerned, personally, we would not attach to them the slightest weight in the decision of a grave religious question. From the very nature of that which has been already cited, it is manifestly a serious slander upon the true church of the second, and the first part of the third century, to hold them responsible for the fanciful conceits and destructive errors of this reputed defender of the faith.

Certain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings are not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age in very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is that concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no warrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their hands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the extreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring contradictions. Another has said of him: “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 fanaticisms.” (Milman, in note on Gibbon’s Dec. and Fall of the Rom. Emp., chap. xv.)

We leave him, therefore, with his follies and foibles, his errors and faults, his assertions and contradictions, with those who have a taste for this kind of literature.

With the case of Origen it will not be necessary that much time should be consumed. Mr. Mosheim has well remarked of him, that had “the justice of his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the fervor of his piety, his indefatigable patience, his extensive erudition, and his other eminent and superior talents, all encomium must have fallen short of his merits.” Unfortunately, however, with an erudition which was truly remarkable, he united a credulity almost without parallel. So numerous and so grave were the errors of his personal faith, that his individual opinions, unsupported by facts and arguments, are utterly worthless in the decision of any theological proposition. Having adopted the mystical system of interpreting the Scriptures, he reached conclusions utterly unsound and preposterous in many cases.

That this is so, the orthodox reader will at once perceive, when we state, first, that he was a believer in the pre-existence of the human soul, and that souls were condemned to animate mortal bodies, because of sins committed in a pre-existent state; secondly, that he was a Restorationist, and believed in the final universal salvation of all men, after enduring long periods of punishment. Nor does the advocacy of such sentiments furnish the only difficulty in the way of his testimony, as drawn from his writings now extant. There would indeed be some satisfaction derived from the study of these documents, fanciful though they might appear to be in many respects, if we could only feel assured that they represented correctly the sentiments of the alleged author.

Unhappily, this is not the case. Those who admire Origen most, while attributing much in what he is said to have written, to that weakness of discrimination which is everywhere so manifest in his productions, are compelled to go beyond this, in order to explain many of the grosser views therein contained, by admitting that they were not his own, but that they are the result of fraud and interpolation.

On this point, another, with great candor and friendly charity, when speaking of the sect known as Origenists, after first stating that “he was a man of great talents, and a most indefatigable student, but having a strong attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and a natural turn to mystical and allegorical interpretations, which led him to corrupt greatly the simplicity of the gospel, declares that these circumstances render it very difficult to ascertain exactly what his real sentiments were.” He says, also, “1. Being a man of unquestionable talents and high character, his genuine works were interpolated, and others written under his name, in order to _forge_ his sanction to sentiments of which, possibly, he never heard.... 3. Origen had many enemies, who probably attributed to him many things which he did not believe, in order, either to injure his fame, or bring his character under censure.”—_Encyc. of Rel. Knowl._, Art. Origenists.

Having said thus much in reference to the testimony before us, it would be possible to take up the writings of this distinguished father, and show from them that there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether he believed that the so-called Christian Sabbath was indeed to be regarded as of twenty-four hours’ duration, merely, or whether it covered alike all days of the week, and the whole of our dispensation. This, however, would be a tedious and unprofitable expenditure of time and labor. We leave the whole question, therefore, respecting the teaching of the works of Origen, as one of no significance in this controversy; first, because if we know anything about what he did believe, he was wholly unreliable, either as a teacher of sound doctrine, or as a representative of the better men of his own time; and, secondly, because what he has written has been so corrupted, that we have no guarantee that it truthfully expresses what he believed.

As we presume the majority of our readers are not particularly interested in reference to which posture was assumed in prayer on the first day of the week, by the early church, and as Peter of Alexandria and the Council of Nice are quoted solely in reference to “this independent question,” we shall not discuss the note in which reference is made to them. There remains, therefore, only the case of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to occupy us longer. What this author says was written about A. D. 253. It will be observed, that in what is declared by him and the Council, the first day of the week is called the Lord’s day; beyond this, his testimony is of no value. It is neither stated that the title was applied by divine authority, nor is it affirmed that this day had superseded in Sabbatic honor the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.

There is, however, in reference to circumcision as something which prefigured the Lord’s day, or eighth day, enough of mysticism to furnish us with a clue to the character of the men whose intellectual perceptions were so fine that they could discover in an institution which was administered on the eighth day after the birth of the male child, on whatever day of the week that eighth day might fall, a prefiguring of the distinction which was to be bestowed on the definite first day of the week, which had in it, not eight, but only seven, days, in all. Mr. Mosheim, in alluding to a period in close proximity to that in which Cyprian lived, mentions it as one in “which the greater part of the Christian doctors had been engaged in adopting those vain fictions of Platonic philosophy and popular opinions, which, after the time of Constantine, were confirmed, enlarged, and embellished in various ways,” and from which he declares “arose that extravagant veneration for departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to purify separate souls, that then prevailed, and of which the public marks were everywhere to be seen.”—_Eccles. Hist._, Fourth Century, part ii., chap. iii.

It is now time to take a retrospective view of the territory over which we have been passing. Be it remembered that the reader was lured from the contemplation of the Scriptures, with this precious promise, that outside of them were to be found the most convincing proofs that the Lord’s day was and had been the proper title of the first day of the week since the resurrection of Christ; but what have we seen? Manifestly, not that which we had anticipated:

First, we have discovered that Ignatius, the first witness introduced, does not mention the Lord’s day at all, but simply speaks of the Lord’s life.

Secondly, that the epistle of Barnabas was a forgery, made up of the most absurd and ridiculous fancies, and written by an unknown character somewhere, perhaps in the second or third century, though purporting to be the work of the companion of Paul.

Thirdly, that it is becoming more and more a matter of doubt whether that which is attributed to Justin Martyr was ever seen by him, and that he not only does not call the Sunday the Lord’s day, but also inculcates in what he says, the Romish heresy respecting the use of water in sacrament, &c., &c.

Fourthly, that Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and Melito, bishop of Sardis, while indeed they do speak of the Lord’s day, do not furnish any clue by which we can determine which day they regarded as such.