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.
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.