EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH

General purity of the apostolic churches — Early decline of their piety — False teachers arose in the church immediately after the apostles — The great Romish apostasy began before the death of Paul — An evil thing not rendered good by beginning in the apostolic age — How to decide between truth and error — Age cannot change the fables of men into the truth of God — Historical testimony concerning the early development of the great Apostasy — Such an age no standard by which to correct the Bible — Testimony of Bower relative to the traditions of this age — Testimony of Dowling — Dr. Cumming’s opinion of the authority of the Fathers — Testimony of Adam Clarke — The church of Rome has corrupted the writings of the Fathers — Nature of tradition illustrated — The two rules of faith which divide Christendom — The first-day Sabbath can be sustained only by adopting the rule of the Romanists.

THE book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period which is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers were upon the stage of action; and under their watch-care, the churches of Christ preserved, to a great extent;, their purity of life and doctrine. These apostolic churches are thus set forth as examples for all coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four evangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus unites the whole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this inspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed by inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is, unfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon: — “The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as; she descended from heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings.” l What says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the labors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul said: — “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29,30.)

It follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive the teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how these are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, the proper answer is: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

What do the apostolic epistles say relative to this apostasy? Paul writes to the Thessalonians: — “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God….

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,7,8.)

To Timothy, in like manner, it is said: — “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:l8.)

These texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the church, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced. The Romish church, the oldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its apostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians, already quoted, that great antichristian body may indeed find its claim to an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character is most emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration of the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental circumstance of its originating in the days of the apostles. Everything, at its commencement, is either right or wrong. If right, it may be known by its agreement with the divine standard; if wrong at its origin, it can never cease to be such. Satan’s great falsehood, which involved our race in ruin., has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years have elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this,. ye who worship at the shrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of the truth of God, he was thereby dishonored.

How, then, can he accept obedience to them as any part of that pure devotion which he requires at our hands? They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth. How many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed into divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting the great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of ecclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling, in his “History of Romanism,” bears the following testimony: — “There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a vast and hideous system of superstition and error as that of popery…. Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was deserving of strong reprehension….

The worship of images, the invocation of saints, and the superstition of relies, were but expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died for the truth.” Robinson, author of the “History of Baptism,” speaks as follows: — “Toward the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and new-modeled the cause.” The working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the Christian church is thus described by a recent writer: — “During these centuries, the chief corruptions of popery were either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so effectually sown as naturally to produce those baneful fruits which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin Martyrdom, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the elements sent to the absent. The bread, which at first was sent only to the sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home by the people, and locked up as a divine treasure for their private use. At this time, too, the ordinance of the supper was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints, the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity, which was already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of Christianity.” Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship: — “And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as the end of the third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in the same way. The early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon the authority of inspiration not less than upon that of ecclesiastical history. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work.” We marvel that so large a portion of the people of God were so soon removed from the grace of God unto another gospel.

What shall be said of those who go to this period of history, and even to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would rise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who would speak perverse things, and that men would turn away. their cars from the truth, and would be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period of sufficient importance to make void God’s word? The learned historian of the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language: — “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.” Mr. Dowling bears a similar testimony: — “‘The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!’

Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combating those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?…More than this, we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or even the Fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenaeus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of popery, which, however, is by no means admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles?…He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing, steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.” Dr. Cumming, of London, thus speaks of the authority of the Fathers of the early church: — “Some of these were distinguished for their genius, some for their eloquence, a few for their, piety, and too many for their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr. Delahogue (who was Professor in the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the Fathers who were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for martyrdom to commit anything to writing; and, therefore, by the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the full and fair exponent of the views of all the Fathers of the earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges…. The most devoted and pious of the Fathers were busy teaching their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time in preparing treatises. If all the Fathers who signalized the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might have had a fair representation of the theology of the church of the Fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by the writings of the few Fathers who are its only surviving representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward Irving.” Dr. Adam Clarke gives the following decisive testimony on the same subject: — “But of these we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points 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.” In his life, he uses the following strong language: — “We should take heed how we quote the Fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.” The following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of the Fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies: — “The church of Rome, having been conscious of their errors and corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith,1. They have corrupted many of the ancient Fathers, and, reprinting them, make them speak as they would have them…. 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them.” 11 Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact: — “The church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time, place, and power to establish the kingdom of darkness; and that in coining, clipping, and washing the primitive records to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to themselves, is notoriously evident.” The traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as reliable as the language of the Holy Scriptures. A single instance taken from the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the amount of reliance that can be placed upon it: — “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper, and saith, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?); Peter, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:20-23.)

Here is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very bosom of the apostolic church, which, nevertheless, handed down to the following generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word of God has corrected this error.

Two rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these is the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions of the church, Here they are: — 1. THE RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD, THE BIBLE ALONE. “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 Timothy 3:16,17.) 2. THE RULE OF THE ROMANIST, THE BIBLE AND TRADITION. “If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.” It is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the first of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such an institution. The second one is necessarily adopted by all who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week; for the writings of the Fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the testimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first rule is to condemn the first-day Sabbath as a human institution. To adopt the second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right,; for it is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural dogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able and-Sabbatarian writer, states this point with great clearness: — “The triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed complete and unanswerable…. It should present a subject of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance that will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in sustaining the various other ‘holy days’ appointed by ‘the church.’” Listen to the argument of a Roman Catholic: — “The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without; any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said ‘the first day of the week.’ 15 Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath-days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God.” (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10.)

Whoever, therefore, enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, must of necessity do this — though perhaps not aware of the fact — under the banner of the church of Rome.

THE SUNDAY LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES

General statement respecting the Ante-Nicene Fathers — The change of the Sabbath never mentioned by one of these Fathers — Examination of the historical argument for Sunday as the Lord’s day — This argument compared with the like argument for the Catholic festival of the Passover. THE Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 are those Christian writers who flourished after the time of the apostles, and before the council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. Those who govern their lives by the volume of inspiration do not recognize any authority in these Fathers to change any precept of that book, nor to add any new precepts to it. But those whose rule of life is the Bible as modified by tradition, regard the early Fathers of the church as nearly or quite equal in authority to the inspired writers. They declare that the Fathers conversed with the apostles; or if’ they did not do this, they conversed with some who had seen some of the apostles; or, at least, they lived within a few generations, of the apostles, and so learned by tradition, which involved only a few transitions from father to son, what was the true doctrine of the apostles.

Thus with perfect assurance they supply the lack of inspired testimony in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath by plentiful quotations from the early Fathers. What if there be no mention of the change of the Sabbath in the New Testament? and what if there be no commandment for resting from labor on the first day of the week? or, what if there be no method revealed in the Bible by which the first day of the week can be enforced by the fourth commandment? They supply these serious omissions in the Scriptures by testimonies which they say were written by men who lived during the first three hundred years after the apostles.

On such authority as this the multitude dare to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. But next to the deception under which men fall when they are made, to believe that the Bible may be corrected by the Fathers, is the deception practiced upon them as to what the Fathers actually teach. It is asserted that the Fathers bear explicit testimony to the change of the Sabbath by Christ as a historical fact, and that they knew that this was so because they had conversed with the apostles, or with some who had conversed with them. It is also asserted that the Fathers called the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, and that they refrained from labor on that day as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.

Now it is a most remarkable fact that every one of these assertions is false.

The people who trust in the Fathers as their authority for departing from God’s commandment, are miserably deceived as to what the Fathers teach. 1. The Fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them Christ changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to such a change. 2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor, indeed, ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind. 3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful; nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment. 4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore absolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church. But though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be produced from the writings of the Fathers of the first three hundred years, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that the first day of the week is the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10. The Biblical argument that this term refers to the seventh day and no other, because that day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the Son as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven, and is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the claim of the first day to this; honorable distinction is substantiated out of the Fathers as follows: — The term “Lord’s day,” as a name for the first day of the week, can be traced back through the first three centuries, from the Fathers who lived toward their close to the ones next preceding, who mention the first day, and so backward by successive steps, till we come to one who lived in John’s time, and was his disciple; and this disciple of John calls the first day of the week the Lord’s day. It follows, therefore, that John must have intended the first day of the week by this title, but, did not define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in his time. Thus by history they claim to prove the first day of the week to be the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10; and then by Revelation 1:10, they attempt to show the first day of the week to be the sacred day of this dispensation; for the spirit of inspiration by which John wrote would not have called the first day by this name if it were only a human institution, and if the seventh day was still by divine appointment the Lord’s holy day.

This is a concise statement of the strongest argument for first-day sacredness which can be drawn from ecclesiastical history. It is the argument by which first-day writers prove Sunday to be the day John called the Lord’s day. This argument rests upon the statement that “Lord’s day,” as a name for Sunday, can be traced back to the disciples of John, and that it is the name by which that day was familiarly known in.

John’s time. But this entire statement is false. The truth is, no writer of the first century, and no one of the second, prior to A.D. 194, who is known to speak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord’s day!

Yet the first day is seven times mentioned by the sacred writers before John’s vision upon Patmos, and is twice mentioned by John in his Gospel, which he wrote after his return from that island, and is mentioned some sixteen times. by ecclesiastical writers of the second century, prior to A.D. 194, and never in a single instance is it called the Lord’s day! We give all the instances of its mention in the Bible. Moses, in the beginning, by divine inspiration, gave to the first day its name; and though the resurrection of Christ is said to have made it the. Lord’s day, yet every sacred writer who mentions the day after that event still adheres to the plain name of “first day of the week.” Here are all the instances in which the inspired writers mention the day:

Moses, B.C. 1490: “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5.

Matthew, A.D. 41: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Matthew 28:1.

Paul, A.D. 57: “Upon the first day of the week.” 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Luke, A.D. 60: “Now upon the first day of the week.” Luke 24:1.

Luke, A.D. 63: “And upon the first day of the week.”’ Acts 20:7.

Mark, A.D. 64: “And very early in the morning, the first day of the week.” Mark 16:2.

“Now when Jesus was’ risen ‘early the first day of the week.” Verse 9.

After the resurrection of Christ, and before John’s vision, A.D. 96, the day is six times mentioned by inspired men, and every time as plain “first day of the week.” It certainly was not familiarly known as “Lord’s day” before the time of John’s vision. To speak the exact truth, it was not called by that name at all, nor by any other name equivalent to that, nor is there any record of its being set apart by divine authority as such.

But in the year 96, John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.”

Revelation 1:10. Now it is evident that this must be a day which the Lord had set apart for himself, and which he claimed as his. This was all true of the seventh day, but was not in any respect, true of the first day. He could not, therefore, call the first day by this name, for it was not such. But if the Spirit of God designed at this point to create a new institution, and to call a certain day the Lord’s which before had never been claimed by him, it was necessary that he should specify that new day. He did not define the term, which proves that he was not giving a sacred name to some new institution, but was speaking of a. well-known, divinely-appointed day.

But after John’s return from Patmos, he wrote his Gospel,3 and in that Gospel he twice had occasion to mention the first day of the week. Let us see whether he adheres to the manner of the other sacred writers, or whether, when we know he means the first day, he gives to it a sacred name.

John, A.D. 97: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early.” John 20:1. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week.” Verse These texts complete the Bible record of the first day of the week. They furnish conclusive evidence that John did not receive new light in Vision at Patmos, bidding him call the first day of the week the Lord’s day.; and when taken with all the instances preceding, they constitute a complete demonstration that the first day was not familiarly known as the Lord’s day in John’s time, nor indeed known at all by that name. Let us now see whether “Lord’s day,” as a title for the first day, can be traced back to John by means of the writings of the Fathers.

The following is a concise statement of the testimony by which the Fathers are made to prove that John used the term as a name for the first day of the week. A chain of seven successive witnesses, commencing with one who was the disciple of John, and. extending forward through several generations, is made to connect and identify the Lord’s day of John with the Sunday Lord’s day of a later age. Thus Ignatius, the disciple of John, is made to speak familiarly of the first day as the Lord’s day. This is directly connecting the Fathers and the apostles. Then the epistle of Pliny, A.D. 104, in connection with the Acts of the Martyrs, is adduced to prove that the martyrs in his time and forward were tested as to their observance of Sunday, the question being, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” Next, Justin Martyr, A D. 140, is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord’s day. After this, Theophilus of Antioch, A.D. 168, is brought forward to bear a powerful testimony to the Sunday Lord’s day. Then Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 170, is made to speak to the same effect. Next Melito of Sardis, A.D. 177, is produced to confirm what the others have said. And finally, Irenaeus, A.D. 178, who had been the disciple of Polycarp, one of the disciples of the apostle John, is brought forward to bear a decisive testimony in behalf of Sunday as the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath.

These are the first seven witnesses who are cited to prove that Sunday is the Lord’s day. They bring us nearly to the close of the second century.

They constitute the chain of testimony by which the Lord’s day of the apostle John is identified with the Sunday Lord’s day of later times. Firstday writers present these witnesses as proving positively that Sunday is the Lord’s day of the Scriptures; and the Christian church accepts this testimony, in the absence of that of the inspired writers. But the folly of the people, and the wickedness of those who lead them, may be set forth in one sentence: — The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh of these testimonies are inexcusable frauds, while the fifth and sixth have no decisive bearing upon the case. 1. Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this Father, the term “Lord’s day” does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history. 2. It. is a pure fabrication that the martyrs in Pliny’s time, about A.D. 104, and thence onward, were tested by the question whether they had kept the Sunday Lord’s day. No question at all resembling this is to be found in the words of the martyrs, till we come to the fourth century, and then the reference is not at all to the first day of the week. This is, fully shown in chapter fifteen. 3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings forward the third of these Sunday Lord’s day witnesses in the person of Justin Martyr, A.D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord’s day by quoting him as follows: — “Justin Martyr observes that ‘on the Lord’s day all Christians in the. city or country meet together, because that is the day of our Lord’s resurrection.’” But Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord’s day, nor, indeed, any other sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted: — “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, as long as time permits,” etc. Justin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help establish its title to the name of Lord’s day, his words are deliberately changed. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord’s day, like the first and second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even worse than the three which precede. 4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday Lord’s day is furnished in Dr.

Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual; p. 114: — “Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A.D. 162, says: ‘Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.’” Dr. Edwards does riot pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He never uses the term “Lord’s day,” and does not even speak of the first day of the week. These words, which are so well adapted to create the impression that the Sunday Lord’s day is of apostolic institution, are put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one.

Here are four frauds, constituting the first four instances of the alleged use of “Lord’s day” as a name for Sunday. Yet it is by means of these very frauds that the Sunday Lord’s day of later ages is identified with the Lord’s day of the Bible. Somebody invented these frauds. The use to which they are put plainly indicates the purpose for which they were framed. The title of Lord’s day must be proved to pertain to Sunday by apostolic authority. For this purpose these frauds were a necessity. The case of the Sunday Lord’s day may be fitly illustrated by that of the long line of popes. Their apostolic authority as head of the Catholic church depends on their being able to identify the apostle Peter as the first of their line, and to prove that his authority was transmitted to them. There is no difficulty in tracing their line back to the early ages, though the earliest Roman bishops were modest, unassuming men, wholly unlike the popes of after times. But when they come to make Peter the head of their line, and to identify his authority and theirs, they can do it only by fraudulent testimonials. And such is the case with first-day observance. It may be traced back as a festival to the time of Justin Martyr, A.D. 140, but the day had then no sacred name, and claimed no apostolic authority.

These must be secured, however, at any cost; and so its title of “Lord’s day” is, by a series of fraudulent testimonials,. traced to the apostle John, as in like manner the authority of the popes is traced to the apostle Peter. 5. The fifth witness of this series is Dionysius, of Corinth, A.D. 170.

Unlike the four which have been already examined, Dionysius actually uses the term “Lord’s day,” though he says nothing identifying it with the first day of the week. His words are these: — “Today we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle; in reading which we shall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that written to us before by Clement.” The epistle of Dionysius to Sorer, bishop of Rome, from which this sentence is taken, has perished. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, has preserved to us this sentence, but we have no knowledge of its connection. First-day writers quote Dionysius as the fifth of their witnesses theft Sunday is the Lord’s day. They say that Sunday was so familiarly known as such in the time of Dionysius, that he calls it by that name without even stopping to tell what day he meant.

But it is not honest to present Dionysius as a witness to the Sunday Lord’s day, for he makes no application of the term. Yet it is said he certainly meant Sunday, because that was the familiar name of the day in his time, as is indicated by the fact that he did not define the term. And how is it known that “Lord’s day” was the familiar name for Sunday in the time of Dionysius? The four witnesses already examined furnish all the evidence in proof of this, for there is no writer this side of Dionysius who calls Sunday the Lord’s day until almost the entire period of a generation has clapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth witness of the series by virtue of the tact that the first four witnesses prove that in his time, “Lord’s day” was the common name for the first clay of the week. But the first four testify to nothing of the kind until the words are by fraud put into their mouths! Dionysius is a witness for the Sunday Lord’s day, because four fraudulent testimonials from the generations preceding him fix this as the meaning of his words! And the name “Lord’s day” must have been a very common one for the first day of the week, because Dionysius does not define the term! And yet those who say this know that this one sentence of his epistle remains, while the connection, which doubtless fixed his meaning, has perished.

But Dionysius does not merely use the term “Lord’s day.” lie uses a stronger term than this, — “the Lord’s holy day.” Even for a long period after Dionysius, no writer gives to Sunday so sacred a title as “the Lord’s holy day.” Yet this is the very title given to the Sabbath in the Holy Scriptures, and it is a well-ascertained fact that at this very time it was extensively observed, especially in Greece, the country of Dionysius, and that, too, as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment. 6. The sixth witness in this remarkable series is Melito, of Sardis, A.D. 177. The first four, who never use the term “Lord’s day,” are by direct fraud made to call Sunday by that name; the fifth, who speaks of the Lord’s holy day, is claimed, on the strength of these frauds, to have meant Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of any day!

Melito wrote several books which are now lost, but their titles have been preserved by Eusebius. 7 One of these, as given in the English version of Eusebius, is “On the Lord’s Day.” Of course, first-day writers claim this was a treatise concerning Sunday, though down to this point no writer calls Sunday by this name. But it is an important fact that the word day formed no part of the title of Melito’s book. It was a discourse on something pertaining to the Lord, — oJ peri th~v kuriakh~v lo>gov , — but the essential word, hJmerav (day), is wanting. It may have been a treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words in connection: kuriakh(Lord’s life). Like the sentence from Dionysius, it would not even seem to help the claim of Sunday to the title of Lord’s day were it not for the series of frauds in which it stands. 7. The seventh witness summoned to prove that “Lord’s day” was the apostolic title of Sunday, is Irenaeus. Dr. Justin Edwards professes to quote him as follows: — “Hence Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A.D. 167 [it should be A.D. 178], says that the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, ‘On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.’” This witness is brought forward in a manner to give the utmost weight and authority to his words, He was the disciple of that eminent Christian martyr, Polycarp, and Polycarp was the companion, of the apostles. What Irenaeus says is therefore, in the estimation of many, as worthy of our confidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles. Does not Irenaeus call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord’s day? Did he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp get them from the fountain head? What need have we of further witness that “Lord’s day” is the apostolic name for Sunday? What if the six earlier witnesses have failed us? Here is one that says all that can be asked, and he had his doctrine from a man who had his from the apostles! Why, then, does not this establish the authority of Sunday as the Lord’s day?

The first reason is that neither Irenaeus nor any other man can add to or change one precept of the word of God, on any pretense whatever. We are never authorized to depart from the words of the inspired writers on the testimony of men who conversed with the apostles, or rather, who conversed with some who had conversed with them. And the second reason is that every word of this pretended testimony of Irenaeus is a fraud! Nor is there a single instance in which the term “Lord’s day” is to be found in any of his works, nor in any fragment of his works preserved in other authors! 9 And this completes the seven witnesses’ by whom the Lord’s day of the Catholic church is traced back to, and identified with, the Lord’s day of the Bible! It is not till A.D. 194, sixteen years after the latest of these witnesses, that we meet the first instance in which Sunday is called the Lord’s day. In other words, Sunday is not called the Lord’s day till ninety-eight years after John was upon Patmos, and one hundred and sixty-three years after the resurrection of Christ!

But is not this owing to the fact that the records of that period have perished? By no means; for the day is six times mentioned by the inspired writers between the resurrection of Christ, A.D. 31, and John’s vision upon Patmos, A.D. 96; namely, by Matthew, A.D. 41; by Paul, A.D. 57; by Luke, A.D. 60 and 63; and by Mark, A.D. 64; and always as the first day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A.D. 97, twice mentions the day, still calling it the first day of the week.

After John’s time, the day is next mentioned in the so-called epistle of Barnabas, written probably as early as A.D. 140, and is there called “the eighth day.” Then it is spoken of by Justin Martyr in his apology, A.D. 140, once as “the day on which we all hold our common assembly;” once as “the first day on which God…made the world;” once as “the same day [on which Christt rose from the dead;” once as “the day after that of Saturn; ” and three times as “Sunday,” or “the day of the sun.” Again he refers to it in his dialogue with Trypho, A.D. 155, in which he twice calls it the “eighth day;” once “the first of all the days;” once as “the first” “of all the days of the [weekly] cycle;” and twice as “the first day after the Sabbath.” It is once mentioned by Irenaeus, A.D. 178, who calls it simply the “first day of the week.” And next it is introduced once by Bardesanes, who likewise calls it simply “the first of the week.” The variety of names by which the day is mentioned during this time is remarkable; but it is never called “Lord’s day,” nor is it ever designated by any sacred name.

Though Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second century, it is not till we come almost to the close of the second, century that we find the first; instance in which it is called “Lord’s day.” Clement, of Alexandria, A.D. 194, uses this title with reference to “the eighth day.”

If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not certain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation gives to the term an entirely different sense. Here are his words: — “And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of, in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words: ‘And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they are to set out, and arrive in four days.’ By the meadow is to be understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days, each motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs, the journey leads to heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day. And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and plants revolve.” Clement was originally a heathen philosopher, and these strange mysticisms which he here puts forth upon the words of Plato are only modifications of his. former heathen notions. Though Clement says that Plato speaks of the Lord’s day, it is certain that he does not understand him to speak of literal days nor of a literal meadow. On the contrary, he interprets the meadow to represent “the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious;” which must refer to their future inheritance. The seven days are not so many literal days, but they represent “each motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of rest.” This seems to represent the present period of labor which is to end in the rest of the saints; for he adds: “But after the wandering orbs [represented by Plato’s seven days] the journey leads to heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and clay.” The seven days, therefore, do here represent the period of the Christian’s pilgrimage, and the eighth day of which Clement here speaks is not Sunday, but heaven itself! Here is the first instance of “Lord’s day” as a name for the eighth day, but this eighth day is a mystical one, and means heaven!

But Clement uses the term” Lord’s day” once more, and this time clearly, as representing, not a literal day, but the whole period of our regenerate life. For he speaks of it in treating of fasting, and he sets forth fasting as consisting of abstinence from sinful pleasures, not only in deeds, to use his distinction, as forbidden by the law, but in thoughts, as forbidden by the gospel. Such fasting pertains to the entire life of the Christian. And thus Clement sets forth what is involved in observing this duty in the gospel sense: — “He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.” From this statement we learn, not merely his idea of fasting, but also that of celebrating the Lord’s day, and glorifying the resurrection of Christ.

This, according to Clement, does not consist in paying special honors to Sunday, but in abandoning an evil disposition, and in assuming that of the Gnostic, a Christian sect to which he belonged. Now it is plain that this kind of Lord’s-day observance pertains to no one day of the week, but embraces the entire life of the Christian. Clement’s Lord’s day was not a literal, but a mystical day, embracing, according to this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the Christian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the future life in heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement’s statement of the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which, he belonged and other Christians. He says of their worship that it was “NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS, as some others, but doing this continually in our whole life.” And he speaks further of the worship of the Gnostic, that it was “not in a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals, and on appointed days, but during his whole life.” It is certainly a very remarkable fact that the first writer’, who speaks of the Lord’s day as the eighth day, uses the term, not with reference to a literal, but a mystical day. It is not Sunday, but the Christian’s life, or heaven itself! This doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day we shall find alluded to in Tertullian, and expressly stated in Origen, who are the next two writers that use the term. But Clement’s mystical or perpetual Lord’s day shows that he had no idea that John meant Sunday by his use of these words; for in that case he must have recognized that as the true Lord’s day, and the Gnostics’ special day of worship.

Tertullian, A.D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term “Lord’s day.” He defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ’s resurrection. Kitto 13 says this is “the earliest authentic instance” in which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by actual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some reference to Sunday in Clement’s mystical eighth day. Tertullian’s words are these: — “We, however (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s day of the resurrection [solo die dominico resurrexionis] ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation.” Twice more does Tertullian use the term “Lord’s day,” and once more does he define it, this time calling it the “eighth day.” And in each of these two cases he places; the day which he calls the Lord’s day in the same rank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, as he does in the instance already quoted. As the second instance of Tertullian’s use of “Lord’s day,” we quote a portion of the rebuke which he addressed to his brethren for mingling with the heathen in their festivals. He says: — “Oh! better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even if they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!

If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you’ have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day.” The festival which Tertullian here represents as coming every eighth day was no doubt the one which he has just called the Lord’s day. Though he elsewhere 16 speaks of the Sunday festival as observed at least by some portion of the heathen, he here speaks of the Lord’s day as unknown to those of whom he now writes. This strongly indicates that the Sunday festival had but recently begun to be called by the name of “Lord’s day.”

Once more he speaks of it: — “As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the (lead 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 [the Pentecost]. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even 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 having positive Scripture injunction, 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.” This completes the instances in which Tertullian uses the term “Lord’s day,” except a mere allusion to it in his discourse on Fasting. It is very remarkable that in each of the three cases, he puts it on a level with the festival of Whitsunday, or Pentecost. He also associates it directly with “offerings for the dead” and with the use of “the sign of the cross.” When asked for authority from the Bible for these things, he does not answer, “We have the authority of John for the Lord’s day, though we have nothing but tradition for the sign of the cross and offerings for the dead.”

On the contrary, he said there was no Scripture injunction for any of them.

If it be asked, How could the title of “Lord’s day” be given to Sunday except by tradition derived from the apostles? the answer will be properly returned, What was the origin of offerings for the dead? and how did the sign of the cross come into use among Christians? The title of “Lord’s day” as a name for Sunday is no nearer apostolic than is the sign of the cross, and offerings for the dead; for it can be traced no nearer to apostolic times than can these most palpable errors of the great apostasy.

Clement taught a perpetual Lord’s day; Tertullian held a similar view, asserting that Christians should celebrate a perpetual Sabbath, not by abstinence from labor, but from sin. 18 Tertullian’s method of Sunday observance will be noticed hereafter.

Origen, A.D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call “the eighth day” the Lord’s day. He was the disciple of Clement, the first writer who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he should teach Clement’s doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, nor that he should state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen, having represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues thus: — “If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s day, the Preparation, the Passover, or the Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s day.” This was written some forty years after Clement had propounded his doctrine of the Lord’s day. The imperfect Christian might honor a Lord’s day which stood in the same rank with the Preparation, the Passover, and the Pentecost. But the perfect Christian observed the true Lord’s day, which embraced all the days of his regenerate life. Origen uses the term “Lord’s day” for two different days: 1. For a natural day, which in his judgment, stood in the same rank with the Preparation day, the Passover, and the Pentecost; 2. For a mystical day, as did Clement, which is the entire period of the Christian’s life.

The mystical day, in his estimation, was the true “Lord’s day.” It therefore follows that he did not believe Sunday to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. But, after Origen’s time, “ Lord’s day” became a common name for the so-called eighth day. Yet these three men — Clement, Tertullian, and Origen — who first make this application, not only do not claim that this name was given to the day by the apostles, but plainly indicate that they had no such idea. Offerings for the dead and the use of the sign of the cross are found as near to the apostolic times as is the use of “Lord’s day” as a name for Sunday. The three have a common origin, as shown by Tertullian’s own words. Origen’s views of the Sabbath and of the Sunday festival will be noticed hereafter.

Such is the case with the claim of Sunday to the title of “Lord’s day.” The first instance of its use, if Clement be supposed to refer to Sunday, is not till almost one century after John was in vision upon Patmos. Those who first called it by that name had no idea that it was such by divine or apostolic appointment, as they plainly show. In marked contrast with this is the Catholic festival of the Passover. Though never commanded in the New Testament;, it can be traced back to men who say that they had it from the apostles!

The churches of Asia Minor had the festival from Polycarp, who, as Eusebius states the claim of Polycarp, had “observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he associated.” 20 Socrates says of them that they maintain that this observance “was delivered to them by the apostle John.” 21 Anatolius says of these Asiatic Christians that they received “the rule from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.” Nor was this all. The Western churches also, with the church of Rome at their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They also traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them: “The Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage Originated with the apostles Peter and Paul.” 23 But he says these parties cannot prove this by written testimony. Sozomen says of the Romans, with respect to the Passover festival, that they “have never deviated from their original usage in this particular, the custom having been handed down to them by the holy apostles, Peter and Paul.” If the Sunday Lord’s day could be traced to a man who claimed to have celebrated it with John and other of the apostles, how confidently would this be cited as proving positively that it is an apostolic institution! And yet this. can be done in the case of the Passover festival! Nevertheless, a single fact in the case of this very festival is sufficient to teach us the folly of trusting in tradition. Polycarp claimed that John and other of the apostles taught him to observe the festival on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of the week it might be; while the elders of the Roman church asserted that Peter and Paul taught them that it must be observed on the Sunday following Good Friday! The “Lord’s day” of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John than A.D. 194, or perhaps, in strict truth, to A.D. 200, and those who then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. To hide these fatal facts by seeming to trace the title back to Ignatius; the disciple of John, and thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s day of that apostle, a series of remarkable frauds has been committed, which we have had occasion to examine. But even could the Sunday Lord’s day be traced to Ignatius, the disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic institution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can be traced to Polycarp, another of John’s disciples, who claimed to have received it from John himself!

THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY

Origin of Sunday observance the subject of present inquiry — Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander — The question between them stated, and the true data for deciding that question — The New Testament furnishes no support for Mosheim’s statement — Epistle of Barnabas a forgery — The testimony of Pliny determines nothing in the case — The epistle of Ignatius probably spurious, and certainly interpolated so far as it is made to sustain Sunday — Decision of the question.

SUNDAY, the first day of the week, is now almost universally observed as the Christian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us as the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church historians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a question of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth. Thus Mosheim writes respecting the first century: — “All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Savior arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who Consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.”

Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance: — “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither of them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer of the eighteenth century, and Neander, of the nineteenth. Of necessity, therefore, they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of that period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony which can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are, first, the inspired writings of the New Testament; secondly, the reputed productions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the first day; viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the letter of Pliny, governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan, and flit epistle of Ignatius. These are all the writings prior to the middle of the second century — and this is late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim’s Statement — which can be introduced as even referring to the first day of the week.

The questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles set apart Sunday for divine worship, as Mosheim affirms? or does the evidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, as is affirmed by Neander?

It is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday for the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that there is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such observance. The New Testament, therefore, furnishes no support 3 for the statement, of Mosheim.

The three epistles which have come down to us purporting to have been written in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age, next come under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more extended theft that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the first century only; but we summon all the writers of that century, and of the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A.D. 140, who are even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader is furnished with all the data in the, case. The epistle of Barnabas speaks as follows in behalf of the first-day observance: — “Lastly he saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths I cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths, says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested himself to his disciples, ascended into heaven.” It might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would ‘place great reliance upon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat better suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything previously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle is spurious.

Thus he says: — “The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who was St. Paul’s companion.” In another work, Mosheim says of this epistle: — “As to what is suggested by Some, of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains having in them so little of either truth, dignity, or force as to render it impossible that they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed.” Neander speaks thus of this epistle: — “It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul.” Prof. Stuart bears a similar testimony: — “That a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I, with many others, must doubt.” Dr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language: — “The tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture.” Prof. Hackett bears this testimony: — “The letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.” Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnnbas as follows: — “It. is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which goes by his name, to be his.” Kitto speaks of this production as — “The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century.” Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, speaking of the Barnabas of the New Testament: — “He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle.” Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the catalogue of spurious books. Thus he says: — “Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called, ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called, ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’ Besides these, the books called, ‘The Epistle of Barnabas,’ and what are called, ‘The Institutions of the Apostles.’” Sir Wm. Domville speaks as follows: — “But the epistle was not written-by Barnabas; it was not, merely unworthy of him, it would be a disgrace to him; and what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony of some unknown writer to the practice of Sunday observance by some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for believing that period to have been the first century.” Coleman bears the following testimony: — “The epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious.

It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic, allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, arid fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority.” As a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this epistle, the following passage is quoted: — “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.” Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the ease, we are authorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read its ninth chapter (for it will not bear quoting) will acknowledge the justice of the conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting to come from the first century, except the New Testament, in which the first day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday observance, even Mosheim acknowledges.

The next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the Roman Governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan. It was written about A.D. 104. He says of the Christians of his province: — “They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never ‘to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then re-assemble to eat in common a harmless meal.” This epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday observance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says of this extract: — “This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as holy time, but whether it was the last or the first day of the week, does not appear.” Charles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this epistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite translation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle: — “These persons declare that their whole crime, if they are guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of God.” Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny’s thus: — “He found in their religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes.” Tertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of Sunday.

Mr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows: — “As the Sabbath-day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the sun’s day (if not even more so), it is just as probable that this ‘stated day’ referred to by Pliny was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though the latter is generally taken for granted .” Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no now feature in the evidence thus