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

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

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

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

This, however, we have not space to do, but must content ourselves with several brief citations, by which we will show that the authorities of our own times—equally with those of the past—are uniform in their expressions of contempt for testimony which is so largely relied upon by our reviewer in the present discussion. “To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.—Archibald Bower.

“But of these, we may safely state that there is not a truth of the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as it abettors. In point of doctrine, their authority is, with me, nothing. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of points, I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church, to know what they believed, and what the people of their respective communions believed; but after all this, I must return to God’s word to know what he would have me to believe.” (A. Clark, Com. on Prov. 8.) “We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.” (Quoted in Hist. of Sab. from Autobiography of Adam Clarke.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The distinguished historian and scholar, Kitto, speaks on this point in his Cyclopedia, Art. Lord’s Day, as follows: “We must notice one other passage as bearing on the subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A. D. 100). The whole passage is evidently obscure, and the text may be corrupt.” Originally, there were fifteen letters attributed to Ignatius. Centuries ago, however, eight of them were rejected as hopelessly spurious. The remaining seven have been also denounced as forgeries, by many writers, with John Calvin at their head. Others, while holding on to four of the seven, have condemned three, and among them the letter to the Magnesians, from which the citation which we are considering was taken. A poor stone, this, which purports to come from Antioch, for the head-stone of the corner of the temple of patristic testimonials to the Sunday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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