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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings are not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age in very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is that concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no warrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their hands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the extreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring contradictions. Another has said of him: “It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious, invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticisms.” (Milman, in note on Gibbon’s Dec. and Fall of the Rom. Emp., chap. xv.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifthly, that Pliny, a heathen writer, employs neither the term Lord’s day nor Sabbath, but simply speaks of a stated day, without identification.

Sixthly, that Irenæus is not properly represented as speaking of the Sunday in the use of the title Lord’s day, since that expression, in both the instances alluded to, was the language of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, and not of Irenæus, who lived in the second.

Seventhly, that Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second and the commencement of the third century, and who was a wild fanatic of the Montanist school, utterly unworthy to represent the sentiments of his times, is the first witness from whom the gentleman has succeeded in obtaining an unequivocal application of the term, Lord’s day, to the first day of the week; also, that he had connected with it, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, &c., &c.

Eighthly, that Origen was a man of great learning; that it was questionable whether he believed in a septenary Sabbath, or in one that covered the whole dispensation; and that, in fact, it is admitted by his friends that his works have become so corrupt as to be utterly untrustworthy in the matter of deciding respecting his real opinions.

Ninthly, that Cyprian and his colleagues addressed us from a point of time too far removed from the period of the alleged change of Sabbaths, and too fully within that of the great apostasy, to be of service in an exegesis of the Scriptures.

Tenthly, that three of the most pointed and satisfactory of the testimonies heretofore employed by first-day writers, are now abandoned as having been the result of mistake in translation, or in the matter of attributing them to the proper persons. Summing, up, therefore, in a word we inquire again, What has been gained by this departure? We believe that all must see that it has been an entire failure; for, so far as the Sabbath is concerned, we think the reader will hesitate long before he will leave the Scriptures, in the matter of deciding upon its obligation, in order to build the structure of his faith from such material as we have been handling over.

Also, as to the question of what day John referred to in Rev. 1:10, when he said, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” he will deliberate very much before he will decide that it was the first day of the week, simply because an untrustworthy man, admitted to have been heretical on many points, called it such 200 years after the birth of Christ, while Jehovah himself has given to the seventh day that honor, styling it the “Sabbath of the Lord,” “the holy of the Lord, honorable,” &c., and while Christ himself has declared in so many words, that he was the Lord of the Sabbath day. Mark 2:27, 28.