CHAPTER 14
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.
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 Saviour 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."1
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."2
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; second, 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 the 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 support3 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 than 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 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."4
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."5
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."6
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."7
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."8
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."9
Prof. Hackett bears the following testimony:
"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas even in
the second century, cannot be defended as genuine."10
Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnabas as follows:-
"It is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which goes by
his name, to be his."11
Kitto speaks of this production as,
"The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second
century."12
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."13
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.'"14
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."15
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, and fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned
to be of no authority."16
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."17
Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the case, 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 this 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."18
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."19
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."20
Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny
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."21
Tertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of
Sunday.
Mr. W. B. Tayler 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."22
Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no new
feature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day
observance. Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny as a chief
support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another learned
man:
"B. Just. Hen. Boehmer, would indeed have us to understand this day
to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath."23
This testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time
of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded by
the apostle Peter.24 It is certainly far more probable that this church, only
forty years after the death of Peter, was keeping the fourth commandment,
than that it was observing a day never enjoined by divine authority. It
must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves nothing in support
of Sunday observance; for it does not designate what day of the week was
thus observed.
The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch so often quoted in behalf of
first-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as
saying:
"Wherefore if they who are brought up in these ancient laws came
nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing sabbaths, but
keeping the Lord's day, in which also our life is sprung up by him, and
through his death, whom yet some deny (by which mystery we have been
brought to believe, and therefore wait that we may be found the
disciples of Jesus Christ, our only master): how shall we be able to
live different from him; whose disciples the very prophets themselves
being, did by the Spirit expect him as their master."25
Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular
notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious
by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some of
them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the
epistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do
they say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle to
Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the word day had
been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of the first of
these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr. Killen speaks
as follows:
"In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from
beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered to the world as the
productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them
on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be
forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a
somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to
be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to
acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was roused by this second
apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of
the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, were ransacked
in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery
creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles
so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said
that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still
refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her
approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles abundantly
attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the
last shifts of a grave imposture."26
The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:
"It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, that,
upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping sentence of
condemnation on these Ignatian epistles."27
Of the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F.
Hudson speaks as follows:
"Ignatius of Antioch was martyred probably A.D. 115. Of the eight
epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those addressed to
Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans."28
It will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as
genuine do not include that epistle from which the quotation in behalf of
Sunday is taken, and it is a fact also that they contain no allusion to
Sunday. Sir. Wm. Domville, an anti-Sabbatarian writer, uses the following
language:
"Every one at all conversant with such matters is aware that the
works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted than those
of any other of the ancient fathers; and also that some writings have
been attributed to him which are wholly spurious."29
Robinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century,
expresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
Barnabas, and others:
"If any of the writings attributed to those who are called
apostolical fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp, at
Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hermas, who was brother to
Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine, of which there is
great reason to doubt, they only prove the piety and illiteracy of the
good men. Some are worse, and the best not better, than the godly
epistles of the lower sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the
civil war in England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both
of these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular
geniuses."30
The doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently
attested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of the
three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still
further to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day were it
not for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator
has used in inserting the word day. This fact is shown with critical
accuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day
scholars. Thus he presents the original of Ignatius with comments and a
translation as follows:
"We must here 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 confessedly obscure, and the text may be
corrupt. . . . The passage is as follows:
Ei oun oi en palaiois pragmasin anastraphentes eis kainoteta
elpidos elthon-meketi sabbatixontes, alla kata kuriaken xoen
xontes-(en e kai e xoe emon aneteilen oi autou, etc.)31
"Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that
after kuriaken [Lord's] the word emeran [day] is to be understood. . . .
Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the
sentence is the want of a substantive to which autou can refer. This
defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by
the introduction of emera. Now if we take kuriake xon as simply `the
life of the Lord,' having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes
nearer to supplying the substantive to autou. . . . Thus upon the whole
the meaning might be given thus:
"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the
newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our
Lord's life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him,
&c.). . . .
"On this view the passages does not refer at all to the Lord's day;
but even on the opposite supposition it can not be regarded as affording
any positive evidence to the early use of the term `Lord's day' (for
which it is often cited), since the material word emera [day] is purely
conjectural."32
The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this
statement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:
"If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient days
came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living according to the
dominical life, &c. . . . The Medicean copy, the best and most like
that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because xoen is expressed and
determines the word dominical to the person of Christ, and not to the
day of his resurrection."33
Sir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:
"Judging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the literal
translation of the passage in discussion, `no longer observing sabbaths,
but living according to the Lord's life,' appears to give its true and
proper meaning; and if this be so, Ingatius, whom Mr. Gurney34 puts forward as a material witness to prove the
observance of the Lord's day in the beginning of the second century,
fails to prove any such fact, it appearing on a thorough examination of
his testimony that he does not even mention the Lord's day, nor in any
way allude to the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by
any other."35
It is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference
whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence
that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord's
day.36 The evidence is now before the reader which must determine
whether Moshiem or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in the case.
And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the uninspired
writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing to sustain
the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the fourth
century, we shall find a statement by him which essentially modifies what
he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas, Pliny, and
Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the second
speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the third,
which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative to
Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated the
word day into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion that
Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as a
historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth, we say
with Neander, "The festival of Sunday was always only a human
ordinance."
1 Maclaine's Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sec. 4.
I have given Maclaine's translation, not because it is an accurate version
of Mosheim, but because it is so much used in support of the first day
Sabbath. Maclaine in his preface to Mosheim says: "I have sometimes taken
considerable liberties with my author." And he tells us what these
liberties were by saying that he had "often added a few sentences, to
render an observation more striking, a fact more clear, a portrait more
finished." The present quotation is an instance of these liberties. Dr.
Murdock of New Haven who has given "a close, literal version" of Mosheim,
gives the passage thus:
"The Christians of this century, assembled for the worship of God,
and for their advancement in piety, on the first day of the week, the
day on which Christ reassumed his life: for that this day was set apart
for religious worship, by the apostles themselves, and that, after the
example of the church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have
unexceptionable testimony."- Murdock's Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii. chap.
iv. sec. 4. <Return>
2 Neander's Church History, translated by H. J. Rose, p.
186. To break the force of this strong statement of Neander that "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," two
things have been said:
1. That Neander, in a later edition of his work, retracted this
declaration. It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this
sentence. But he inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the
general tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same
as in that from which this out-spoken statement is taken.
In proof of
this, we cite from the later edition of Neander his statement in this
very place of what constituted Sunday observance in the early church. He
says:
"Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from
fasts, and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in
a standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his
resurrection, had raised up fallen man again to Heaven." - Torrey's
Neander, vol. i. p. 295, ed. 1852.
This is an accurate account of early Sunday observance, as we shall
hereafter show; and that such observance was only a human ordinance, of
which no feature was ever commanded by the apostles, will be very
manifest to every person who attempts to find any precept for any
particular of it in the New Testament.
2. But the other method of setting aside this testimony of Neander is
to assert that he did not mean to deny that the apostles established a
divine command for Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, but meant to assert
that they did not establish a divine command for Sunday as a Catholic
festival! Those who make this assertion must know that it is false.
Neander expressly denies that the apostles either constituted or
recognized Sunday as a Sabbath, and he represents Sunday as a mere
festival from the very first of its observance, and established only by
human authority. <Return>
3 See chapters x. and xi., in which the New Testament has
been carefully examined on this point. <Return>
4 Epistle of Barnabas 13:9, 10; or, as others divide the
epistle, chapter 15. <Return>
5 Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. ii. sect. 21.
<Return>
6 Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 53. <Return>
7 Rose's Neander, p. 407. <Return>
8 Note appended to Gurney's History, Authority, and Use
of the Sabbath, p. 86. <Return>
9 Ancient Church, pp. 367, 368. <Return>
10 Commentary on Acts, p. 251. <Return>
11 History of the Church, cent. 1, chap. xv. <Return>
12 Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's day, tenth ed. 1858.
<Return>
13 Encyc. of Rel. Knowl., art. Barnabas' Epistle. <Return>
14 Eccl. Hist., Book iii. chap. xxv. <Return>
15 The Sabbath, or an Examination of the Six Texts
commonly adduced from the New Testament in proof of a Christian Sabbath,
p. 233. <Return>
16 Ancient Christianity, chap. i. sect. 2. <Return>
17 Epistle of Barnabas, 9:8. In some editions it is
chap. 10. <Return>
18 Coleman's Ancient Christianity, pp. 35, 36. <Return>
19 Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sect. 2.
<Return>
20 Buck's Theological Dictionary, art. Christians.
<Return>
21 Tertullian's Apology, sect. 2. <Return>
22 Obligation of the Sabbath, p. 300. <Return>
23 Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 47. <Return>
24 1Pet.1:1. See Clarke's Commentary, preface to the
epistles of Peter. <Return>
25 Ignatius to the Magnesians, 3:3-5; or, as others
divide the epistle, chap. 9. <Return>
26 Ancient Church, pp. 413, 414. <Return>
27 Id. p. 427. <Return>
28 Future Life, p. 290. <Return>
29 Examination of the Six Tests, p. 237. <Return>
30 Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi. pp. 50, 51, ed.
1792. <Return>
31 Ignatius ad Magnesios, sect. 9. <Return>
32 Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's day. <Return>
33 Dialogues on the Lord's Day, pp. 206, 207. <Return>
34 A first-day writer, author of the "History,
Authority, and Use, of the Sabbath." <Return>
35 Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251. <Return>
36 For a more full statement of the case of Ignatius,
see the "Testimony of the Fathers," pp. 26-30. The quotation from Ignatius
examined in this chapter is there shown, according to the connection, to
relate, not to New Testament Christians, but to the ancient prophets.
<Return>
|