With this authoritative statement of Cyprian and his sixty-six colleagues, or co-presbyters, we close our citations from the fathers. The testimony of succeeding writers is equally clear, but it simply confirms what has already been fully proved. And now, with the facts of history in view, as we have learned them from inspired writers and their immediate successors, it remains for us to examine opposing theories of the institution of the Sabbath. We shall endeavor to dispose of this concluding, and perhaps most interesting part of our subject, in two or three articles.
A REJOINDER.
“PATRISTIC EVIDENCE TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”
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.”