by W.E.Straw

Originally Published by
Review and Herald Publishing Association 1939

Chapters Thirteen, Appendix & References


1 Did Gentile Converts Keep the Sabbath?
2 What Was Done Away by Christ?
3 Sunday in the Early Church
4 The Lord's Day
5 Gnosticism
6 Sunday at Alexandria in the Second Century
7 Sunday in Asia in the Second Century
8 Events and Changes in the Second Century
9 Sunday in the Third Century
10 Sunday in the Fourth Century
11 Pagan and Christian Rituals
12 Heathen Customs and the Church
13 How Sunday Came Into the Church
Appendix -The Epistles of Ignatius
Footnotes and References

13 How Sunday Came Into the Church

With all the evidence that there is to the contrary, it seems strange that so many have taught that the Sabbath was not observed in the early church. Why have so many tried to teach us that another day was instituted by the apostles to take the place of the Sabbath when there is not a single statement to that effect by any of the disciples, and no well-authenticated historical statement by any writer in Palestine or Asia Minor before the close of the second century? The facts are that, as long as they lived, the disciples always observed the Sabbath as a regular custom, and this custom was followed by their immediate successors. It was observed by the great mass of Christians all through the first, second, and third centuries, in spite of the effort on the part of certain centers to overthrow it. Even down to the latter part of the fourth century, almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the Sabbath every week, except Rome and Alexandria, according to two of the great early historians, Socrates and Sozomen.

Reasons for Divergence

Why did not these two places follow the custom of the rest of the churches? Was there any special situation there that might account for this? Remember, it was at Alexandria that Gnosticism and heathen practices began to enter the church, and it was here that we first heard of Sunday observance among Christians. Here Basilides, the great Gnostic, taught about the time of the great Jewish war, and here about that time we find the first anti-Jewish sentiments and opposition to Jewish customs of every kind.

From this place Valentinus, another Gnostic, went to Rome and gained many followers.
Following this, Plotinus, a companion of Origen, and a great advocate of Neoplatonism, went to Rome and taught for several years. Marcion, another Gnostic, taught in Rome for years. Also Justin Martyr, whose teaching was tinged with Gnostic ideas, went to Rome and taught for some time. More than that, all the men for the first two centuries whose writings have been authenticated beyond question, and who opposed the Sabbath and favored Sunday observance, were men who were sympathetic with Gnosticism and who had anti-Jewish prejudice.

What started this peculiar sentiment against the Jews? About the year 135 AD. an unsuccessful Jewish revolution was crushed and the Jews were driven out of their land and not permitted again to return. Immediately following this we see the church beginning to adjust itself to meet this new situation and to make a strong distinction between Christians and Jews, and a determined effort to keep as far away as possible from Jewish practices.

Then there developed a strong antipathy toward everything Jewish, both in the church and among the Gnostics. About this time we hear the first opposition to the Sabbath and arguments in favor of Sunday observance; and this from men sympathetic with Gnostic notions. While this was going on at Alexandria, there developed a strong opposition to these Gnostics in Asia Minor. The men from this section held to the teaching of the apostles as a basis of their faith, and opposed anything not taught by them.

Reason for Opposition to Sabbath

But the church at Alexandria took a very different attitude, and allowed many with Gnostic and strange doctrines to remain in the church. A school was established at Alexandria in which ministers were taught and from which they were sent out to all parts of the empire. The teachers in this school were sympathetic with Gnosticism; consequently their students, as they went out, carried these sentiments everywhere. After this, we find the question of the day of worship somewhat in dispute, but both days are observed in most places, except in Alexandria and Rome. These two places refused to observe the Sabbath. And as we come to the close of the fourth century, at these two places alone, according to two historians then living, the Sabbath was not recognized as a day of worship.

There is also another consideration. It is a. well-attested fact that there are a great many practices, beliefs, and ceremonies in the church today that were foreign to the early apostles and to Jesus. So far as the records show, they knew nothing about Christmas, Easter, images, holy water, Sunday, etc.. From where did these come? Not from the apostles However, we find these things at the time of Christ in the heathen religions of the Roman Empire. And later we see these same strange practices coming into the church and finally adopted as a part of its ritual.

We have shown to quite an extent the similarity of the Oriental religions to the later Christian church. There was the great Easter festival of the Phrygians; and Christmas, the birthday of Mithra, the Mother and Son of Egypt; and the ritual of priest and holy water. There were the great ascetics in the Hindu religion, monks with shaven crowns, and the rosary. We find the burning of candles in the worship of Mithra, with its mysteries in the service, and all sorts of ritual which it seems apparent the Christian church took over in its own service.

Strange Practices in the Church

The fact remains that a great part of our Christian practice, and many of our present Christian doctrines, were unknown in the days of the apostles. In tracing the origin of many of these things, we find them prevalent in the Oriental religions of that time. We have also traced certain pagan notions and tendencies that gradually came into the church. Now in studying the history of the church during the first century, we find nothing that we can rely upon concerning the practice of Sunday observance at that time. And in the second century we find nothing from the writings of the men of Asia and the East about any practice of it there. The first ones who give us any clear and definite statements concerning it are the spurious Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Clement, and Origen. These are all from Alexandria, the center of Gnosticism. From here we find these practices coming into the church, and with them the recognition of Sunday.

Therefore I must conclude that this-Alexandria and its Gnosticism-should be considered the origin of our Christian Sunday.

The Church's Part in the Change of Days

In view of what has been presented, the question may arise in the minds of some as to what part the church acted in the introduction of Sunday as a day of worship in place of the Sabbath. The simplest answer is that the early church apostatized from the pure truth of the gospel soon after the passing of the apostles, by allowing practices and beliefs of paganism to find an entrance into the Christian economy.

So long as the apostles lived, and in the sections of the country in which the church shunned heathen practices, we find no indications of Sunday observance in the early church. But the literature of the early church clearly indicates that sun worship and Sunday observance go hand in hand in one form or another. As soon as, and wherever, the church became sympathetic toward heathen practices and allowed them to enter among its adherents, there always came Sunday observance and symptoms of sun worship in some form. As time went on and men like Gregory the Wonder-Worker, permitted half-converted members to practice in the church the idolatrous rites to which they had been accustomed in heathenism, and “crowds of ignorant, undisciplined heathen were flocking into the church, bringing their heathen taints with them,” it was inevitable that many of these would try to combine the two practices.

This method of dovetailing and blending heathen practices in the Christian ritual continued to go on stealthily and quietly for many years. As this continued, the church moved farther and farther toward heathen ways until finally, in the early part of the fourth century, the emperor Constantine favored, and nominally accepted, Christianity. Then, Dr. Gerhard Uhlhorn says, “Heathenism seemed to be annihilated at one blow, and now the heathen crowded in multitudes into the church.” [1]

About this time, in the fourth century, there were certain liberal-minded men who claimed the Lord's day to be of more importance than the Sabbath. Eusebius, one of them and a great friend of the emperor Constantine, said, “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day.”

From this time on there seems to be a definite effort to discredit the Sabbath and to exalt Sunday as a day of worship. Church councils and civil enactments added their power to the support of the new day, as later church history so abundantly testifies. But strictly speaking, the councils did not change the day of worship. That would have been impossible. They simply recognized what the church was already doing in practice, and endeavored to justify and strengthen their position.

Later, we find Pope Gregory the Great laying it down with authority that “to 'cause the Sabbath to be kept from work' is a mark of Judaizing and a 'sign of anti-Christ.' “ [2]

This defense of the Sunday Sabbath by the Catholic Church has continued down through the centuries to our own time. Now the Roman Catholic Church boldly claims that she is responsible for the change of days, and points to this change as a mark of her authority in religious things.

The Roman Catholic “Doctrinal Catechism,” by the Rev. Stephen Keenan, reads:

Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

“Answer: Had she not such power, she could, not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have instituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” [3]

Thus we see that there was a constant movement of heathen ideas into the church in the early centuries. With these ideas came also sun worship and Sunday observance. As the heathen philosophers and rulers nominally accepted the Christian religion, and great masses of partially converted heathen crowded into the churches, these practices increased until they predominated throughout the Christian world. Then when the leaders in their councils placed their stamp of approval upon these practices, they became fixed in the church. Later when these leaders realized what had taken place, they began to eliminate some of the grosser heathen practices, but permitted many of the ritualistic forms to remain. Sunday observance, therefore, is a remnant of an ancient ritualistic heathen practice adopted into the church and finally fully authorized by councils and popes.


The Epistles of Ignatius

The great scholar, J. B. Lightfoot, says, “The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the students of earlier Christian history. Contemporary Review, Vol. XXV, P. 339.

Mrs. E. S. Armitage says, “The name of Ignatius has long been associated with one of the most perplexing of all the controversies which obscure the history of the second century. His letters, the only monuments which he has left behind, have been challenged and defended, pulled down and built up, till a mass of literature has grown up around them, whose bulk is great enough to daunt any but the most stouthearted of students.” - Sunday Magazine, Vol. V, p. 238.

Why is this such a perplexing, and, at the same time, so important a problem? It is important because Ignatius lived during the last years of the first century and the first years of the second. Hence his life reaches back and overlaps that of the last of the apostles and connects us up with New Testament times. It is perplexing because his letters have been so interpolated that no one is absolutely sure of what he wrote.

At the time of the Reformation there were fifteen epistles extant containing the name of Ignatius as their author. In the year 1644 AD., Bishop Ussher found two recensions of Ignatian letters which contained only the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius, and these were in a shorter form than those that had been known before that time. Following this, Vossius and others found more copies like those found by Ussher.

Further perplexity was thrown into this question just before the middle of the nineteenth century when two Syriac manuscripts of the Ignatian letters were found and published by William Cureton. These contained only three letters-to the Ephesians, to the Romans, and to Polycarp-and these in a much shorter form than the shorter Greek recension. Then the question arose, Which of these are the real epistles that Ignatius wrote? Both the internal and the external evidence show clearly that eight of the epistles that were in use during Reformation times were forgeries. Scholars have now so agreed and have rejected them as such.

Now the question seems to rest between the other groups as to which are the true Ignatian letters, the three Syriac of Cureton or the seven Greek Vossian ones. During the forty years immediately following the finding of the Syriac group there were arguments both for and against each group. About 1875 Doctor Lightfoot wrote, “Those who maintain the genuine ness of the Ignatian epistles, in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.”-Contemporary Review, Vol. XX V, p. 340.

“Unless. therefore, really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all events the shortest form in which these epistles are presented to us. In other words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third centuries (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the fourth), perhaps not more is required by external testimony.”-Id., P. 355.

“As regards style, the Curetonian letters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected excerpts they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features prominently.

“For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the latter will he waived.”-Id., P. 358.

A few years after this, however, Doctor Lightfoot came out with a series of articles on the Ignatian epistles. In these he took a strong position in favor of the Vossian group of seven. In fact, his position was so strong that a large number of scholars have gone no farther in their investigation of this question, but have since relied upon his findings and conclusions. Since he has given the strongest arguments yet produced in favor of this group, I herewith list his principal points.

1. Polycarp in his epistle to the Philippians mentions the letters of Ignatius. As “letters” is in the plural, he concludes there must have been seven.

2. As Polycarp mentions that the letters were written to us, and as Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna, he concludes that the Smyrnian letter (one of the seven) should be included in the list of Ignatian epistles.

3. In this same letter Polycarp says, “Both you and Ignatius wrote to me that if anyone went into Syria he should carry your letters with him.” -”Epistle to the Philippians,” Vol. I, chap. XIII. As the longer Vossian epistle mentions “letters,” and the shorter Syriac does not, he concludes the longer must have been the ones in existence in Polycarp's time.

4. A heathen by the name of Lucian about 165 AD., gave the story of the arrest of an individual in very similar language to that used in the longer Vossian group. The parallel to this experience is not recorded in the Syriac recension.

5. Another argument is that quotations are made from the epistles of Ignatius by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius.

6. He says Eusebius referred to the Vossian group of seven two hundred years before the Syriac was produced.

7.---When he [Eusebius] is acquainted with any spurious or doubtful works ascribed to the same author, he is careful to mention the fact. Here there is nothing of the kind. He enumerates the seven epistles alone; and of these he speaks without a shadow of misgiving.”--Edinburgh Review. Vol. CLXIV, p. 118.

8. The Armenian Version has the seven made from the Syriac, not the Greek. “Where they cover the same ground they agree absolutely.” So he concluded that the original Syriac must have contained seven letters, not three.

9. He claims that there must have been an abridgment from the seven that produced the three epistles in a shorter form. “The abridgment theory is simple,” he says, whereas the interpolation theory is very difficult because the forger would have been obliged to have before him the Greek and the Syriac to satisfy the interpolation theory.

These are the points that Lightfoot produced in favor of the Vossian, or as he calls it, the middle group, of Ignatian epistles. Because of Lightfoot's learning and standing as a scholar, the average person leaves the matter about where he concludes. However, there is very little material that either Lightfoot or anyone else can have access to in checking up the work of Ignatius, and that material is just as accessible to us as to the great scholars. Also, learned professors are just as liable to be biased in their conclusions as anyone else. Consequently it seems to me that we are fully justified in carefully reviewing the points given and the arguments produced.

1. He says Polycarp in his epistle to the Philippians mentions the letters of Ignatius; “letters” being in the plural, he therefore concluded that there must have been seven. I cannot see how it would necessarily follow that there were seven. Any number above one would be sufficient to fulfil] these specifications; the Syriac group had three.

2. It is further contended that Polycarp says these letters were written to us. As Polycarp was bishop of the Smyrnian church, he concludes that the Smyrnian letter must have been included, which was not in the Syriac group. Why would Polycarp necessarily he alluding to the Smyrnian church? Was it not just as possible for him to be referring to all the Christians, or to all the presbyters, as it was for him to be referring to one specific church?

3. It is still further urged, however, that Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians mentions the epistles Ignatius sent to “us” and others which we sent to you. It is concluded that since so many are mentioned there must have been more than three. In the thirteenth chapter of Polycarp's letter this is alluded to. It reads, “Tas epistolas Ignatiou tas pemftheisas hamin hup' autou, kai allas hosas eikomen Par' hamin, epempsamen hummin, kathos eneteilasthe.” This translated literally would read. “The epistles of Ignatius, those having been sent to us by him, and others as many as we have by us, we have sent to you as you commanded.” I cannot see how this necessarily alludes to more than three Ignatian epistles. ' The epistles of Ignatius are mentioned as having been sent to us by him. That might include any number from three on. Then there were others besides that. These might have been other epistles written by someone else which they sent on to the Philippians. Even Lightfoot says, “Though the words 'tas epistolas tas Pernftheisas hamin hup' autou' might be satisfied by the single letter to Polycarp in the short recension, yet they are much more natural and appropriate as referring to the two letters the one to the Smyrnians, the other to Polycarp himself-which are found in the middle form.”-”The Apostolic Fathers,” by J. B. Lightfoot, Vol. I, part two, P. 275. Macmillan and Company, London. 1885.

It is further urged that chapter 8 of the Ignatian letter to the Philippians in the Vossian group, mentions the sending of letters, whereas in the shorter it does not. The Syrian reads, “I salute him who is reckoned worthy to go to Antioch in my stead, as I commanded thee.” The Greek of the same chapter reads, “Such as are able to do so sending messengers, and the others transmitting letters to those persons who are sent by thee.” Although the epistle mentions letters, it says nothing about those of Ignatius. No one could gather from this the information that is implied in Polycarp's letter. I cannot see how that latter fulfills the specifications any more than does the Syriac recension.

4. “But the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a heathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen within the reign of Antoninus Pitis (138-161 AD.). Thus it is not very far removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus is represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (165 AD.), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the satirist thus describes the prison scene: 'When he was imprisoned the Christians . . . left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him. . . . Moreover, there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man.' The singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of Ignatius combined with some striking coincidences of expression, have led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters. “-Contemporary Review, Vol. XXV, p. 350.

It is true that this account is riot in the Syriac recension. But why should it be? There is nothing in the writings of Ignatius that would require it. Is it not possible for a forger to lie familiar enough with the times to write an experience true to life? Farrar, in his “Lives of the Fathers,” says that Harnack has “,;et aside the relevance of Lucian's supposed allusions. His belief in their genuineness rests primarily upon Polycarp!' James Hastings, in the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, says, “Whether Lucian, the satirist. . . . was thinking of Ignatius or even had direct knowledge of his letters is a point on which one hesitates to decide. “Vol. 1, P. 597, 1916 ed.

5. Lightfoot further mentions “the seven epistles by a long series of writers beginning with Irenaeus and Origen in the second and third centuries” and carries us on through to Eusebius, and concludes that there must have been seven. Farrar says the writers who substantiate the Ignatian epistles are Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius. James Hastings says, “The seven epistles of Ignatius are attested, as we have said. first by the epistle of Polycarp, and then at the beginning of the fourth century by Eusebius.” The facts are, somewhere in this beginning of forgeries there came into the writings of Ignatius material which he had never produced. When this was no one seems to know. However, instead of the references just produced proving the Vossian group, it seems to me the opposite is the case. The only quotations of Ignatius by any of the early Fathers are from the shortest Syriac group. There is not a single reference to any of the other epistles until the time of Eusebius in the fourth century. Why he refers to others is another question. But he was the first one to intimate that there might have been more than three epistles.

6. It is further mentioned that Eusebius referred to just the seven Vossian epistles two hundred years before the Syriac: was produced, or at least was known. It is possible that this is so. But it is also possible that the translator of the Syriac knew that the other four of the epistles were forged, and consequently, and for that reason, left them out of his recension. At least the controversy was on in regard to the number of epistles a long time ago, for the epistle to the Romans in the Syriac recension concludes with the words, “Here end the three epistles of Ignatius, bishop and martyr.” Evidently, away back in the early times somewhere there was a contention about the epistles, and someone wanted the people to know that Ignatius wrote just the three epistles.

7. One of the strongest reasons given by Lightfoot and others for holding to the Vossian seven is the fact that Eusebius mentions them. Lightfoot skys, “When he [Eusebius] is acquainted with any spurious or doubtful works ascribed to the same author, he is careful to mention the fact. Here there is nothing of the kind. He enumerates the seven epistles alone; and of these he speaks without a shadow of misgiving.”-- Edinburgh Review, Vol. CLXI 7, P. 118. Great confidence seems to be felt in Eusebins. In the first place we should remember that there were more than two hundred years between the death of Ignatius and that of Eusebius, which gives ample time for many and great changes to have taken place. We should also remember that many changes did take place at this time. It was during this period that great apostasies arose and false teachings came into the church, seriously affecting many of its adherents. Then there is danger of placing too much confidence in Eusebius. We all recognize the great work he did in writing a history of the Christian church; yet he was a man subject to like passions and frailties as we are. He was far from being orthodox. He was a great friend of Constantine and favorable to the Arian faction at the Council of Nicea. He it was who later induced Constantine to modify the actions of this council. He does show bias in his writings, for, in spite of the fact that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertuffian, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, and practically all the early Fathers state that the apostle John was the author of the book of Revelation; yet when Dionysius, in opposition to chiliasm and in trying to nullify the effects of the book, speaks of another John as its author, Eusebius conveys the same impressions. That is not impartial history. That was put in in spite of all the writings of all the other Fathers, a position that is now accepted by the great mass of modern scholars in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Dr. N. B. Stonehouse, in his doctor's dissertation, “The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church,” says. “Eusebius came under the spell of this theology (the antichiliasm of Dionysius) through teachers who had been disciples of Origen. . . . The prominence which Eusebius gives to the criticism of Dionysitis upon the Apocalypse by devoting to it an entire chapter in his Ecclesiastical History is motivated by more than historical interest. “-Page 131. “This hesitating attitude can only mean that Eusebius was at odds with the church. Personally he is quite ready to classify it [the Apocalypse] with the spurious works, but in deference to its acceptance as canonical not only in the West but also by the leading teachers in the East, including Origen, he places it also among the undisputed books. . . . It is no wonder, then, that it is generally admitted that Eusebius was dogmatically biased in ninch the same way as Dionysius, and was quite ready to destroy the influence of the Apocalypse in the church.”-Id., p. 133. This is the way he did it. He did it by degrading it to the level of the disputed catholic epistles. “After all, Eusebius could best gain his ends by admitting I hat it had long enjoyed an honorable place in the church, like the epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter, and then showing through criticism, like that of Dionysius, that John had not written it any more than the companion of Paul and the apostle Peter had written certain works ascribed to them.” Id., P. 134. Is it not possible that Eusebius had a similar motive in writing about the epistles of Ignatius? At least there is certainly danger in putting too much confidence in his integrity in these matters.

8. Lightfoot mentions the Armenian translation of the Ignatian epistles as containing the seven Vossian letters, but says that they were translated from the Syriac rather than from the Greek, for, “where they cover the same ground, they agree absolutely.” Thus he concludes that the original Syriac must have been the seven and that these were later abridged into the three. That, of course, is one possible solution to the question. Another might be that the man who translated this work into the Armenian had the three short Syriac originals in his possession, from which he did his translating. Then after this work was done he might have been informed of the other forged epistles that were in existence, which he then incorporated into his text. Is not this as possible as the other theory? Many people today are still translating the epistles of Ignatius which they fully believe have been forged, but they do it to satisfy a certain group. Is it not possible that men were actuated by similar motives in those times?

9. Doctor Lightfoot says, “The abridgment is simple, but the interpolation theory is difficult.” However, Cureton adds, “We know of no instances of such abridgment in any Christian writer; while examples of fabrication, additions, and interpolations are most numerous.”-English Review, Vol. IF, P. 319. Lightfoot acknowledges that the Syriac group is shorter, and “more rugged and forcible than the Vossian.” In laying down the rules for testing the value of texts, Dr. Ira Maurice Price says, “In general, the shorter reading is preferable to the longer, because insertions and additions are more probable than omissions.... The more difficult and obscure reading is preferable to the one that is more easy and simple in construction.”-”Ancestry of English Bible,” P. 203. On the basis of these criteria, the shorter Syriac recension should more likely be the true reading.

These are the points which Lightfoot produced in favor of the seven Vossian epistles of Ignatius. We must acknowledge that if these were the only points to be taken into consideration, there might be considerable reason for accepting his conclusion. Yet not one of his points is conclusive in itself. Although there seems to be some plausibility in his conclusions, yet with each one of them there is another way of interpretation that is just as plausible. Perhaps we might say that taking the whole list together there remains about a fifty-fifty choice in the matter. However, it seems to me there are other questions besides these that are more vital and not so easily brushed aside. Dr. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in his comment upon Eusebius' Church History, book 3, chapter 36, in a note on Ignatius, says, “The great difficulties which have stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are, first and chiefly, the highly developed form of church government which they [the seven] reveal; and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in them. Both of these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later than the reign of Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius' martyrdom. Harnack regards these two difficulties as very serious, if not absolutely fatal to the supposition that the epistles were written during the reign of Trajan.”

Ignatius lived during the last years of the first century, and was bishop of Antioch, the city that led out in opposition to the innovation of ideas not taught by the apostles. Here in this city the apostles passed to and from in their labors. Thus Ignatius surely must have been associated with the apostle John, who had been a companion of Jesus. His later associates were Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and the author of “The Shepherd of Hermes.” Some of these lived and wrote forty years after Ignatius had passed away, but all agreed with one another and with the New Testament concerning offices and the positions of the leaders in the church. None of them make any distinction between bishops and presbyters. The Syriac recension fully agrees with all of these, whereas the Vossian group does not, but writes in a strain similar to that of two centuries later.

I quote from the epistles in the Syriac recension. In Ignatius' letter to the Romans, chapter 4, we have these words, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles, I am but a condemned man.” To the Ephesians, chapter 1, we have these words, “Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like Him.” In the epistle to Polycarp, we have the following: “Let nothing be done without thy [Polycarp] consent; neither also do thou anything without the approval of God.”-Chapter 4. “But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to the Lord.”-Chapter 3. “My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbytery, and to the deacons. . . . Labor together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together. “-Chapter 6. Here in these writings of Ignatius you will see the same spirit and attitude that we find in the epistles of the apostle Paul. Here are indications of democracy, with no distinction between bishops and presbyters.

Now suppose we note the same in the seven Vossian epistles of the longer recension. In the letter to the Ephesians, chapter 6, is the following: “It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” This sounds more like Gregory VII than the apostle Paul. In his epistle to the Trallians, chapter 7, we have the following, 'We who does anything apart from the bishop, and the presbyter, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.---

In the letter to the Philadelphians, in chapter 7, we have the following, “Do nothing without the bishop.” Then in chapter 10, he mentions, “In some cases bishops, and in others presbyters and deacons.” Here we have a clear distinction between bishops and presbyters which we did not have in the other recension. In his letter to the Smyrnians he writes in chapter 8, “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles.” In chapter 9 he writes, “It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.... He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop does [in reality] serve the devil.” To the Magnesians, chapter 6, we have the following: “I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons.” Here we have the vicar sitting in the place of God on earth, Can we believe that an associate of the apostle John wrote such words? No other man for more than a hundred years after this wrote in any such strain.

So far as the doctrines in the Syriac group are concerned, they are in full accord with those of the New Testament. In the letter to the Smyrnians, chapter 7, of the Vossian Greek recension, however, complaint is made because “they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” We hear of no such language as this in any contemporary literature or in the short Syriac form. These are arguments that arose in the church at a later time.

In the letter to the Ephesians, chapter 7, we have another argument that is not found in the early part of the second century. It reads, “There is one physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh, true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,-even Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In regard to the Jewish law: “But if anyone preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him.”- Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap 6. “For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. “-Epistle to the Magnesians, chap 8. “It is absurd to profess Jesus Christ, and to Judaize.”-Id., chap. 10. “If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day.”-]d., chap. 9. I cannot see how it is possible to think of Ignatius, a companion of the apostle John, as expressing himself in such words as these.

Cureton writes, “lit the Epistle to the Ephesians in the Syriac recension, at least two thirds of the matter has been omitted. Now had these passages so omitted been part of the original epistle, it seems hardly possible that they could have been taken away in the manner in which they have been-sometimes whole chapters, at others considerable parts, sometimes whole sentences, and at others half sentences, or - single words without interrupting the general tenor of the epistle, or cause any hiatus, and producing obscurity. But what is now the state of the case? Not only is no obscurity caused, nor the tenor of the epistle broken, but, on the contrary, several places, which before were unintelligible, became now clear; the whole epistle runs on uninterruptedly; each sentence adheres closely to that which precedes it; and, what is still more remarkable, all this without the necessity of making even slightest grammatical change in the order or construction of the sentences.”-English Review, Vol. IV, p. 320.

After reading all the arguments of Lightfoot and others, the church historian, A. H. Newman writes, “As already intimated, Zahn and Lightfoot have, in the opinion of a large majority of competent judges, established the originality of the shorter Greek form of the epistles, as corn pared with any other form. If there are any genuine Ignatian epistles, these alone can claim to be such.”-A Manual of Church History, A. H. Newman, Vol. 1, P. 223. Then he adds, “We must admit the possibility of the supposed circumstances and of the supposed psychological status and consequent acts of Ignatius; but we may well be excused if we find ourselves unable to agree with these great scholars, as to the probabilities of the case. The objection based upon the writers' strong episcopal tendencies has little weight; but questions like the following thrust themselves upon us, and are not set aside by the plausible answers that have been given: Is it psychologically conceivable, or if so, is it within the bounds of probability, that a Christian man who had associated with the apostles, and who by reason of this character and abilities had attained to a position of commanding influence throughout Syria and Asia Minor, could think, write, and act as Ignatius is represented as doing in these documents?”-Id., P. 224.

“We conclude: First, that there probably was an Antiochan bishop in the time of Trajan named Ignatius; secondly, that he probably suffered martyrdom at Rome; thirdly, that he probably wrote some letters on his journey; fourthly, that what he wrote furnished the basis of the extant Ignatian documents; fifthly, to what extent interpolations have occurred it is impossible to determine.”-Id., p. 226.

In writing of these same epistles, Dr. E. de Pressense, the great French historian, concludes without a question that the Syriac is the true recension of Ignatius. He writes, “According to a Syriac manuscript, which has thrown much light upon this question, three only of the seven letters attributed to Ignatius are genuine.----”The Early Years of Christianity,” Vol. 11, P. 223, 4th edition. Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Then in a note on page 631, he gives his reason for his position as follows: “Daille clearly establishes that Ignatius could not have combated in the year 107, heresies which had no definite existence till the middle of the second century, nor have given expression to the theory of an episcopal monarchy, at a period when it is notorious that the identity of the bishop and the elder was still maintained.”

“For our own part, we are fully convinced, on the following grounds, that Cureton hag given us the genuine Ignatius. [The three Syriac letters.] First, we remark that prior to Eusebius no evidence can be brought forward from the Fathers, in support of a single passage of the ancient Greek text of Ignatius. Irenaeus (“Adv. Haeres,” v. 28) quotes a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, which is found in the two editions of Ignatius. Origen cites a passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is in the Syriac, and this other passage from the Epistle to the Romans, which also occurs in the Syriac.... Whatever Pearson may say, it cannot but appear unaccountable that Irenaeus, who is so glad to strengthen his position by the testimony of his predecessors, should not have cited the passages in which Ignatius opposes the same heretics as he himself, if those passages had been before his eyes....

“Second, A comparison of the shortest Greek text with the Syriac, is in itself sufficient to prove the priority of the latter.... Thus, in the Syriac, lanais contents himself with expressing his gratitude to the Ephesians for sending to him their bishop, while in the Greek we have five chapters making use of the occasion to lay down the most monarchical theories of episcopacy (chaps. 3-8). The Syriac subsequently gives some earnest exhortations, full, at the same time of firmness and gentleness. In the Greek these are drowned in fierce invectives against the heretics (chaps. 8, M), and in prolix dissertations. But the interpolation is still more palpable at the end of the epistle. The Syriac simply speaks of the star which announced the reign of the Savior. The Greek develops this theme after the, manner of the Apocryphal Gospels. 'A star,' it says, 'shone in the heavens surpassing in glory every other star; its light was ineffable, and its straitness threw men into consternation.' . . .

“Third. considered from a doctrinal point of view, the Syriac bears the character of far greater antiquity than the Greek. . . . While the Syriac simply says that he who was invisible became visible for our salvation, the Greek enters into an expansion of the doctrine, such as the following, 'There is one sole physician, clothed in human flesh, and yet spiritual, made and not made, God existing in man, true life in death, born of Mary and of God, once subject to suffering, now impassable, Jesus Christ our Lord.' The heresies indicated ... unmistakable traits of Gnostic docetism. Now, this docetism did not assume such definite form till a far later period. . . .

“Fourth, there is a great difference between Syriac and the Greek in regard to ecclesiastical organization.... The bishop according to the Greek, is invested with an apostolic character. . . . He is positively the vicar of God and of Jesus Christ. To obey the bishop is to obey the will of God. It is he who directs the worship. We are brought into the presence of a fully developed episcopal organization. it is impossible to reconcile such language with that of Clement of Rome, of Polycarp, or of the 'Shepherd of Hermes.' In the Syriac, nothing of this sort appears. . . .

Fifth, the interpolations of the Greek text are very evident in the legendary additions made to the Syriac in the details of Ignatitis' journey, and of the feelings of the martyr. The Syriac simply shows us the bishop Onesimus by the side of Ignatius ('Adv. Eph.,' 1), joined afterwards by some deputies from the churches ('Rom.' xx). According to the Creek text, he presides over regular assemblies of the church, and conducts formal discussions ('Phil.,' vii, viii).... Even Ignatius himself does not appear to us in the same light in the Syriac and the Greek. The former shows him blending gentleness -with firmness; the latter represents him as a fanatic and violent man; it exaggerates his humility, and makes him say, in his Epistle to the Romans, that he was ashamed to be called a Christian ('Rom.,' vii). From a comparison of the two texts, the priority of the Syriac is to us established beyond doubt.... The Syriac does not on any of these points go beyond the Epistle to the Ephesians.----Id., pp. 631-634.

What does all this tend to indicate? To me it indicates that the three short Syriac letters are most likely the three genuine Ignatian epistles. If not, the others are most certainly so interpolated that no one can depend upon them for guidance in regard to any teaching or doctrine of Ignatius.

My reasons briefly summarized are as follows:

1. The great Doctor Lightfoot in his most thorough investigations has produced no evidence in favor of the Vossian group that cannot be answered from the standpoint of the integrity of the Syriac epistles.

2. The seven Vossian epistles contain ideas concerning the episcopacy that are entirely out of harmony with ideas prevailing at the time of Ignatius.

3. The doctrines described in the Vossian group are entirely out of accord with those of the time of Ignatius, the companion and associate of Polycarp and the apostle John.

4. Irenaeus said that Polycarp, a close companion of Ignatius, “always taught the things he had learned from the apostles, and which the church has handed down, and which alone are true, to these things all the Asiatic churches testify.”-Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” book 3, chap. 3, par. 4. This indicates a close checkup as to what was being taught among the people of this section, and, outside of the Vossian group of epistles, all historical records seem to coincide with these words. Therefore, I must conclude that much in the seven epistles has been interpolated.

5. This position fully agrees with that of Philip Schalf. He says, “These oldest documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud, that it is today almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper- and pseudo-Ignatius of tradition.”-”History of the Christian Church,” Vol. II, 2 volume edition, P. 660.

6. Therefore, my conclusion accords with that of the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article “Ignatius.” Here we have the summary of the best scholarly results on this question, as follows: “The cautious student of the history of polity and doctrine will decline to base important conclusions on the unsupported testimony of these writings.” Or, in other words he will ignore them if vital conclusions are dependent upon them alone.

Footnotes and References

Chapter 1. Did Gentile Converts Keep the Sabbath?

1. Philip Schaff, “History of the Christian Church,” Vol. 1, p. 337. 1920, 7 volume Edition.
2. Arthur Cushman MeGiffert, “The Apostolic Age,” p. 105. Scribners, 1928.
3. Phillip Schaff “History of Apostolic Christianity,” Vol. I, p. 347.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883, 2 Volume Edition.
4. George T. Purves, “The Apostolic Age,” p. 150. New York: Scribners, 1908.
Note. - Doctor Purves says, ' Now, fornication was regarded by the Jews, as well it might be, as a typical pagan custom. It was often sanctified by pagan religions, and nowhere more so than in Western Asia. It was too often regard with indifference in Graeco-Roman society. It therefore would naturally be mentioned by a Jew as a threatened Gentile abomination.” “The Apostolic Age,” P. 149.
5. Philip Schaff, “History of Apostolic Christianity,” Vol. I, p. 349.
6. Note. -Schaff, in speaking of this decree, says, “The Gentile form of greeting, Xalpeiv [chairein], Acts 15:23, occurs again in James 1:1, but nowhere else in the New Testament except in the letter of the heathen, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26)” --”History of Apostolic Christianity, - Vol. I, Page 345. This would show that the letter was from James and was sent to the Gentiles, for he gives a Gentile salutation
7. Adolph Harnack “The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,”
Vol. I, p. 51. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Chapter 2. What Was Done Away by Christ?

1. Shirley Jackson Case, 'Evolution of Early Christianity,” p. 244.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914.
2. E. de Pressense, ‘'Early Years of Christianity, Apostolic Age,” pp. 328, 329.
London : Hodder and Stoughton, 1886.
3. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” book 4, chap. 15, par. 1.
4. “Apostolic Constitutions,” book 6, par. 22.
5. Socrates, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 5, chap. 22.

Chapter 3. Sunday in the Early Church

1. Cheyne and Black, Encyclopedia Biblica, article, “Lord's Day.”
2. Chrysostom, “Homilies on First Corinthians.”
3. Conybeare and Howson, “Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul,” p. 520.
New York: Thos. Y. Crowell & Go.
4. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “The Apostolic Age,” p. 543. New York: Scribners, 1928.
5. Jerome, Letter to Lucinius, Letter 71.
6. Basil, Letter 93.
7. Sozomen, “Ecclesiastical Histories,” book 7, chap. 19.
8. John Cassius, “Institutes,” book 2, chap. 18.
9. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” chap. 67. 10. “Didache,” chap. 14.
11. Socrates, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 5, chap. 22.
12. Pliny, Letter 96.
13. Phifi Schaff, 'Mistory of Apostolic Christianity,” Vol. 1, p. 247.
Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1883, 2 volume edition.
14. Adolph Harnack “Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,” Vol. I, pp. 72-74.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
15. Philip Schaff, '’History of Apostolic Christianity,” Vol. I, p. 359,
16. Robert Rainy, “The Ancient Catholic Church,” pp. 19, 20. New York: Scribners, 1902.

Chapter 4. The Lord's Day

1. NOTE-There are some who still hold that John was not the author of the apocalypse. However, N. B. Stonehouse, in 1929, rather firmly established the fact at the evidence overwhelmingly points to the apostle John as the author. He shows that Irenacus, Justin Martyr, Turtullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, and others believed that the apostle was the author. The first to oppose this idea was Dionysius, in the third century, and his reason was that he wanted to confute those who were teaching about the millennium. This he tried to do b showing that no one could understand the book, and that it does not claim that John is the author. Then in the next century, Euschius, who seemed to be prejudiced against the book, claimed that Papias, a companion of the apostle, said that the author was a second John, and not the apostle. I quote from Stonehouse: “The writer is inclined to doubt the interpretation of Eusebius. On the supposition that there were two Johns, we have the extraordinary, and not satisfactorily accounted for, phenomenon that 'no trace of such a person appears until about the beginning of the fourth century, when Eusebius calls attention to the significance of Papias' language, though Papias’ book had been well known through centuries, when the Alogi and others were seeking a non-apostolic authorship for the Johannine Apocalypse, and Dionysius was unable to find any evidence of a second John in Asia to whom to attribute it, except the two tombs at Ephesus.' “-”The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church,” P. 44. Goes (Hol. ,and Oosterbaan & Le Cointre.
2. See John 3:23, 24; 6:70, 71; 7:50; 9:22; 11:50, 51; 12:31-33; 13:26-29; 18:13, 14. 40; 21:22, 23.
3. “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” Vol. XVI.
4. Eusebium, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 4, chap. 23.
5. “Didache,” chap. 14.
6. The authenticity of the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is seriously questioned, and will he considered later, as will he also Pliny's letter, which, however, does not mention the Lord's day, but only a “certain stated day.” Tertullian Was born about the same time as Clement but was not converted until the very close of the century. He will be considered with men of the third century.
7. Clement, “Miscellanies.” book 5, chap. 14.

Chapter 5. Gnosticism

1. A. H. Sayce, “Religion of the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians,” p. 230.
Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1902.
2. E. de Pressense, “The Early Years of Christianity,” Vol. III, pp. 15, 18.
London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1884.
3. Hippolytus, “Refutation of All Heresies,” book 6, chap. 9. 4
4. Hippolytus, “Refutation of All Heresies,” book 8, chap. 7.
5. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” book 1, chap. 25, par. 6.
6. Hippolytus, “Refutation of all Heresies,” book 6, chap. 24.
7. Henry Hart Milman, “The History of Christianity,” Vol. II, p. 355.
London: John Murry, 1875.
8. William Taylor Olcott, “Sun Lore in All Ages,” p. 141.
New York: Putnam's Sons, 1914.
9. Franz Curnont. “The Mysteries of Mithra,” p. 101. Chicago: Open Court, 1910.
10. August Neander, “General History of the Christian Religion and Church”,
Vol. II, p. 194. London: Henry G Bohn, 1851
11. Franz Cumont, “Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans”,
Page 163. New York: Putnam's, 1912.
12. Franz Cumont, “The Mysteries of Mithra”, Page 167.
13. E. de Pressense, 'The Early Years of Christianity,” Vol. In, pp. 45, 46.
14. Albert Henry Newman, “A Manual of Church History,” Vol. I, pp. 191-194.
Philadelphia, American Baptist Publishing Society.

Chapter 6. Sunday at Alexandria in the Second Century

1. Charles Bigg, “The Origins of Christianity,” p. 401. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 909.
2. Irenacus, “Against Heresies,' book 3, chap. 3, par. 4.
3. Charles Bigg, “The Origins of Christianity,” p. 118.
4. Robert Rainy, “The Ancient Catholic Church,” p. 117. New York: Scribners, 1902.
5. The writings of lqnatius will be considered later, as he does not belong to this class; and Origen lived in the third century.
6. The Epistle ot Barnabas, chapter 15.
7. Justin Martyr, “Second Apology,” chap. 13.
8. Herbert B. Workman, “Christian Thought to the Reformation,” p. 23. London: Duckworth, 1911.
9. Justin Martyr. “First Apology,” chap. 67.
10. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho,” chap. 23.
11. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho,” chap. 12.
12. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho,” chap. 41.
13. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 ed., article, “Clement of Alexandria.”
14. Charles Bigg, “The Origins of Christianity,” p. 405.
15. Charles Bigg, “The Origins of Christianity,” p. 411.
16. Clement, “Miscellanies,” book 6, chap. 14.
17. Clement, “Miscellanies.” book 6. chap. 16.
18. Clement, “Miscellanies,” book 5, chap. 14.
19. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, article, 'Alexandrian Theology. New York: Scribners, 1915.

Chapter 7. Sunday in Asia in the Second Century

1. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, article, “Alexandrian Theology.”
New York: Scribners, 1915.
2. Origen was a pupil of Clement, and had the same theology. However, he lived in the third century, and is, therefore, not mentioned here. And since Barnabas is unknown, he too, to not mentioned.
3. Charles Bigg, “The Origins of Christianity,” pp. 143, 144. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1909.
4. Irenacus, “Against Heresies,” book 3, chap. 3, par. 4.
5. “The Martyrdom of Polycarp,” chap. 21.
6. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” book 4, chap. 13, par. 1.
7. Irenacus, “Against Heresies,” book 4, chap. 15, par. 1.
8. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” book 4, chap. 16, par. 1.
9. Letter, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” book 2, chaps. 11,12.
10. Polycarp, “Epistle to the Philippians,” chap. 13.
11. Ignatius, “Epistle to the Magnesians,” chap. 9.
12. In one of these epistles the people were told not to keep the Sabbath, but to keep the Lord's day. In the other the author says: "After the observance of the Sabbath let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day." For more information see appendix.
13. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 46. New York: Scribners, 1913.
14. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article, “Ignatius.”
15. Phillip Schaff 'History of the Christian Church,” Vol. II, p. 660.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889.
16. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article, “Ignatius.”
17. “Pliny's Letters,” book 10, epist. 97.

Chapter 8. Events and Changes in the Second Century

1. Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 4, chap. 6.
2. Robert Rainy, “The Ancient Catholic Church,” p. 19. New York: Scribners, 1902.
3. Eusehius, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 4, chap. 5.
4. Shirley Jackson Case, 'Evolution of Early Christianity,” pp. 123, 124.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914.
5. Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 4, chap. 6.
6. Syriac document, “The Teaching of the Apostles,” Article 15.
7. Eusebius, “Life of Constantine,” book 3, chap. 18.
8. Eusebius, “Life of Constantine,” book 4, chap. 27.
9. Third Synod of Orleans, Canon 13.
10. Council of Laodicea, Canon 29.
11. Adolph Harnack, “What Is Christianity?” pp. 221, 222.
London: Williams and Norgate, 1901.
12. Adolph Harnack, “What Is Christianity?” pp. 215, 216.
13. Philip Schaff, “History of the Christian Church,” Volume II, pp. 722-725.
Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1889.
14. Williston Walker, “A History of the Christian Church,” pp. 59, 62, 77.
New York: Scribners, 1929.
15. Adolph Harnack, “What Is Christianity?” pp. 222, .223.

Chapter 9. Sunday in the Third Century

1. Origen, “Against Celsus,” book 2, chap. 6.
2. Origen, “Against Celsus,” book 2, chap. 7.
3. Origen, “Against Celsus,” book 8, chap. 22.
4. Origen, “Against Celsus,” book 5, chap. 60.
5. Origen, “Against Celsus,” book 5, chap. 61.
6. Tertullian, “Against Marcion,” book 4, chap. 12.
7. Tertullian, “An Answer to the Jews,” chap. 4.
8. Tertullian, “The Chaplet” or “De Corona,” chap. 3.
9. Tertullian, “Ad Nationes,” book 1, chap. 13.
10. Dionysius, Letter to Basilides. canon 1.
11. “The Apostolic Constitutions,” book 2, chap. 36.
12. “The Apostolic Constitutions,” book 7, chap. 23.
13. “The Apostolic Constitutions,” book 8, chap. 33.
14. Syriac document, “The Teaching of the Apostles,” selections from articles 1.15.
15. “Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus With the Heresiarch Manes,” chap. 42. 11
16. “Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus With the Heresiarch Manes,” chap. 31.

Chapter 10. Sunday In The Fourth Century

1. Charles Joseph Hefele, 'History of the Church Councils,” Council of Elvira, canon 21.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894.
2. Constantine's Sunday Law:
“On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting “-Codex Justinianus, Library 3, Title 123; quoted in, History of the Christian Church, By Philip Schaff, Vol. Ill, p. 380, 7 Volume Edition.
3. Charles Joseph Hefele, 'History of the Church Councils,”
Third Synod of Orleans, Canon 28.
4. Jerome, “Letters to Eustochius,” letter 108.
5. Cyril of Jerusalem, “Lectures,” Lecture 4, par. 37.
6. Victorinus, “On the Creation of the World.”
7. John of Damascus, “Against the Jews on the Question of the Sabbath,” chap. 23.
8. Council of Laodicea, canon 29, “History of the Church Councils,” Charles Joseph Hefele.
9. Gregory of Nyssa, Letter to Flavian, letter 18.
10. John Cassius, “Institutes,” book 3, chap. 2.
11. Chrysostom, “Commentary on Galatians,” chap. 1, par. 7.
12. Socrates, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 5, chap. 22.
13. Sozomen, “Ecclesiastical History,” book 7, chap. 19. 6
14. “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article, “Alexandria.”

11. Pagan and Christian Rituals

1. A. H. Sayce “Religions of the Ancient Egyptians, and Babylonians,” pp. 229, 230.
Edinborough, T & T Clark, 1902.
2. Franz Cumont, “Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism,” pp. 56, 57.
Chicago: Open Court, 1907.
3. William T. Olcott, “Sun Lore in All Ages,” p. 229,New York, Putnam's, 1914.
4. Samuel Dill, Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius,” pp. 577, 578.
London: Macmillan, 1904.
5. Flinders Petrie, “Egypt and Israel,” pp. 137-141. New York: E. S. Gorham
6. W. W. Tarn. 'Hellenistic Civilization.” p. 324.

Chapter 12. Heathen Customs and the Church

1. Irenaeus. “Against Heresies,” book 3. chaps. 3, 4.
2. Mosheim's “Ecclesiastical History” cennt. 2, part 2, chap. 4, par. 3,
note. 1844 edition. Translated by Archibald Maclaine.
3. Charles Bigg, “Origins of Christianity,” p. 411. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909.
4. Edwyn Bevan, “Hellenism and Christianity,” p. 77. London:
George Allan and Unwin, 1921.
5. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, article, “Neo-Platonism.”
6. E. de Pressense, “The Early Years of Christianity,” Vol. II, pp. 69, 70.
London. Hodder and Stoughton, 1884.
7. Henry Hart Milman, 'History of the Christian Church,” Vol II, pp. 266, 270.
8. Edwyn Bevan, “Hellenism and Christianity,” pp. 112, 113.
9. Encyclopedia Brittanica, 14th ed., article, “Plotinus,”
10. Franz Cumont, “Mysteries of Mithra,” p. 184. Chicago: Open Court, 1910.
11. Franz Cumont, “Mysteries of Mithra,” p. 193.
12. Ephraim Syrus, “Hymn on the Nativity,” chap. 15, pars. 7-10.
13. Ephraim Syrus, “Hymn on the Nativity,” chap. 19, par. 3.
14. “Tacitus describe to us how, at the battle of Bedriacum in 69 AD.
the soldiers of Vespasian saluted the rising sun with loud shouts after the Syrian custom.”
Franz Cumont, “Astrology and Religion” p. 161.
15. Tertullian, “Apolog “ chap. 16.
16. Syrian Document, “Teaching of the Apostles” article 1.
17. John of Damascus. “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” chap. 12.
18. Gregory Thaumaturgus, “Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen,” Argument 14.
19. Gerhard Uhlhorn, “The Conflict of Christianity With Heathenism,” p. 440.
New York: Scribners, 1908.
20. Gerhard Uhlhorn, “The Conflict of Christianity With Heathenism,” pp. 431, 435.
21. Franz Cumont, “Mysteries of Mithra,” p. 193.
22. Charles Hen Robinson, “The Conversion of Europe,” p. 236.
London: Longman and Green, 7917.

Chapter 13. How Sunday Came Into the Church

1. “The Conflict of Christianity With Heathenism,” p. 440. New York: Scribners, 1908.
2. Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, article, “Sabbath.”
3. Stephen Keenan, “Doctrinal Catechism,” p. 174.

To Beginning