So-Called Christian Fathers

The Signs of the Times February 17, 1881

By S.N. Haskell

THE religious world is ever troubled with theological questions which create religious controversies. These questions are of two classes. One arises upon merely theoretical subjects, which do not affect practical godliness, and are, therefore, of no account only as they produce religious dissensions. The other class pertains to practical truths which affect the habits of men. It is habit that forms character, and inasmuch as righteous character is the qualification for eternal life, these discussions are important. Much depends, however, upon the spirit in which they are engaged. It should ever be the motive of investigators to learn how to live better, and not to strive for the mastery over one another. The Bible, and the Bible alone, presents the true standard for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, in righteousness. Here is the Protestant's rule: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

In a note found in the Douay, or Catholic Bible, upon these words we find the following: "If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy,—that is, with the Old Testament alone,—nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it." But Protestants will not admit for a moment the papist rule; and yet, they are often found in a dilemma, where practically they do adopt it. If some darling doctrine cherished by them is found not to be sustained in the Bible, they then not unfrequently appeal to the Fathers.

But who are these early Christian Fathers that are to supply the supposed deficiency of the Scriptures in not teaching us the whole truth? They are a class of men who lived during the first three centuries of the Christian era, many of them holding prominent positions in the Christian church. If they were no more reliable than the Christian fathers of to-day, certainly men would not want to risk their salvation on their opinion. And we have no reason to believe human nature was any different then from what it is now. The apostle Paul gives a vivid description of the state of things in the early Christian church, as follows: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29, 30.

It follows from this testimony, that we are not authorized to receive the teachings of any man simply because he lived immediately after the apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how these were to be distinguished from the true servants of God, this is the proper answer: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise, were of that class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

Dr. Adam Clarke speaks of the early Christian Fathers as follows: "There is not a truth in the most orthodox creed which cannot be proved by their authority, nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church that may not challenge them as their abettors. In point of doctrine, their authority is with me, nothing." Again, he says: "We should take heed how we quote the Fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel, because he who knows them best knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold." It is therefore evident that there is no more reliability to be placed upon the early Christian Fathers, than the Christian fathers of the nineteenth century; and yet when the Bible fails to prove certain theories that men hold, they will resort to the early Christian Fathers. We will take for instance one doctrine to illustrate this.

There has been and still is a question of dispute among theologians respecting which day should be observed as the Sabbath of the Bible. All are agreed as to what the Old Testament teaches, viz. that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord. Finding ourselves a Sunday-keeping nation, which practice has been handed to us by our fathers, it is claimed that it came down to us in an unbroken chain from the days of the apostles,—that the apostles, by the authority of Christ, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day, in view of his resurrection having taken place upon that day. But when we come to the New Testament, it is nowhere thus taught. The first day of the week, or resurrection day, is never called the Sabbath, but is ever spoken of as the day after the Sabbath, as, "In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week;" or, "And when the Sabbath was past, . . . . very early in the morning towards the first day of the week," etc., thus making a distinction between the Sabbath and first day. The apostles, also, never kept it. They taught in the synagogues and by the river side, always to both Jews and Gentiles, upon the Sabbath. See Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 14:21; 17:1, 2; 18:4; 16:12, 13.

Further than this, the first day of the week is spoken of as a laboring day, as the disciples anointed the body of the Saviour on that day. Paul instructed the Corinthian church, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him [at his own house at home] in store as God hath prospered him." But when these facts appear, the early Christian Fathers are appealed to, and notwithstanding it is supposed that much light is to be found in the testimony of the early Fathers. It is a remarkable fact that not one of them for the first three centuries ever testified that the apostles told them Christ ever changed the Sabbath, and not one of them ever alludes to the idea of such a change. Not one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor indeed ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful, nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was absolutey unknown in the first three centuries of the Christian church. The truth is, no writer of the first century and none of the second, prior to A. D. 194, who is known to speak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord's day. Thus much for the early Christian Fathers on the first-day Sabbath.

The subject will receive further consideration next week.

Men never would appeal to the Fathers were it not for the cherished custom they have, and the entire absence of Bible testimony to vindicate it. They who possess Christian simplicity sufficient to believe in God and take his word as the man of their counsel and the guide of their life, will find in the end they possess true wisdom.

Study. Pray. Share.