|
|
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced"
by D.M. Canright, 1914
The one great point in the
Sabbath question upon which Seventh-day Adventists stake the most, upon which
they insist the strongest, which they repeat the most frequently and the most
confidently, is that the pope of
They claim that Sunday keeping came from the
pagans through the pope into the church. Thus: "The name, origin,
authority, and sacredness of the Sunday institution are altogether and only
pagan." Replies to Elder Canright, page133. Then the pope changed the
Sabbath into the Sunday. Mrs. White says: “The pope had changed it [the
Sabbath] from the seventh day to the first day of the week." Again:
"The pope had changed the day of rest from the seventh to first day."
Early Writings, pages 26, 55. Again: "Here we find the mark of the beast.
The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic
church, without any authority from the Bible." The Mark of the Beast, page
23. "Sunday keeping must be the 'mark of the beast.'" The Marvel of
Nations, by U. Smith, page 183. To this claim Mrs. White has set the seal of
divine inspiration. She says: "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or
mark of the authority of the Rominish church." "The keeping of the counterfeit
Sabbath is the reception of the mark." Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page
281.
This settles it with every Seventh-day
Adventist. My experience is that a belief of this as a fact induces more
persons to give up Sunday for Saturday than all other arguments made by the
seventh-day people. Convince a man that Sunday-keeping is only a Catholic
institution, a rival to the Lord's Sabbath and hateful to God, and of course,
if he has any conscience, he will keep into longer. Every one of them accepts
this as a historical fact in fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. Indeed, this is the
one main pillar in their whole system, upon which all the rest depends. If
their position upon this point is false, then their whole system is also false,
as they will readily admit. On this Elder Waggoner says: "Elder Canright
did not exaggerate when he said that we consider this a material question. We
do indeed so consider it." Replies to Elder Canright, page 165. Then they
should be able to prove the point very plainly. They claim to be raised up to
preach against this change of the Sabbath by the pope.
The unmingled wrath of God is soon to be
poured out upon all who continue to keep Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath. It would
seem that such a radical position should be supported by the clearest evidence.
They claim that it is a historical fact that somewhere during the first five
centuries after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday. If this be
so, they should be able to produce reliable historical proof for it, giving the
TIME, MANNER, PLACE,PERSONS, FACTS and REASONS for so remarkable an occurrence.
I have before me two books written expressly to prove this assertion. They are:
"Who Changed the Sabbath?" 24 pages, and "Marvel of
Nations," 282 pages. But the only direct proof offered is simply
quotations from Catholic Catechisms, which claim that their church made the
change! And is this all the historical (?)proof they can present on this point?
Yes, for all that the Sabbatarian writers and scholars for the last 200 years
have been able to find is just this and nothing more. Not one single historian
in all the annals of the world has ever stated that the pope changed the
Sabbath. For twenty-eight years I myself quoted these catechisms as proof
positive on that subject.
Goaded by my call for proof on this point,
the Adventists selected Elder Waggoner to answer it, to find some author who
says that the pope changed the Sabbath. The elder made a desperate attempt,
covering forty-nine closely printed pages. He searched the libraries of
Moreover, even the claims of the Catechism
are misrepresented. The theory is that some hundreds of years after Christ the
pope, by his own authority, changed the Sabbath, and the Catechisms are
explained to teach this idea. But not one of them make such a claim or anything
like it. Every one of these Catholic quotations states distinctly that the
change in the Sabbath was made, not by the pope, but "by the church"
in the days of Christ and the apostles, not several hundred years afterward.
Thus:
"Question: What are the days which the
church commands to be kept holy?
"Answer: 1. The Sunday, or our Lord's day, which we observe by apostolic
tradition, instead of the Sabbath." Catholic Christian Instructed, page
209.
From the same work, we take the following:
"Question: What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the
ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?"
"Answer: We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and
apostolic tradition."
Catholics claim that their "church"
originated in the days of the apostles, and any change made by the apostolic
church was made by the Catholic church. Hence they claim that the
"Catholic church" changed the Sabbath in the days of the apostles.
Adventists in using these quotations from the Cathechisms explain them as
saying that the change was made by the apostate popes hundreds of years after
the apostles. But the Catechisms claim no such thing, as is seen in the above
quotations. Thus even the Catechisms, when fairly read, teach that Sunday
observance originated with the Christian church in the days of the apostles,
just the truth exactly.
That Adventists do misrepresent the teachings
of the Catholics is shown by the following testimony of a Catholic Priest:
"Having lived for years among the Seventh-day Adventists, I am familiar
with their claims that the Pope of Rome changed the Sabbath from the seventh
day to the first day of the week. Such assertions are wholly unfounded.
Catholics claim no such thing; but maintain that the apostles themselves
established the observance of Sunday and that we received it by tradition from
them. The councils and popes afterwards simply confirmed the keeping of the day
as received from the apostles. John Meiler, Rector of
The "Catholic Dictionary," by Addis
and Arnold, after quoting Rev. 1:10;Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2 says: These texts
"seem to indicate that Sunday was already a sacred day on which deeds of
love were specially suitable. Heb.10:25 shows this much: that the Christians,
when the epistle was written, had regular days of assembly. The scriptural
references given above show that the observance of Sunday had begun in the
apostolic age; but even were Scripture silent tradition would put this point
beyond all doubt."
John Ankatell, A.M., priest of the diocese of
We will now present historical evidence,
proving that the observance of the first day of the week as a day of worship
was universal among Christians in the days immediately following the apostles.
If Sunday worship originated here, then it did not originate with the papacy,
which came up several hundred years later.
Pliny's Letter, A.D. 107.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pliny was the governor of
Eusebius, the historian, A.D. 324, says:
"I think that he [the psalmist]describes the morning assemblies in which
we are accustomed to assemble throughout the world." "By this is
prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every
morning of the resurrection day throughout the whole world." Sabbath
Manual, page 125. This is exactly what Pliny says: They met together "on a
stated day before it was light," they assembled to eat together a meal.
Eusebius says it was the custom of all Christians "to meet very early and
every morning of the resurrection day." This ought to settle it and does.
Pliny's stated day was Sunday. This was in the very region where the apostles
labored, and only ELEVEN years after
Barnabas, A.D. 120.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This epistle was highly prized in the
earliest churches, read in some of them as part of scripture, and is found in
the oldest manuscript of the scriptures, NAMELY THE SINAITIC. That it was
written by a pious man of learning and influence cannot be doubted. Elder
Andrews, Seventh-day Adventists, admits that the epistle of Barnabas "was
in existence as early as the middle of the second century, and, like the
'Apostolic Constitutions,' is of value to us in that it gives some clue to the
opinions which prevailed in the region where the writer lived." Testimony
of the Fathers, page 21.
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says:
"The epistle was probably written in
This is a summary of the best modern criticism
as to the date, character and authority of the epistle of Barnabas. Read and
reverenced in the church as early as A.D. 120, or within twenty-four years of
the death of
What does Elder Andrews say to this
testimony? He admits that it teaches the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath and
the keeping of Sunday. But he argues that such a doctrine is contrary to the
Bible; that is, to HIS idea of the Bible. While I was yet a firm believer in
the seventh day, when reading this book, I was struck with the fact that Elder
Andrews, all through his book had to oppose and combat the teachings of all
these early fathers! The reason is manifest: he held one doctrine and they held
another. He believed in the seventh day, and they believed in the first day.
Some of them lived early enough to have conversed with the apostles themselves,
while he lived eighteen hundred years later! Which would be apt to know best?
In his "History of the Sabbath,"
page 308, he says: "The reasons offered by the early fathers for
neglecting the observance of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no
special light on the subject by reason of living in the first centuries, which
we in this latter age do not possess." What a confession that is from the
ablest historian the seventh day ever had! He admits that "the early
fathers" "in the first centuries" neglected "the observance
of the Sabbath." What further need have we for witness to prove that the
seventh day was not observed in the first centuries? But how does this harmonize
with the theory that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the pope several
hundred years afterwards? Suppose those early fathers were not good
theologians, nor able reasoners; could they not testify to a simple FACT? Could
they not state whether they did or did not keep Saturday? Surely that knew
enough for that, and this is all we wish to ask.
We do not quote these fathers to prove a
doctrine; for that we go only to the Bible. We quote them to prove a simple,
historical FACT, viz: that the early Christians did keep Sunday, hence it could
not have started with the pope’s centuries later.
The Teaching of the Apostles, A.D. 125.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was not written by the apostles; yet its
date is very early. Someplace it as early as A.D. 80. Professor Harnack, of
Chapter fourteen of the Teaching of the
Apostles says: "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and
break bread, and give thanksgiving,"etc. This testimony is clear and
decisive that the Lord's day was the established day of worship, at that early
day.
Justin Martyr, A.D. 140.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I quote from "The Complete Testimony of
the Fathers," by Elder Andrews:” Justin’s 'Apology' was
written at
This is the confession which even the
historian of the Seventh-day Adventists is compelled to make. The Jewish
Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians within forty-four years of the
death of the last apostle. And this is proven by the testimony of a man who
lived right there.
Hear Elder A. again: "We must,
therefore, pronounce Justin a man who held to the abrogation of the ten
commandments, and that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution which was unknown
before Moses, and of no authority since Christ. He held Sunday to be the most
suitable day for public worship." Page 44. This is the doctrine that the
early church and fathers held. Justin in his” Apology" for them to
the emperor fairly represented what Christians generally held then, just as he
should have done. Elder Andrews conveys the impression that Justin represented
only a small party of apostate Christians at
"Eusebius says that he overshadowed all
the great men who illuminated the second century by the splendor of his
name." His writings are "the most important that have come to us from
the second century." McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia, Article
Justin Martyr.
Dr. Schaff says of him: "After his
conversion Justin devoted himself wholly to the vindication of the Christian
religion, as an itinerant evangelist, with no fixed abode." Church
History, Vol. 1, page 482. Not only were his books accepted without dispute as
expressing the practice of the church, but his itinerant life, now in
Now hear what Justin says about the first day
of the week: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in
the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or
the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the
reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the
imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we
before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought,
and the president in like manner offer sprayers and thanksgivings, according to
his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution
to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to
those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to
do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited
with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through
sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the
strangers sojourning among us, and, in a word, takes care of all who are in
need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because
it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and
matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose
from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn
(Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun,
having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things,
which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." The First
Apology of Justin, Chapter 67.
Does Elder Andrews question the genuineness
of this document? No, indeed. What answer does he make to it? Simply that
Justin does not call Sunday the Sabbath nor the Lord's day! This is readily
answered by the fact that Justin was writing to a heathen emperor who would
have been wholly ignorant of the meaning of either of those terms, but who was
familiar with the term "Sunday.” So Justin of necessity used that
term. But there the naked facts stand, clear, positive and undeniable, that
within forty-four years after the book of Revelation was written Christians did
not keep the seventh day, but did hold their assemblies on Sunday. And Justin
says that Jesus taught these things to the apostles. With these undeniable
facts before him, it is a marvel how any man can say that the Sabbath was
changed to Sunday three or four hundred years after this by the apostate popes.
For myself I became fully satisfied that such statements are contrary to all
the plainest facts of history, as may be seen by the above unquestioned
statement of Justin Martyr.
It is impossible that Sunday-keeping could
have thus been universally introduced into all churches without a word of objection,
unless it had started at the fountain-head, with the apostles themselves.
Consider well the force of this fact: From the very earliest days, reaching
almost back to the apostles themselves, the church was divided into opposing
sects, and controversy between them was often very strong. Yet all agreed in keeping
Sunday. So today: go to any part of the globe and wherever you find Christians
of any sect or nation, there you find them keeping Sunday. A few Sabbatarians
of late origin are the only exceptions to this. How did this universal custom
come about if not started at the very foundation of the church by the apostles
themselves?
Dionysius, Bishop of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we will hear further from these fathers
themselves as to whether they kept Sunday. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, the
church which Paul raised up and to which he gave the command about Sunday
collections, 1 Cor. 16:1-2,says: "We passed this holy Lord's day, in which
we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to
draw admonition." Eusebius,Eccl. History, Book 4, Chapter 23. That the
Lord's day is the resurrection day we have seen. This term is never applied to
any other than the first day. Notice that this witness is from
Bardesanes of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coming down only ten years we have the
testimony of the heretic Bardesanes,the Syrian, who flourished about A.D. 180.
He belonged to the Gnostic sect. He says: "On one day, the first day of
the week, we assembled ourselves together, and on the days of the readings we
abstain from [taking]sustenance." Book of the Laws of Countries. Says
Elder A.: "This shows that the Gnostics used Sunday as the day for
religious assemblies." Testimony,etc., page 53. Here is another good
testimony for Sunday, and another good confession from Elder A. All parties,
orthodox and heretic, kept Sunday as early as A.D. 180. How, then, is it that
Constantine and the pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday two to four hundred
years later? Elder A's own words utterly refute such an idea.
Notice here also a refutation of the idea so
strongly urged by Sabbatarians, that Sunday-keeping originated at
Clement of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clement was one of the most celebrated of the
Christian fathers. He wrote about A.D. 194. He says: "He, in fulfillment
of the precept, keeps the Lord’s day when he abandons an evil
disposition, and assumed that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection
in himself." Book 7, Chapter XII. The Lord’s day, it will be seen
here and all along, is the resurrection day. Clement lived, not at
Tertullian of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tertullian was one of the most noted of the
early fathers. Was born A.D.160. He was highly educated, bred to the law, and
very talented. Brought up a pagan, he was converted to Christ and vehemently
opposed heathenism ever after. Radically severe in his principles, opposed to
all conformity to the world, the laxity of the Roman church drove him to
withdraw from it, which he ever after hotly opposed. So he was not a Romanist,
nor did
Johnson's Cyclopedia says of him: "One
of the greatest men of the early church." He "joined the Puritanic
sect of the Montanists. They were orthodox in doctrine, but stern in spirit and
discipline." "He remained true to the faith of the Catholics, but
fought them vehemently on matters of morality and discipline. He was also a
representative of the African opposition to
Here then is a competent and unimpeachable
witness to the doctrines and practices of the universal church, A.D. 200, or
only 104 years after John. Time and again he argues that the Sabbath was
abolished, that Christians do not keep it, but do keep Sunday, the Lord's Day.
Of the abolition of the Sabbath he says: "Let him who contends that the
Sabbath is still to be observed... teach us that for the past time righteous
men kept the Sabbath.” God originated Adam uncircumcised and inobservant
of the Sabbath." So he says Abel, Noah, Enoch, etc., were
"inobservant of the Sabbath." Answer to the Jews, chapter 2. Again:
"The old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific
times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been
temporary." Chapter 4. "We solemnize the day after Saturday in
contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it to
ease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very
ignorant of." Tertullian's Apology, chapter 16. Tertullian again declares
that his brethren did not observe the days held sacred by the Jews: "We
neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food, nor in
their sacred days." "We, however, (just as we have received),only on
the day of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling,
but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest
we give any place to the devil." Tertullian on Prayer, chapter23. Sunday,
then, was observed by Christians at that early date, but Saturday was not.
Origen, A.D. 225.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Origen (about A.D. 225) was a man of immense
learning, and his writings are numerous. "Origen may well be pronounced
one of the ablest and worthiest of the church fathers." McClintock and
Strong's Cyclopedia. He says: "If it be objected to us on this subject
that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as, for example, the
Lord's Day, the preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost." Origen against
Celsus, book 8, chapter 22. This plainly shows that he did observe the Lord's
Day. Origen's home was in
The Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 250.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of the "Apostolic Constitutions"
(A.D. 250) Elder Andrews says: "The so-called 'Apostolic Constitutions'
were not the work of the apostles, but they were in existence as early as the
third century, and were then very generally believed to express the doctrine of
the apostles. They do therefore furnish important historical testimony to the
practice of the church at that time. Mosheim, in his 'Historical Commentaries,'
Cent. 1, section 51, speaks thus of these 'constitutions': 'The matter of this
work is unquestionably ancient; since the manners and discipline of which it
exhibits a view are those which prevailed among the Christians of the second
and third centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental
regions.'" Testimony, etc., page 13.Notice again that this work was the
product of the eastern church and hence shows the custom of the church in the
east instead of that at
These testimonies are decisive, and do show
beyond a doubt that the Christians of those early days used Sunday just as it
is now used for religious worship. Did they, then, have "the mark of the
beast" at least 250years before the beast had arisen, according to the
Seventh-day Adventists’ theory? These unquestionable facts of history,
taken from their own published works and admitted by them to be true, show the
utter absurdity of their position that Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast.
Anatolius, A.D. 270, Bishop of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was bishop of
Victorinus, Bishop of Petau, A.D. 300.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"On the former day [the sixth] we are
accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord's Day we may go forth to our
bread with givings of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast lest
we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews which Christ himself, the
Lord of the Sabbath, says by his prophets that his soul hateth which Sabbath he
in his body abolished.” Creation of the World, section 4.
Peter, Bishop of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"But the Lord's day we celebrate as a
day of joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for a
custom not even to bow the knee." Canon 15. He gives the same reason 1581
years ago for keeping the Lord’s day that Christians give now. This was
more than 200 years before the pope came into power. Notice that these
witnesses for Sunday are from all parts of the world, from Africa, Asia and
Europe, not simply from
Eusebius, A.D. 324.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eusebius was born in
He had every possible opportunity to know
what Christians did throughout the world. Of him Justin Edwards, D.D., says:
"He lived in the third century, was a man of vast reading, and was as well
acquainted with the history of the church from the days of the apostles as any
man of his day." At Cesarea was” a very extensive library, to which
Eusebius had constant access. He was a learned and accurate historian and had
the aid of the best helps for acquiring information upon all subjects connected
with the Christian church." Sabbath Manual, pages 124-125. He lived right
there, knew just what Christians did, and wrote about fifty years before the
council of Laodicea where Adventists say the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.
Hear him: Speaking of the patriarchs before the flood, he says: "They did not,
therefore, regard circumcision, NOROBSERVE THE SABBATH, NEITHER DO WE;...
because such things as these do not belong to Christians." Eccl. Hist.,
Book 1, Chapter 4. This is decisive.A.D. 324, Christians did not keep the
Sabbath.
True, there was a small heretical sect who
kept the Sabbath as Judaizers do now. Of them he says: They are "those who
cherish low and mean opinions of Christ.... With them the observance of the law
was altogether necessary [just like Seventh-day Adventists] as if they could
not be saved only by faith in Christ as a corresponding life.... They also
observe the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews just like them, but on the
other hand they also celebrate the Lord's Day very much like us in
commemoration of his resurrection." Eccl. Hist., pages 112-113. Even these
Judaizers kept Sunday. On the Ninety-second Psalm he says: "The word by
the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the
morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving Lord's Day."
"On this day which is the first of light and of the true Sun, we assemble,
after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even
all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according
to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the
Sabbath." Again: "And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to
do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's Day as more
honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” Quoted in Justin Edward's Sabbath
Manual, pages 126-127.
This testimony of the great historian of the
early church is decisive. It puts beyond doubt that Christians in all the world
did then keep Sunday, the Lord’s Day, and did not keep the Jewish
Sabbath. It is a desperate cause which has to deny such testimony as this.
Summary of Testimony from Cyclopedias.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a fair, impartial and clear statement of
the teachings of the early Christian fathers concerning the observance of
Sunday, we refer the reader to the following from Smith's Dictionary of the
Bible, article "Lord's Day.” Here is a book easy of access to all
anywhere, unsectarian, embodying the results of the most thorough and scholarly
examination of every passage in all the fathers having any bearing upon the
Sunday question. Any one who has read the fathers must confess that its
statements are fair and truthful. I have only room for one short quotation:
"The results of our examination of the principle writers of the two
centuries after the death of St. John, are as follows: 'The Lord's day existed
during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolically, and so of
Scriptural Christianity. It was never defended; for it was never impugned, or
at least only impugned as were other things received from the apostles. It was
never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it....It
was not an institution of severe Sabbatical character, but a day of joy and
cheerfulness, rather encouraging than forbidding relaxation. Religiously
regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the holy eucharist, for united
prayer, for instruction, for alms-giving; and though being an institution under
the law of liberty, work does not appear to have been formally interdicted, or
rest formally enjoined. Tertullian seems to indicate that the character of the
day was opposed to worldly business. Finally, whatever analogy may be supposed
to exist between the Lord's day and the Sabbath, in no passage that has come
down to us is the fourth commandment appealed to as the ground of the
obligation to observe the Lord's day.'"
So Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia, Art.
Sabbath, says: "For a time the Jewish converts observed both the seventh
day, to which the name Sabbath continued to be given exclusively, and the first
day, which came to be called the Lord's day.... Within a century after the
death of the last of the apostles we find the observance of the first day of
the week, under the name of the Lord's day, established as a universal custom
of the church.... It was regarded not as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath
(which was denounced together with circumcision and other Jewish and
anti-Christian practices), but rather as a substitute for it, and naturally its
observance was based on the resurrection of Christ rather than on the creation
rest day, or the Sabbath of the Decalogue."
No higher authority than this could be
quoted. It states the truth exactly. So the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Art.
Sunday, says: "In the second century its observance was universal.... The
Jewish Christians ceased to observe the Sabbath after the destruction of
Dr. Schaff, than whom there is no higher
living authority, says: "The universal and uncontradicted Sunday
observance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it had
its root in apostolic practice." History of the Christian church, Vol. I,
page 478.
The man who will shut his eyes to all this
mass of testimony and still insist that Sunday-keeping is only an institution
of popes of later ages, is simply held by a theory which he is bound to
maintain anyway. I have had a sad experience in this matter, and know just how
a seventh-day man feels in reading these historical facts. I read some of them
twenty years ago. They perplexed me some, but I got over this by my strong
faith in our doctrines and by believing them to be mostly forgeries. Afterwards
as I read more, I saw these testimonies were reliable and very decidedly
against our theory of the pope’s Sunday. This disturbed me quite a
little, but still I got over them by simply ceasing to think of them at all,
and by dwelling upon other arguments in which I had perfect confidence. In
debate I was always anxious to shut these out of the discussion. I know that
Seventh-day Adventist ministers generally feel as I did, for we often referred
to these testimonies of the fathers and the effect they had in debate. Of
course, the great body of the members never read these things, and are in
blissful ignorance concerning them. Or, if they do read them, it is in their
own books where they are all explained away. Their unbounded faith in "the
message" and in their leaders carries them right over these facts as
matters of no consequence.
For myself, when once I decided to look these
historical facts squarely in the face and give them whatever force they fairly
deserved, I soon saw the utter falsity of the claim that the "pope changed
the Sabbath." The old feeling of uneasiness on this point is entirely
gone. I feel that so far as the evidence of history is concerned, my feet stand
on solid ground.
To read the entire book go HERE.