|
|
The
Lord's Day From Neither By
D. M. CANRIGHT
The
Lord's Day From Neither Catholics nor Pagans: By
D. M. CANRIGHT “I
try to put myself in the place of the man who does not know all the things that
I know.” - Pres. Woodrow Wilson. “We also are compassed about with so great a cloud of
witnesses” - Hebrews 12:1. PREFACE
One
of the chief things which Seventh-Day Adventists urge the most strongly is that
the observance of Sunday originated with the pagan Romans, thence was brought
into the Roman Church and then the Pope, or the Papacy, imposed this upon the
entire Christian world. Hence Sunday is only a pagan, papal day. They assert
this so strongly and so repeatedly, that un- informed people are frightened into
giving up the Lord's Day and accepting instead the Jewish Sabbath. It is a
subject on which people are generally not posted. Even those who are intelligent
and well read on general topics know little, or nothing, on this particular
subject, while the common people know absolutely nothing about it. To learn the
real facts in the case requires much careful research in the history of both
Church and State through several centuries of the early Church. Few people have
the time, or the means at hand, or the interest to do all this. Even educated
ministers in general have never given the subject much thought, because they
have had no occasion to do so. Hence, when suddenly required to meet Adventists
on this question, they are unprepared, nor do they have the necessary
authorities at hand to quickly look it up. So the strong assertions of the
Adventists often go unanswered. In an ordinary audience of several hundred there
would not be one person who would know how the pagan Romans regarded Sunday, or
whether the Papacy ever had anything to do with it or not. Hence, they are
easily misled. I do not mean to accuse the Adventists of purposely deceiving. I
myself taught that way for many years while with them. I accepted what our own
"History of the Sabbath" said, and quoted it as conclusive. It was
long before I saw how one-sided it was. In
this present book both ministers and common people will have the facts in
concise and handy form for ready reference with the testimony of the most
reliable and unbiased authorities given in their own words. I made several
typewritten copies of the manuscript and sent them to five well-informed
ministers, requesting each one to spare no criticism nor pass over any
questionable point. Together they gave me valuable help and eliminated some
nonessentials. They also added much of value which I had not found myself. All
these I gladly accepted. Rev.
John J. Husted, Congregationalist, had been familiar with Adventists for fifty
years. Rev. O. W. Van Osdell, D.D., Baptist, had met their arguments often. Rev.
M. H. McLeod, Presbyterian, has published a written discussion with a prominent
defender of Adventism. Rev.
W. H. Phelps, Methodist, had been for seven years pastor of the M. E. Church in
Battle Creek, Mich., and was at the time in a discussion with the Adventist's
pastor. Hence, all were well qualified to judge of the matter in my manuscript.
Read their commendations on a previous page. Then
I selected a Seventh-Day Adventist minister, one of the most critical students
in their ranks. He kindly consented to criticize my manuscripts. He did a
thorough job, cutting out, or adding words and sentences, or pointing out what
he thought were objectionable statements. I gladly accepted nearly all the
criticisms he made and omitted some things which he questioned. I greatly valued
his review of the work. I did not expect him to agree with all my conclusions
nor recommend the book. He could not do this and remain a Seventh-Day Adventist.
His criticisms were all made in a friendly tone, showing that a kindliness of
spirit is not all on one side. For
myself, after thorough research, I am profoundly satisfied that the Christian
Church has been right in observing the Lord's Day. I have written this work with
constant prayer that I might be fair and kind in my statements. I have a high
regard for my Advent brethren, and the most kindly feeling towards them. I know they are sincere, but am sure they are mistaken in their views about the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Their widespread and aggressive agitation of these subjects will result in a better understanding of these questions. This
book is not written to convert Adventists, but to defend our own faith. If they
would let our members alone, we would say nothing; but we would be recreant to
our duty if we kept still while they publicly denounce us as pagans and papists
and then go from house to house among our Christian members with their
literature and Bible readings to proselyte them to their erroneous views. The
future of Seventh-Day Adventism - what will it be? This is a conundrum.
Apparently two insurmountable difficulties lie before them in the near future. First.
They are now, 1915, putting tremendous emphasis on their claim that the end
must, and will, come in the generation beginning in 1844, now seventy-one years
in the past. They say they are now" finishing the work," "just
entering the port." It creates great enthusiasm, large gifts, and big
sacrifices. But if the generation passes, if a few decades come and go, then
what? Yes, then what? Must not a sad catastrophe follow? Second.
From the beginning, they have claimed that their "Message" is to
gather out just the 144,000 of Rev. 7:1-4; 14:1-5. Then the end will come. But
they now have 122,000. As they are gaining now, two or three years more will
complete the number wanted. Then what? Suppose, after a few years, they number
200,000, or 56,000 more than wanted, then what? Yes, then what? Third.
Another issue confronts them: A younger generation is arising in the Church,
better educated, more intelligent, more cultured, and more tolerant towards
other Churches. These are steadily, but surely, adopting the manners and methods
of the older Churches. These young men are beginning quietly to discount Mrs.
White, and do a little independent thinking for themselves. Will
these be strong enough to leaven the body, or will they split the Church on some
new issue now that Mrs. White is dead? After
I left them, naturally, my Advent brethren expected that the frown of God would
follow me for opposing their "message." Hence ever since it is
reported among them that I have become a physical and mental wreck, poverty
poor, in despair spiritually, etc. But the fact is that at the age of
seventy-five I am in perfect health, have the same strong faith and hope in God
as ever. Financially am better off than ever before. As to my mental conditions
let these pages answer. I
have outlived nearly all the Advent ministers who labored with me. Elder White
died at the early age of sixty; one of my age, with whom I labored, died some
years ago insane; another companion-laborer was killed in the cars; another was
drowned; and many more died very young. Had any of this happened to me it would
have been reported as the judgment of God. Then my remarkable preservation and
prosperity should be accredited to God's blessing. I firmly believe it that way. Every
page of this work has been written with earnest prayer that the tender spirit of
the Master may breathe through it all. None of us is infallible. All are liable
to make mistakes. Hence, we need to be charitable towards those who have the
misfortune to be misled. Contents
I.
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM - WHAT? WHENCE?
WHITHER? II.
THE "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" SCARECROW. Persecution
predicted - Death penalty Worldwide - United States to lead III.
ADVENTISTS ASSERT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHANGED THE SABBATH; BUT WHICH
CATHOLIC CHURCH? Advent
assertions - Roman Church - Claims origin with apostles - Date of first Pope -
Catholic Church, Roman Church, Papacy, all different - True Catholic Church
Apostolic - This is not the Roman Church, but the general Church - The Eastern
Greek Church not Rome, is the Mother Church." IV.
CATHOLICS LOCATE THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH BACK WITH THE APOSTLES. This
is the doctrine of the Roman Church - Council of Trent - Catholic Bible
- Papal delegate - Cardinal Gibbons - Archbishop Ireland - Catholic Encyclopedia
- Catholic Dictionary -Written testimony of two Catholic priests - Catechisms -
Mission priests - Catholic Challenges. V.
THE PAGAN ROMANS AND GREEKS HAD NO WEEKLY DAY OF REST, OR FESTIVAL, OR
WORSHIP. Advent
Theory - Claim pagans kept Sunday as a festival - Papacy brought it into the
Church - The theory false - Testimony of British Museum - Smithsonian Institute
- Harvard University -Wisconsin University - Fowler's Roman Festival text book -
Standard Dictionary - Webster - Max Muller -Tertullian - Encyclopedias - Dr.
Schaff - Admissions of Adventists themselves - No heathen nation ever kept
Sunday - Lord's Day did not originate with pagans, but with Christians. VI.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT OUR LORD'S DAY WAS OBSERVED FROM THE TIME OF THE
APOSTLES. Pliny's
Letter - Barnabas - Teachings of the Apostles - Justin Martyr - Bardesanes -
Clement - Tertullian - Origen - Apostolical Constitutions - Cyprian -Athanasius
- Laodicea - Augustine - The Greek Church - Cyclopedias - The Jewish Sabbath not
kept. VII.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ORIGINATED WITH THE EASTERN, OR GREEK CHURCH, NOT WITH ROME
IN THE WEST. The
Church began in the East, not in Rome, in the West, Eastern Church the Mother -
Rome the Daughter - Testimony of Bishop Raphael - Greek catechism - Gospel
carried from Greece to Rome - East to West, not from Rome East - Greek Church
largest, most influential for centuries - Rome no influence on East - Thirty
facts in favor of - Five great gospel memorials -Easter controversy. VIII.
CONSTANTINE'S SUNDAY LAW, A.D. 321 Constantine's
parents Christians - His conversion in 3I2 - His edict nine years later - Proof
- Only a civil law - First Civil Law for Sunday rest - Eusebius - Constantine's
policy- Summary - Testimony of Adventists. IX.
THE LORD'S DAY AT THE COUNCILS OF NICE, A.D. 325, AND LAODICEA, A.D. 364 The
Lord's Day recognized by the first general council - Importance of that council
- Sabbath ignored - Jewish Sabbath condemned at Laodicea and the Lord's Day
sustained - It was wholly a Greek council - not Roman. X.
THE PAPACY AND THE LORD'S DAY. Adventists'
assertions - The Papacy wholly a Western institution - No authority for
centuries after Christ - Testimony of encyclopedias - Of Adventists themselves -
Lord's Day kept centuries before the Papacy was founded - Had no influence in
the East - No Papacy in the East - Admission of Adventists - Eastern Church
opposed to Rome - The Spirit of the Papacy. XI.
THE MARK OF THE BEAST - WHAT IS IT? Adventists
say it is Sunday-keeping - That theory absurd - The Mark of the Papacy is the
supremacy of the Pope. XII.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT CHANGED BY CATHOLICS - ADVENTISTS DECAPITATE THE
DECALOGUE. How Adventists try to prove it - Protestant and Catholic Catechisms compared - Lutheran Catechism - Adventists decapitate the Decalogue - Introductory words important part of that law and designate the Author of it. Chapter
I SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISM - WHAT? WHENCE?
WHITHER?
To
know Adventism better than Adventists know it themselves! That is no small
claim, and the reader must judge as to whether this claim is made good. I
believe in, and love, the doctrine of the Second Advent of Christ, and with many
others, hope it is near. I only wish to guard against false theories concerning
it. Having
spent twenty-eight years of the best of my life among a people who initiated
this form of faith, or have espoused it, and having given my services to them
and for them for that period of time, I may modestly claim that I may be
credited with a knowledge of that whereof I speak. (Note:
In this chapter I deign to give only such a brief outline of Seventh-Day
Adventism as will enable the reader to comprehend why this book is written. For
a full account of this peculiar tenet of faith, and for an answer to the
arguments of its advocates from the Bible, see my other book, as announced on
the front page. [Webmaster note: There is no
reference to any book “on the front page”.
Based on other notations in this book, Canright is probably referring to:
Seventh-day
Adventism RENOUNCED.
See also Life of Mrs. Ellen
G. White - Her Claims Refuted] The
facts concisely stated in this chapter may all be found in full in books bearing
the imprimatur of Seventh-Day Adventism itself. See "Early Writings,"
by Mrs. White; Life of Miller; Life of Elder White; "Great
Controversy," by Mrs. White, and their Year Book for any year. All these
may be ordered from Adventist publishing houses. ORIGIN
OF THE LORD'S DAY OBSERVANCE The
adherents of Seventh-Day Adventism are to be commended for their strong faith in
God, in the Saviour, and in the Bible. They are ensamples in the great
sacrifices they cheerfully make for their faith, and in their zeal for what they
firmly believe to be the only message for this generation. Among them I have
many good friends. Their
mistaken views, their excessive zeal for these views, and their general
condemnation of others for not accepting them, largely counteracts the good they
otherwise might do. These things, and some of the methods they employ in
promulgating their doctrines, lead them to become very annoying to other
Christians equally as devoted as themselves. I am sorry to say that, unknown to
the great majority of their own people, their leaders have dissembled with
regard to their past mistakes and their reliance upon Mrs. White's
"inspiration." The laity, specially the converts in foreign lands,
know nothing of this nor will they believe it. While
they hold and teach the fundamentals of Christian doctrines, with these they mix
a large number of errors. These erroneous theories they make the most prominent
in their work, urging them as the present test
of acceptance with God. This does great harm. It is only these false
teachings which I wish to answer. They base their special "message"
upon their own peculiar interpretation of different lines of symbolical
prophecies, with which no other expositors agree. It is a field where they can
easily be mistaken as they have all along in their past history. From
the first, Mrs. White has been held as a prophetess and all her writings and
teachings are regarded just as divinely inspired as the prophets of the Bible.
Publicly, they try to soften this, but, privately, teach it strongly. No
minister or editor is tolerated among them who questions it. To their own people
they quote her as " inspiration," as the "voice of the
Lord," on everything they wish to carry through, because she always has a
ready revelation to fit that case. In their church papers she is quoted far more
than the Bible. Here is one from the Lake
Union Herald, November 1, 1914. It says: "Read carefully the following written
by the pen of inspiration. Then
follows a quotation from Mrs. White. Again: "As with the ancient prophets,
the talking is done by the Holy Spirit through
her vocal organs. The prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2
Peter 1:21 (Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1914).
No stronger possible endorsement of her inspiration could be made.
She, herself, all through her writings, hundreds of times, makes the same claim.
Hear her: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has
spoken. (Testimonies, III, p. 257) Mrs.
White stands related to Seventh-Day Adventism the same as the Pope to
Catholicism, or Mrs. Eddy to Christian Science. If you become a Seventh-Day
Adventist, sooner or later, you will have to accept Mrs. White's Testimonies as
the voice of God or get out. She has written twenty volumes. They push the sale
of these in every possible way, through their papers, catalogues, by ministers,
canvassers, colporteurs, etc. But they have not one single person specially
canvassing or working to sell Bibles. This is significant. During
the past year many, both ministers and laymen, have been expelled from this
Church because they refused to accept Mrs. White's Testimonies as inspired
revelations. For
the same reason many Churches have been disbanded to get rid of these
unbelievers in Mrs. White who could not be excommunicated any other way. Two
papers are now published by these "Castouts." It
is remarkable what a large number has all along left the body on account of
unbelief in Mrs. White's Testimonies. This includes many of their most talented
ministers, editors, writers, college professors, physicians, and business
managers. I could fill several pages with simply a list of their names. Every
year sees new ones added to the list. Ten years hence some, who are now
prominent in that Church, will be outside and opposing it, judging from the
past. Many who have no real faith in Mrs. White's inspiration are held there by
official position, faith in other parts of the doctrines, and dread of religious
ostracism by their old associates. I have been there and know. Modern
Adventism of all branches originated with one Wm. Miller, an old, uneducated
farmer, a sincere Christian, but a visionary. Of him the "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "Limited in his educational advantages, and a
farmer by occupation, he yet pretended to interpret prophecy."
The same authority, article "Adventists," says:
"Adventists, or the followers of Wm. Miller, a fanatical student who put
the Second Advent of Christ in the year 1843." The unanimous opinion of the
Christian world today agrees in this view of Miller. "Millerism" has
become a byword of reproach ever since. Adventists themselves are ashamed
of it; yet that was their origin. Miller
rejected all Biblical commentaries, simply took the Bible and wholly relied upon
his own unaided views of it. He decided that all prophetic periods would end in
1843. A chart was prepared with all dates ending there, all signs fulfilled
then. Adventists themselves have proved Miller unreliable because they find many
prophecies not fulfilled even now, while he taught positively that all were
fulfilled in 1843-1844. Soon
a number of ministers joined him in preaching that set time. Quite a number were
converted to that view. But 1843 passed, and, of course, their predictions all
failed. Learning nothing by this, the Adventists next set October 22, 1844, for
the end of the world. Several hundreds went out "lecturing" on that
"time." Papers were published, and books and tracts were scattered
widely. The work was largely confined to a few of the New England and adjoining
states with scattering ones elsewhere. Everywhere it was regarded as a religious
freak and is still so regarded. Possibly forty or fifty thousand in all, for a
period, favored that set time. As
they came near the day, great enthusiasm prevailed. Business ceased, goods were
given a way, crops were left ungathered, meetings were constantly held, and all
were waiting for the end. No food even for the next day was provided. Of course,
it failed again. Five years later Miller died a disappointed old man. Nearly all
who took part in that work have passed away. But fanaticism dies hard and its
sad fruits are here yet. Over
and over Jesus, in the plainest possible language, warned against just what
Adventists did in 1843 and again in 1844 - setting a definite time for the Lord
to come. Hear Him: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but My Father only." "Ye know not what hour your
Lord doth come." "In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man
cometh " (Matt. 24:36, 42, 44; also Matt. 2513). Again: "Ye know not
when the time is " (Mark 13:33; see also Acts 1:7). The
passing of their set time has proved their folly to all the world. Here is what
they predicted to occur October 22, 1844:
Christ would come in the clouds of heaven. Not
one single thing of all this occurred - all failed. Now read Deut. 18:18:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not,
not come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." By
this plain rule, the Advent preaching of 1844 was proved to be not of God. As
might have been expected, great confusion and all kinds of fanaticism followed.
Adventists then split up into several different parties, opposing each other and
continuing their divisions to this day. There are seven of these now. All these
are the results of that time setting. Such
a brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Millerism cannot be found in
the history of the Church. Take
the matter of time-setting: some of these different parties of Adventists have
set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1854,
1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick of counting.
Learning nothing from the past, each time they are quite as confident as before. This
fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine of the Second Advent, so
that it is not now dwelt upon as much as formerly in other Churches. The study
of the prophecies has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the
Adventists. No thoughtful man can fail to see this. To
their credit it should be said that Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe in
setting time definitely since 1844. But then their leaders were all in that
particular time-setting and defend it yet. Elder White engaged in that
time-setting in 1843 and 1844. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White,
their prophetess, was also engaged in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. Elders
Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, and all the first crop of Seventh-Day Adventists were in
the time-setting of 1843 and 1844 and these Adventists still defend it as right
and approved of God. They claim to be simply carrying on the same work which
Miller then began. In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their
origin and endorse the work of the Millerites. The following from Mrs. White
will settle the point: "I have seen
that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not
be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over
and hid a mistake in some of the figures."
(Early Writings, p. 64) This endorses that work and throws upon God the blame
of their blunder! It will be seen that Mrs. White in her "inspired"
revelations strongly endorsed Miller's figures for 1843-1844. All Seventh-Day
Adventists have to abide by and defend these now, and always must in the future. So
their entire system rests upon the figures of an old farmer of seventy years ago
and the visions of an uneducated girl in her teens! A very doubtful foundation.
Out of this confusion came Seventh-Day Adventism this way: Enthusiastically
engaged in setting these two times were all their leaders. These persons held on
to the time-setting of 1843-1844 as being right and of God; but said that on
October 22, 1844, Christ, instead of coming to the earth, as they had preached,
began the judgment of the world up in heaven! Now they had it where no one could
go and report on facts and so were safe to speculate on new theories. As
all the Churches had opposed their work, they, in turn, denounced them all as
fallen, rejected of God, apostates, and "Babylon." And this they have
preached strongly ever since. In big letters they label all other Churches
"Babylon," and cry, "Come out of her." Thus Mrs. White: "As the Churches refused to receive the first
angel's message [Miller's work] they rejected the light from heaven and fell
from the favor of God" ("Early Writings," p. 101).
Again Mrs. White says: "Satan has taken full possession of the
Churches as a body. Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations are
an abomination in the sight of God" ("Early
Writings," p. 135). What awful thing had they done to fall so? Why, Miller
said the world would end in 1844 and the Churches said it wouldn't. He was wrong
and they were right, but God rejected them and upheld the Millerites! This
view of all Churches they still hold. Hence, of course, they can have no
fellowship with them. So they are just as zealous to proselyte a devout member
of a church as they are to preach to sinners. PROBATION CLOSED IN 1844 Adventists
adopted the view that probation for sinners and all the unconverted world ended
in 1844. Mrs. White states it thus: "After the passing of the time of
expectation in 1844, Adventists still believed the Saviour's coming to be very
near; they held that the work of Christ as man's intercessor before God had
ceased. Having given the warning of the judgment near, they felt that their work
for the world was done, and they lost their burden of souls for the salvation of
sinners. All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as
they then expressed it, 'the door of mercy was shut'" ("Great
Controversy," p. 268, edition 1884). This
statement of Mrs. White herself is enough to settle the point that the
Adventists believed "the door of mercy was shut" in 1844. While Miller
and all other Adventists soon abandoned this theory, Seventh-Day Adventists
continued to believe and teach it strongly for several years, or until 1851. Here
are Mrs. White's own words: "March
24, 1849. . . . I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of
Jesus Christ, relating to the Shut door, could
not be separated. . . . I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders and false
reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were
not reformations from error to truth, but from bad to worse, for those who
professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which
covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really
converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they
would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me look for the
travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for
the time for their salvation is past." (Present Truth, pp. 21-22, published
August, 1849) Here
you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners just as clear as language can
make it. Every candid reader knows what it teaches. "The
Present Truth," James White, editor, Oswego, N. Y., May, 1850, has an
article by the editor on the "Sanctuary, 2,300 Days, and the Shut
Door." Elder White says: "At that point of time [1844] the midnight
cry was given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus passed into the
most holy place. . . . When we came up to that point of time, all our sympathy,
burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony
was that our work for the world was finished forever." Any honest man can
see that the "shut door" meant no salvation for sinners, and this is
what Elder White and his wife taught up till 1851. It will be seen that
Seventh-Day Adventism was born in this monstrous delusion that probation for the
world ended in 1844, over seventy years ago. Did God send people to preach such
a fearful error as that? If they made such terrible mistakes then, are they safe
to follow now? If any of Mrs. White's revelations were from God, those teaching
the close of probation for sinners in 1844 certainly were, for she states it in
the most positive terms over and over during several years, or from 1844 to
1851. Her written revelations for those years are full of it. Her statements are
too plain for denial. I have all of them here now. But neither she nor her
people believe that theory now. This is positive proof that God never told her
what she claimed back there. If she was misled and deceived then, she has never
been reliable since. The
entire Seventh-Day Advent message is so inseparably bound up with her
revelations that they must stand or fall together. In 1846 Elder White and wife
were married, both young, she only nineteen, very sickly and claiming to have
"visions." Soon Elders Bates, Holt, Rhodes, Edson, and Andrews joined
them. All these had been in the time-setting movement of 1843-1844. To their
Advent theory they gradually added the visions as divine revelations, the Jewish
Sabbath, sleep of the dead, annihilation of the wicked, feet-washing, tithing, a
radical health-diet, a short dress with pants for women, and other
peculiarities. They now claimed that they were raised up of God to preach the
three messages of Rev. 14:6-14. The Jewish Sabbath is the chief thing. This is
the "seal of God" with which the 144,000 of Revelation 7 are to be
sealed for translation when Christ comes, which is right at hand. These 144,000,
all of whom will be Seventh- Day Adventists, will be all the ones then living on
the earth who will be saved. All others, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, no
matter what they profess, unless they join them before that time, will be lost.
Hence, necessarily, they oppose all other Churches as "Babylon," will
unite with none in any way, but zealously proselyte from all in every possible
way, both at home and in all the missionary fields in heathen lands. A large
percentage of their "converts" are from other Churches. In this way
they work great confusion, specially in foreign mission fields among the simple
minded native converts. Foreign missionaries report that this is becoming one of
the great hindrances they have to meet. I have letters from missionaries all
over the world all agreeing in this. A letter of April 9, 1914, by Bishop William Burt, Buffalo, N.Y.,
says: "In Europe, and
especially in Italy, these Adventists have been a troublesome lot. After we have
fished people out of sin and superstition they come around to trouble them with
their doctrines." Methodist Episcopal Church, Inayat Bagh, Lucknow, India. Dear Brother: I knew Seventh-Day Adventists at home and have known much of them here,
and it is my judgment that their methods are worse on the foreign field than at
home. The new converts have never heard of such things as they teach, and they
are confused before we can even find out that they are secretly sending their
literature and their workers among our people. Fraternally, Honolulu,
T. H., March, 1911. The
Seventh-Day Adventists are proselyters rather than missionaries. Here in Hawaii
they confine their efforts to such work among white people and Christian
Japanese and Chinese, for whom missionaries have labored for years, and whose
minds become greatly confused through the propaganda among these new converts. Sincerely,
JOHN
W. WADMAN, Edinburgh,
Scotland. The
work of Seventh-Day Adventists in Japan and Korea is proselyting. They have
divided Churches and paralyzed others, and have done much harm. This I am sorry
to state, as some of their missionaries mean well. Sincerely, London,
England, July 1, 1910. Dear
Brother, Sincerely, Buenos
Aires, May 16, 1911. Yours
fraternally, New
York City, June 14, 1910. Sincerely
yours, Adventists
themselves report the same as these other missionaries do. Thus: "A friend
of mine visited the young people's services at the Tabernacle and heard a
returned missionary from Africa tell how he had started his Mission near a
Methodist chapel and how, in due season, he won every single member to the truth
and forced the minister to close the doors and begin elsewhere. Here your
missionaries and ours tell the same story" The
following is from the South African
Sentinel, an Adventist missionary paper: "I
am sorry to say, we have met some bitter opposition from one of the Churches.
Six of our most promising people who belonged to, and attended, that Church kept
the Sabbath for some time, but finally gave it up because of the efforts made by
the ministers and through reading the Canright book denouncing Adventism." It
will be seen that they get their best members out of other Churches and then
complain of "bitter opposition" from that Church. Pearl
Lagoon, Nicaragua. Yours
truly, It
will be seen that Adventists are not welcome anywhere by Christian missionaries. Mrs.
White and their leaders dictate to their people the same exclusive system which
Roman Catholics teach their members. Hear her: "I was shown the necessity
of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy being separate
from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old
should attend their meetings. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to
error without being obliged to go." (Early Writings," supplement pages
37, 38) Their
editors enforce the same teachings. Thus Elder Uriah Smith says: "It
will not mix." "That system of belief which we denominate the 'Present
Truth' possesses this peculiar feature, that it will not mix with anything else. It is a sharp, clean cut, decisive
doctrine. It admits of no halving, no copartnership or compromise."
(Replies to Canright, p. 112) Both
of these are like the language of a Roman Catholic priest to his members, and
both are obeyed as implicitly. Hence, as a rule, they attend only their own
meetings, hear only their own ministers, and read only their own religious
literature. As a result they sincerely believe they are the only ones who have
the truth, the only ones who have God's special favors! Mrs. White assumes to
hold the keys to heaven as firmly as
the Pope does. Reject her inspiration, her teachings, and you will never enter
heaven! They teach that Sunday is only a pagan day brought into the Church by
the Roman Papacy, and is the mark of the beast, hateful to God. They are now
called to restore the old Sabbath. This is now "the seal of God" (Rev.
7:1-8), with which 144,000 saints will be gathered out from "Babylon"
and the world. The Sabbath is now the supreme test of loyalty to God. They are sent to "test" all with
it. This will bring out 144,000 all perfect saints who will be living and
translated when Jesus comes (Rev. 14:1-5). Of all the millions on earth at that
time, in the Churches or out, not one will be saved except these 144,000, and
all these will be keeping the Sabbath, Seventh-Day Adventists! "The
Biblical Institute," by Elder Uriah Smith, page 240 says: "We answer
that before the end we understand that the religious world will be divided into
just two classes, those who keep the Sabbath and those who oppose it." This
explains their zeal in proselyting. These 144,000 Adventists will be privileged
in heaven above all others as the special body-guard of Christ through all
eternity. Of them the "History of the Sabbath," edition 1912, page 812
says: "They will be the special body-guard of the Lamb!" Mrs.
White says: "The living saints, 144,000 in number, heard the day and hour
of Jesus coming." (Early Writings," edition of 1882, p. 11)
Of the most glorious place in heaven Jesus said, "Only the 144,000
enter this place" (page 14). There "the names of the 144,000 were
engraved in letters of gold" (page 15). Again: The angel said to her,
"If you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of
visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiworks of God" (page 33). These
Adventists are to spend eternity in pleasure trips to "all the
worlds"! They are to be a very select company all because they kept
Saturday instead of Sunday! The prophets, apostles, and martyrs will not be in
it with them! As to the reasonableness of such celestial pleasure trips the
reader may judge. In
"Great Controversy," edition of 1884, Mrs. White devotes six chapters,
31 to 37, or 94 pages, describing ahead in detail the awful things to occur just
before the end. The Holy Ghost will baptize the Adventists as on Pentecost. They
will go everywhere with a " loud cry," work miracles, perform wonders,
show signs, and every true Christian on all the earth will "come out of
Babylon " and join them. Then Satan will come personally in great glory,
walk among men, talk with them familiarly, go all around the earth that way. He
claims to be Christ himself and is accepted as such by all Churches and
statesmen. He now says that Sunday is his holy day and urges that all Adventists
must be killed for preaching against it. His advice is accepted and a decree of
death against them is passed in every nation of earth. Just then Jesus comes,
and delivers them. This is all to occur right off, possibly in a year or two,
soon anyway. Since the beginning of
the world no such thing as this has been seen. There is no scripture for it. It
rests solely on the word of Mrs. White, yet they all believe it, and are
hurrying to be ready for it by disposing of their property, etc. It borders
close on to fanaticism and must end in a catastrophe. THEIR EXTREME VIEWS ON DIET The following quotations from Mrs. White's "Testimonies to the
Church" give an idea of their extreme views on diet. Remember that these
are accepted as divine commandments to be expressly obeyed. The following quotations are from Volume II, page 61: "You
have used the fat of animals which God in His word expressly forbids." Page 68: "Cheese should never be introduced into the
stomach." Page 70: "It is just as much sin to violate the laws of our
being as to break one of the Ten Commandments." Page 96: "The use of swine's flesh is contrary to His express
commandments." Page 400: "Eggs should not be placed upon your table. They are
an injury to your children." Volume III, page 21: "We bear a positive testimony against
tobacco, spirituous liquors, snuff tea, coffee, flesh meats, butter, spices,
rich cake, mince pies, a large amount of sugar and all sweet substances used as
articles of food." Well, then, what are we permitted to eat? Here it is - Volume II,
page 67: "A plain simple diet, composed of unbolted wheat flour,
vegetables, victuals prepared without spices or grease." Notice it is just as big a sin to eat a piece of pork as it is to
break one of the commandments, which forbids lying, adultery, stealing, etc.!
Notice further that the whole tendency of this system is to go back to
the laws of the Old Testament, which were designed for a local people in a
limited territory and for a limited time. When the Gospel was to go to all the
world, these laws could not be applied. Think of missionaries among the Eskimos
in the winter, trying to live on this diet. The directions in the New Testament are directly contrary to Mrs.
White's revelations. Jesus said, Luke 10:8: " And into whatsoever city ye
enter and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ".
And Paul said the same, 1 Cor. 10:25: " Whatsoever is sold in the
shambles (meat market) that eat asking no question for conscience sake."
And Romans 14:17: "For the
kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the
Holy Ghost." These texts, and many more, strongly contradict the rigid
rules laid down by Adventists.
THE
HARM IT DOES 1.
It imposes on conscientious people an unnecessary sacrifice not required by the
Gospel. 2.
Its advocates become very annoying to other Christian workers as devoted as
themselves. 3.
Their work largely is to divide or break up other Churches and missions wherever
they can. 4.
It creates an unnecessary division and confusion in neighborhoods otherwise
united in a day of rest. 5.
It sows distrust of all other Churches in the minds of thousands who do not join
the Adventists, neither can they be reached by other Churches after that. 6.
A large share of their children give up the Sabbath as soon as they are grown.
Then they keep neither Saturday nor Sunday, nor attend any church, but drift to
perdition. There are thousands of these now scattered everywhere. 7.
As their meetings are held on Saturday, no one attends but their own people. If
left to them, the mass of any community could never hear the Gospel.
8. The evangelical Churches hold all the Gospel truth Adventists
have, but without their errors. 9. By staking all on a certain limited time, as they have done in
the past, and
are now doing again, limiting it to the generation beginning in 1844, the
passing of their set limits, ends them in disaster, as this must do in time. Their
power lies in their unbounded faith in their "message," not in any
truth they teach. Evident sincerity, clean lives, great zeal and positive
assertions win people regardless of whether or not their doctrines are
reasonable and Scriptural. Christian Science, in many respects, is exactly the
opposite of Adventism, and yet it spreads several times as fast. So does
Catholicism and other isms. This brief sketch will give the reader a fair idea of what Seventh-Day Adventism is, and what it hopes to accomplish. It is hoped that the following chapters will help to save honest persons from falling into that error. Chapter
II THE "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" SCARECROW As
early as 1847, in their very first printed publication, "A Word to the
Little Flock," published at Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1846, Elder White
argued from Rev. 13:11-18, that just before Jesus appears, a decree must go
forth to kill the saints (A Word to the Little
Flock," p. 10). In this pamphlet, page 19, Mrs. White records a
vision in which she says, "the wicked took council to rid the earth of us.
We all fled from the cities and villages, but were pursued by the wicked who
entered the houses of the saints with the sword. They raised the sword to kill
us, but it broke, and fell as powerless as a straw." From
that day till this, Seventh-Day Adventists have continued predicting that this
persecution would come upon them. Why were they to be thus outlawed? Simply
because they would not refrain from work on Sunday, "The Pope's Day." What
power is to pass this death decree? It was to be the United States, represented
by the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13:11-18. So Adventists said. In my other book,
pages 85 to 116, it is clearly proved that this symbol cannot possibly apply to
our nation. That beast kills the saints (Rev. 13:15; 20:4). But the Adventists
say that not one of them will be killed. This would contradict that prophecy, if
it applies to them. So
long as their work was confined to the United States, Adventists limited that
decree of death to this nation. But recently, since their work has extended to
all nations, they have also extended that prophecy to all the world. Now a
stringent, Puritan Sunday law is to be decreed by every nation on earth with
that death penalty for a disregard of that day! The Advent Review of January 7, 1915, has a lengthy editorial, arguing
that there will be a world-wide confederacy of all nations with the President of
the United States as the head of it! Then
that world-wide power will pass the long expected Sunday law with the death
penalty in every nation on earth. I will quote a few sentences: "What
is more natural than that such a confederation should declare for a Sunday
Sabbath obligatory upon all the people of
the world? Some President will take the step [to issue that decree] when the
time is ripe. The United States, according to the prophecy, is to lead the world
in bringing to a head that movement which must culminate in the universal decree
which demands the worship of the beast
[keeping Sunday] on the pain of
death." The
Advent Review, February 4, 1915, says:
"By means of the Sunday Sabbath the 'man of sin' will cause all
the world to worship him as God. According
to the prophecy of Revelation 13, as far as the majority are concerned, he will
succeed in his deception." This
is only a sample of what Adventists are constantly predicting. Mrs. White's
latest revelations are urging with vehement appeals to her followers that this
event is right upon them. They must hurry,
hurry, hurry, and "finish the work" before the decree goes forth
and their goods are all confiscated and they are all sentenced to death! If any
wild brain ever imagined a theory more improbable than this I never read of it.
The President of the United States is to become the head of all the nations of
the world in one Universal Confederacy. This would include England, France,
Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, Turkey, China, Japan, and all the republics of
South America. Then he will influence all these various nations to enact a
strict Sunday law with the death penalty, for a desecration of the day! Consider
this fact: The population of the globe today is sixteen hundred million. Of
these there are four hundred million Chinese who keep no day of the week, but
work Sunday the same as on other days. Then the Mohammedans, two hundred
million, have their Sabbath on Friday and work Sunday; India, with three hundred
and fifteen million, has no weekly rest day. Then comes Japan, Korea, all the
millions of Africa, who have no regard for Sunday. Out
of the sixteen hundred million on earth, ten hundred million (almost two-thirds)
have never had any regard for Sunday and do not now. They are opposed to
Christianity. Can all these suddenly be brought to keep Sunday themselves so
strictly that all these nations will join in a Sunday law so strict that it will
be death to disregard it? And all this is to happen right off - perhaps in five
years! Then,
of professing Christians, two hundred and fifty million are Roman Catholic, as
in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, France, Mexico, and all the South American
States. These Catholics are notoriously loose in Sunday observance, and ridicule
the Protestant idea of Sunday sacredness. Thus, the Ecclesiastical
Review, February, 1914 (a standard Catholic monthly), page 250, says:
"Protestants make much of the observance of the Sunday and are sometimes
sincerely and honestly shocked that we Catholics seem to make little of that
same observance." They attend mass forenoon, then attend ball-games,
beer-gardens, bull-fights, dances, elections, or work if they choose. Contrary
to all their theories and practices for ages past, are all these to suddenly
turn square about and observe Sunday so strictly as to enact a law with the
penalty of death for desecrating that day? Then there are one hundred and fifty
million Greek Catholics comprising nearly all the vast Russian empire, the
Balkan states, etc. These regard Sunday as loosely as Roman Catholics. With many
of them Sunday is a market-day after a morning service. Then
a large share of Protestants pay only a slight regard to the observance of
Sunday. They go on excursions, auto-riding, fishing, ball-games, and large
numbers work on the street cars, rail-roads, boats, in their gardens, on their
farms, and in many other ways. Then
take the non-churchgoing people comprising more than half the population in all
Christian lands. Largely, they pay only a loose regard to Sunday. Every
observing man must see that the whole trend in all lands is directly the
opposite of a stricter Sunday observance. In
the face of all this, Adventists expect the whole world - heathen, Mohammedan,
Roman Catholic, Greek, worldlings, socialists, saloon-men, infidels, all to
suddenly turn around and unite to enact a world-wide Sunday law with a death
penalty! All this is to come quickly, possibly in less than five years. Have
these brethren lost their reason, their common sense? Such a radical, world-wide
revolution in so short a time would be contrary to all the history of the past.
All natural causes and the general growth of new ideas must be ignored and an
unheard-of miracle must be assumed, to fulfill their predictions. It smacks
strongly of fanaticism. Instead
of a spirit of intolerance and religious persecution growing in the world, the
whole trend is all the other way, not only in America, but the world over.
Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religious and political views are coming more and more to be respected.
Persecution for religious views is growing to be more unpopular, and less and
less practiced. The rack, the inquisition, torture, burning at the stake,
hanging, etc., all too common centuries ago, would not now be tolerated in any
civilized country. Even despotic Russia, Austria and Spain have outgrown these.
The death penalty, even for murder, is coming largely to be condemned. Will
this, our free and enlightened nation, soon issue an edict to slaughter a whole
denomination of honest people simply for believing that Sunday is not a holy
day? Will they then all be condemned to be killed, men, women, children, simply
for an opinion? Can an intelligent man believe that? The
effort in some states to close the manufacturing plants, shut up barber shops,
close the saloon, and restrict work on Sunday, is largely in the interest of
laboring men, and is being demanded by them that they may have a day of rest and
leisure with their families, as well as the wealthy class. It is simply along
the general trend of human progress to secure better conditions for the
overworked, toiling men, women and children. This is seen in the effort to limit
the ages under which children cannot be employed in factories; the number of
hours beyond which women cannot be employed in each week; the closing of stores
at 6 P. M. instead of working the clerks to late hours; the Saturday
half-holiday; and the nine hour, even now the eight hour, working-day.
Sunday-closing is along the same line, and largely for the same purpose, and is
being demanded by working-people, many of whom care little for religion and less
for the Church. Of
course Christian people favor it, as it secures to them the privilege of
religious service. If all business was free to operate on Sunday, thousands of
Christians would be compelled, against their conscience, to work that day to
keep their jobs and support their families. Hence, the majority of intelligent
people, worldlings and Christians, are united in wishing a Sunday rest-day for
the betterment of society in general. In this there is no thought of persecuting
Adventists. Most of the states already have Sunday laws forbidding general work
on that day; yet Adventists go right on with their work freely. Where, in a few
cases, some have been arrested out of spite, popular sentiment of judges and
juries has been opposed to it and only a nominal fine, or none at all, has been
made except in rare cases years ago, but none of late. Take
the world over during the seventy years Adventists have been predicting a
religious persecution, and the laws, in all nations, have gone just the other
way. Seventy years ago Christian missionaries were either entirely shut out of a
large part of the heathen and Mohammedan countries, or had to work under the
most oppressive restrictions. Protestants, also, were so persecuted and hampered
in such countries as Russia, Austria, Spain, Mexico and all the Catholic
countries of South America, that they could do little. But steadily, through
these seventy years, the oppressive laws have been modified and all these
countries are now open to the Gospel nearly, or quite, as freely as at home.
Adventists themselves now have missions in nearly every nation on earth and are
seldom molested. Even twenty-five years ago they could not have done this. All
this contradicts what they have predicted and are still preaching. "None so
blind as those who will not see." February
27, 1915, Bruce McRae, Corresponding Secretary of the Actors' Association of New
York, reported as follows: "This
association, representing over two thousand of the most representative actors
and actresses, desires to go on record, that inasmuch as the legalizing of
Sunday performances would be a great injustice to the members of the theatrical
profession, it would oppose it with all the influence that it could command. "The
actor needs his Sunday's rest as does any other brain worker and when his
position is sufficiently influential, he gets it." (Bulletin of the New
York Sabbath Committee, April, 1915) Thousands
of actors complain that their managers, when a Sunday law does not prohibit it,
compel them to work seven days for six days' pay, and that such
continuous work breaks them down. Adventists oppose all efforts to relieve these
and hundreds of thousands of other overworked toilers. Their opposition
is supremely selfish, born of a misguided zeal. In
many states Barbers' Associations are demanding the same as the actors for the
same reason. Religious worship is not the idea of any of their associations.
What they want is simply to have the privilege of a day of rest like other
people. In
closing work on Sunday there is no thought of compelling people to go to church
or to be religious. But it is desired by Christians to give people a chance to
hear the Gospel if they wish to. We do not close the saloons to compel the men
to be sober, but to remove from them the temptation to drink. Hence it is
unfair, and untruthful, to argue that Sunday laws are made to compel men to go
to church or to become religious. ADVENTISTS
BACK DOWN ON SUNDAY WORK Recently
Mrs. White had a revelation directing her people, the world over, to refrain
from work on Sunday whenever the law requires it. They will all readily obey.
How, then, can they be persecuted for Sunday work when none of them work that
day? In Australia, a law required Adventists to close their publishing houses on
Sunday. For three Sundays they did not obey. Then they were threatened with
arrest. What now? Did they brave the law and take the penalty as they always
said they would? Mrs. White, their divine oracle, fortunately was right there.
Did she counsel martyrdom? Oh, no! She
immediately produced a revelation directing them to obey the law, close the
plant on Sunday and devote the day to the Lord in religious work just as
Sunday-keepers do. Here are her instructions in "Testimonies to the
Church," Volume IX, Number 37, published in 1909. It is a square back down
from all she had published before. It avoids all possibility of persecution for
Sunday work. She says, "The light given me by the Lord at a time when we
were expecting just such a crisis as you seem to be approaching was that when
the people were moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance,
Seventh-Day Adventists were to show their wisdom by refraining from their
ordinary work on that day, devoting it to missionary effort." Page 232:
"Give them no occasion to call you lawbreakers." "It will be very
easy to avoid that difficulty. Give Sunday to the Lord as a day for doing
missionary work." "At
one time, those in charge of our school at Avondale [Australia] inquired of me,
saying, 'What shall we do? The officers of the law have been commissioned to
arrest those working on Sunday.' I replied, 'It will be very easy to avoid that
difficulty. Give Sunday to the Lord as a day for doing missionary work. Take the
students out to hold meetings in different places, and to do medical missionary
work. They will find the people at home, and will have a splendid opportunity to
present the truth. This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable to the
Lord'" (page 238). It
will be readily seen that Mrs. White now directs her people to keep Sunday
exactly as all conscientious Sunday observers do; that is, in holding religious
meetings and doing religious work! "They
are to refrain from their ordinary work on that day. Give Sunday to the Lord as
a day of doing missionary work. This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable
to the Lord."
A
prospect of arrest suddenly converted Mrs. White to a zealous religious
observance of Sunday. "Give the day to the Lord." And then especially
notice: "This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable to the
Lord." Good and true. Now if it is acceptable to the Lord from Adventists,
it must be acceptable to the Lord from Methodists, Baptists, etc. Why not? But
the point is this: If Adventists follow this advice, how will they be persecuted
for working on Sunday? What becomes of the prediction that an edict will be
issued to kill them all for violating a Sunday law? That was what Adventists
have always taught before. But in 1909 they were directed to observe Sunday
strictly and obey the law. If
the prospect of simply a fine will cause Adventists to obey the law and refrain
from work on Sunday, would not the prospect of a death penalty quickly induce
them to obey? Surely. It shows that their theory breaks down when really tested.
Then if Baptists, Methodists, etc., have the mark of the beast because they
"give Sunday to the Lord" in religious service, why will not
Adventists also have it if they gave the day to the Lord in the same way? Of
course they will. A
STRICT SUNDAY LAW WOULD IN NO WAY INTERFERE WITH THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF
ADVENTISTS The
Adventists publish a Liberty Magazine wholly
devoted to an effort to prove that a Sunday law would restrict their religious
liberty and require them to violate their conscience. Their position is
untenable, their arguments fallacious. It would do no such thing. Mrs. White
herself, as above, has proved their contention untrue. How? She directs them to
obey the law and do no work on Sunday. Would she advise them to violate their
conscience, disobey God? And neglect a sacred duty to avoid a fine? Surely not.
Then she does not regard it as a religious duty to work on Sunday, nor do they,
or they would not advocate what she directs. Why
does an Adventist work on Sunday? Does he do it as an act of worship? No, he
works for money, for the financial gain there is in it. That is all. If an
Adventist was receiving two dollars per day for Sunday work, and should be
offered four dollars per day to simply remain at home, would he not accept the
offer? Yes readily, and why shouldn't he? He violates none of his religious
principles. He works to get money, and sits still to get more, that is all. A
law forbidding manual labor on Sunday deprives him of no religious privileges.
At home he can read his Bible or any religious book; or write articles, or pray;
he can go to any church; or to his own; he can hold public meetings and teach
his doctrines freely; he can go from house to house with his literature and
teach his doctrines there. He is not required to attend church where he does not
care to, nor profess any creed he does not believe, nor deny what he does
believe. How then would a law prohibiting work on Sunday interfere with his
religious liberty? That is only a scarecrow of straw of their own making and
that is all. "The
saloon-keeper wants to keep his saloon open on Sunday. What for? As a religious
duty? To worship God? He does it for gain, for business. He says the law
restricts his personal liberty. Theatrical and moving picture proprietors insist
on conducting their business on Sunday. Do they do it as a religious duty? No.
Neither do Adventists work Sunday as an act of worship, or as a religious duty.
It is a business proposition and that is all. Then
everyone knows that Saturday is observed the world over by the Adventists as
their sacred day for religious worship. Any law which does not interfere with
worshipping on Saturday has no bearing whatever upon the religious liberty of
Seventh-Day worshippers. But a Sunday closing statute in no way applies to
Saturday any more than it does to Friday. There is no complaint coming for
Saturday-observing Jews, or Friday-observing Mohammedans that a Sunday law
infringes upon their religious liberties. The Adventists will be just as free to
worship on the Jewish Sabbath under the most stringent Sunday law as they are
now in California, where at present there is no Sunday legislation. And this
they know right well. It is illogical and unreasonable, and wholly without
excuse, for them to oppose a Sunday law on the ground that it will deprive them
of their religious liberties. ONLY
THEIR CIVIL LIBERTY ABRIDGED All
that Adventists can truthfully claim is that a Sunday law would abridge their
civil liberty - their personal freedom. Here their arguments lie very close
along the line of the saloon men and liquor users - personal liberty. But any
person who chooses to live among other people has to pay for that privilege by
giving up many personal rights which he might exercise freely if he lived by
himself alone. Suppose a man with a family lived on an island a way from all
others, as Robinson Crusoe did. He could go naked, go loaded with firearms, get
drunk, smoke and spit tobacco-juice anywhere, build his house anywhere, of any
kind of material, make all the noise he chooses, let his cattle run loose, let
his children go uneducated, hunt or fish all seasons of the year for any kind of
game or fish, and do many other things unmolested. Now
let him move into a civilized farming community. He would immediately have to
sacrifice all these rights. He could not go naked nor keep his children out of
school, nor let his cattle run loose, nor hunt or fish out of season, nor leave
a dead animal by the roadside, etc. When
he goes to the city, he must not spit on the sidewalk, nor get drunk, nor beg on
the street, nor drive on the left side of the street, nor cross a main street
without a signal from the police, nor turn a corner only in such a way, nor
drive only so fast, nor leave his team there only so long, nor leave them
unblanketed in the cold, nor allow his boy to work in the shop under a certain
age, nor his daughter to work in a shop more than so many hours per week, and
many more such things. This
is simply what is called "Police Power " delegated to every state,
through all its agencies, both general and local, to preserve order, regulate
intercourse between citizens, and to insure to each the lawful enjoyment of his
rights. The
civil power is the power of arbitrary force to compel men who will not be
righteous to at least be civil, that men may live together in peace and
quietness. In
return for the personal restrictions which are necessarily placed on each member
of society, this protects his property, his person, and his personal freedom as
far as consistent with the rights of others and the general good of society.
Polygamy is a religious tenet of the Utah Mormons which they hold as strongly as
Adventists hold the Sabbath. Here the law has restricted their "religious
liberty." Would Adventists leave them free, anywhere and everywhere, with
their many wives? In India, mothers threw their children into the river as a
religious duty, and wives were burned alive with husbands when they died.
British law stopped this "religious freedom." What do Adventists say
to that? All
this is the price a person must pay for the privilege of being a citizen with
other fellow citizens whose rights and conveniences must be consulted as well as
his own. This is a universal law, recognized among all civilized people. Without
it, we would have lawlessness and anarchy. What is for the best interests of the
whole must be considered, not simply the convenience of the few. This is
democracy and is just and right. It is the word of God too. Paul says: "For
none of us liveth to himself" (Rom. 14:1). "Look not every man on his
own things but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. 2:4).
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark 12:31). A Christian
will sacrifice much rather than annoy his neighbor. The one, the few, the
minority, must harmonize with the majority as far as they can without
sacrificing principles. An Adventist sacrifices no moral or religious principle
when he abstains from manual work on Sunday. He foregoes a business gain for the
general wish and social good of the majority. If the law required Adventists to
work on Saturday, that would be a different thing. That would require them
to violate their conscience and break the law of God as they believe. But no
such thing is proposed or thought of. Besides,
there is a growing tendency on the part of our state legislatures to exempt in
the Sunday laws, all who observe some other day as a day of worship and who
refrain from business and labor on that day, from the Sunday prohibitions. But,
strange to say, Adventists oppose these exemptions made for their protection as
much as any other part of the Sunday bill. It is a proof that they are not
sincere in grounding their opposition to Sunday legislation upon the protection
of their civil and religious rights. Many of the states have already adopted
such exemption clauses. Adventists
should be the first to recognize the great value of a rest day each week for all
men. To them, resting on the Sabbath once a week is the most important of all
duties. If a weekly Sabbath is of so much benefit to them, then it will be so to
all others and they should aid them to secure such a weekly rest day. But they
cannot, and do not, expect to win the majority over to give up Sunday and keep
Saturday instead. A few in each community is all they have ever succeeded in
getting. Do they wish all the rest of the great majority to have no Sabbath?
Their whole effort and influence is that way - to have a Sabbathless and
churchless community. They confuse thousands of people who, after that, keep no
day. They argue that every Sunday law is unconstitutional. They bitterly oppose
any and every Sunday restriction. They
argue that all business should continue on Sunday the same as on any weekday.
They would have saloons open on Sunday the same as on Monday. They all work
themselves Sunday and ridicule Sunday keepers as pagans and papists. If their
influence prevailed, society would soon be demoralized. Adventists strongly
oppose three of the greatest bulwarks of our government, namely: the public
school, the churches, and a Sunday rest-day. Consider
a moment: Sunday is just as long as Saturday - to a minute. It affords every
advantage that Saturday does, physical rest, mental rest, social privileges,
time for reading the Bible and religious work, prayers, attendance at church and
Bible school, song service, etc. There is no difference in the advantages of the
one day over the other, so far as the use of the day is concerned. But Sunday
has the great advantage of being the day on which the people generally rest and
so the day is quiet. Moreover, the vast majority of those who observe Sunday
conscientiously suppose they are keeping the day in obedience to the Lord's
will. They keep it as "the Sabbath" just the same as Adventists keep
Saturday. Their
motive is to serve God. They have not the remotest idea of reverencing the
Papacy, or the sun, or paganism. As God looks at the heart, at the motive, does
He not accept such sincere service? Paul says they that "regard the day
unto the Lord" (Rom. 14:6) are acceptable to God. Adventists do no more
than this in keeping Saturday. In
keeping Sunday we preserve the model of the seven days of creation, and thus are
reminded of the creation as plainly as Adventists are. Added to this we also
commemorate the resurrection, the key-note of the entire Gospel. Here the Jewish
Sabbath fails to remind us of anything in the Gospel. For twenty-eight years I
myself kept conscientiously the seventh day unto the Lord. Now, for twenty-eight
years, I have kept Sunday unto the Lord. The first was dry duty, bondage; the
last is privilege - liberty, and I like it the best. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS USE POLITICAL METHODS WHICH THEY CONDEMN IN
ALL OTHERS Adventists condemn in strong terms the efforts of Catholics and the
Federation of Churches to influence legislatures and legislation in their favor.
They are constantly denouncing both these religious bodies for trying to
influence men in office to secure the law they wish, or to defeat laws they do
not favor. They condemn this as using worldly and unchristian methods to further
religious views. But, strange to say, Adventists do the very same
thing themselves and they use every possible means in their power to accomplish
it. They keep trained and paid men in every conference to watch every state
legislature and congress for any Sunday legislation. These men are furnished
with an abundance of specially prepared literature and are on the alert to
personally influence every man in office from the President down to the mayor
and common voters. They boast that they have defeated many a Sunday bill in
Congress and in the states. They
publish a Liberty Magazine for this
express purpose. In proof read the following: "Elder E. L. Cardey,
religious liberty secretary of the Greater New York conference, writes that the
executive committee has voted to send the current number of Liberty
to 500 judges and attorneys in that conference." "The
District of Columbia conference has decided to unite with the North American
Division Religious Liberty Department in circulating 900 copies of Liberty
each quarter among the United States senators, representatives, and other
molders of public opinion at the Capital of our nation. If you wish to help in
this good work, it will cost you only $1.00 to send Liberty
to five of these persons of influence for one year. Send the order to your
tract society. We will furnish the names of legislators, public-school teachers,
attorneys, judges, as you may prefer. Send this issue of Liberty to all lawyers and judges of our conference."
(Adventist Review, Jan. 14, 1915) This
gives a fair idea of what they are trying to do. Every member of every church is
urged to do his utmost along this line, and largely he does it. No Protestant
Church, not even Catholics, work as zealously along this line as Adventists do.
And they have the most efficient organization in the world to carry it out. It
shows what they will do, if they ever become numerous enough to have political
influence. Chapter
III ADVENTISTS
ASSERT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHANGED THE SABBATH; BUT WHICH CATHOLIC CHURCH?
Adventists
repeat this assertion, in various ways, so constantly that their people believe
it to be absolutely true. Their children are taught this as thoroughly as they
are the Bible. Any one at all familiar with their teachings needs no proof that
they make the above claim. Mrs. White says: "The Pope had changed it [the
Sabbath] from the seventh to the first day of the week." (Early Writings,
p. 65) The
following is from the Signs of Times Magazine, October, 1914: "Sunday
is the first day of the week and its observance belongs to the Catholic
Church." "Every
one who accepts the Sunday institution as a Sabbath thereby accepts an
institution of the Catholic Church." "The
Catholic Church says: 'By my divine power I have abolished the Sabbath day and
command you to keep the first day of the week! And lo, the entire civilized
world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic
Church.'" But
there are two damaging objections to this theory:
First: Adventists assume and argue on the assumption that the
"Catholic Church" began to be formed about three hundred years after
Christ. Hence, if the Catholic Church did change the Sabbath, the change could
not have been made before that late date. Then they easily find, and gladly
quote, a large number of Catholic catechisms, Catholic priests, and Catholic
challenges to Protestants, all boasting that the Holy Catholic Church changed
the Sabbath. Adventists say that this settles the question.
Second: But in this they ignore, fail to state, another claim which all
these same Catholic authorities always make just as strongly, namely, that their
Holy Catholic Church extends back to, and began with, the apostles, and that the
change was made by them. If Adventists accept one claim of the Catholics, then,
to be fair, they should accept both. But this would overthrow their argument. Now
the simple fact is, the original "Catholic" Church, which did actually
begin with the apostles where the day was changed, is not the same Church as the
Roman Catholic Church, or the Papacy, of a much later date. The ground on which
the Roman Catholic Church makes the false claim that she changed the Sabbath is
by making the further false claim that the present Roman Church extends back to,
and includes the apostles, who, they readily agree, made the change. Both these
facts are abundantly proved by the testimony of Catholics themselves. It is by
ignoring these fundamental facts that Adventists can use quotations from
Catholics as they do. Their lay members and the common people do not know this,
and hence are easily deceived. No
class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do.
They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their
boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the
Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as
settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their
claim that they changed the day. They assert
that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any
proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful
claims: 1.
The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. The
Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day
Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say
they are all lies, without any foundation in fact. But when you come to the
tenth one, the change of the Sabbath, then Adventists fall over each other to
accept every word of this as the infallible truth. It settles the question
beyond dispute. "The Catholic Church just owns it right up" that it
did really do the job!! To
illustrate: Adventists bring their chief witness into court. But when he is
sworn they acknowledge that nine-tenths of his testimony is a lie, is perjury,
but one-tenth of what he swears to is true. On this they claim they have won
their case! Selah! Any
judge would quickly throw out of court such testimony as worthless, yet this is
the witness, and the only witness, Adventists can produce saying that the Roman
Church changed the Sabbath. See any of their publications on this point. We
will now examine this witness. The Roman Catholic Church claims to extend back
to the apostles and include them. This is so well known that no proof need be
offered. Yet I will give a few quotations. Cardinal Gibbons is the highest
Catholic authority in America. His work of 480 pages, "The Faith of Our
Fathers," is written expressly to prove that the modern Roman Catholic
Church dates back to Christ and the apostles and has continued in an unbroken
succession down to the present time. He claims that St. Peter was the first Pope
and that his office and authority have descended unbroken through
all the Popes to the present one. On page 58 he says: "The true Church must
be Apostolical. Her ministers must derive their power from the apostles by an
unbroken succession."
On page 67 he gives a table of the true Church, the Catholic, thus:
Name
of Sect
Place of Origin
Founder
Year Authority
Catholic Church
Jerusalem
Jesus Christ
33
New Testament
On
pages 68 and 69 he says all the Protestant sects "came fifteen hundred
years too late to have any pretensions to be called the Apostolic Church."
"The Catholic Church, on the contrary, can easily vindicate the title of
Apostolic, because she derives her origin from the Apostles." "Thus we
go back from century to century till we come to Peter, the first Bishop of Rome,
Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ." On page 81 he says: "She
is the only Church which is acknowledged to have existed from the
beginning." Again, page 161, "St. Peter, the first Pope in the long,
unbroken line of Sovereign Pontiffs." The
"Catholic Dictionary," Article "Catholic Church," says:
"General or universal. It was applied to the true Church spread throughout
the world." "The present Catholic Roman Church is the Church founded
by Christ." I
have just examined a large number of Catholic works from the smallest catechism
up to their great "Encyclopedia," and all agree in contending that the
Catholic Church goes back to the apostles and includes them with Peter as the
first Pope. On this assumption they found the claim that whatever was done by
the apostles was done by the Roman Catholic Church. Mark this act well, for on this claim rests the assertion of
Catholics that their Church changed the Sabbath. The
Pope. The
name, "Pope," simply means father. For centuries after Christ that was
the common name for all priests, both in the Roman and Greek Church. It meant
then the same as " pastor " now means with us. Later, in the West, it
was gradually restricted to bishops only. In 1073, Gregory VII, in a council,
prohibited the use of the title by anyone except the Bishop of Rome. So, then,
the " Pope," as that term is now used, did not exist till hundreds of
years after the time fixed by Adventists for the change of the Sabbath. So it
could not have been changed by the "Pope." The
term, "The Catholic Church," is now commonly used to mean the Church
of Rome only, with the Pope at its head, and it is now claimed by that Church as
belonging exclusively to itself, excluding all others from that name. The Roman
Church also claims this title exclusively clear back to the apostles, including
them as the founders of their "Catholic Church" with Peter as their
first Pope. But this claim is wholly unfounded and contrary to the plainest
facts of history. The "Catholic Church" is one thing, the "Roman
Church" another thing, and the " Papacy" is still another thing,
each differing from the other. "Catholic"
means general, or universal. Beginning with the apostles, or soon after, this
was used by Christians the world over to distinguish the Christian Church from
the Jewish Church, which was national and local. Later, when heresies came up,
"Catholic" meant all orthodox believers everywhere, but excluded the
heretics. This continued for over 1,000 years till the final split between the
Eastern and Western Churches, A.D. 1052. Then the Eastern Church assumed the
title of "The Greek Oriental Orthodox Catholic Church," while the
Western Church still continued to use the common name "Catholic."
The" New International Dictionary" says: "Catholic: 1. Universal
or general; of, or pertaining to the Church universal, designating or pertaining
to, the ancient, undivided Church, or a Church or Churches historically
continuous with and claiming to be a true representation of it, hence, of the
true Apostolic Church; orthodox. The term Catholic originally designated the
whole body of Christian believers, was officially appropriated as a title by the
Western Church at the time of its separation from the Eastern Church [1052],
which assumed the title of Orthodox. After the Reformation, the Church of Rome,
or Roman Catholic Church, asserted its exclusive right to the title and although
this right has not been recognized by the Reformed Churches, specially that of
the Anglican communion, in practice the title is often so restricted." This
is the truth exactly as to the historical use of the term "Catholic
Church." It began with the Apostolic Church and was used by the undivided,
or whole Church, during all the early centuries for over a thousand years. I
have before me a book entitled, "Catholic Principles," by Rev. J. W.
Westcott, Episcopalian. In this he gives abundant historical proof showing that
the term, "Catholic Church," began with the apostles, or immediately
after, and embraced all true Christians of orthodox faith in all the world. It
continued to be so used till the eleventh century when the Eastern, or Greek
Church, separated from the Western, or Roman Church, in A.D. 1052. Then Rome
assumed to itself the term Catholic, contrary to its former use through the
first eleven centuries. Mr. Westcott says: "To start with, we must be
careful not to be misled by the use of names, phrases, and expressions, which
meant one thing in the third and fourth centuries and mean quite a different
thing in the mouths of modern Roman Catholics in the present century" (page
206). "When Protestants use the word Catholic,
they generally refer to the Roman Catholic Church; and it is often a
matter of great surprise to them to find that a hundred million of men claim to
be Catholics, who are not Roman Catholics at all" (page 55). Again, he says, and
correctly too: "The quotations we have now given from the early Christian
writers prove beyond question that both in name and theory the Christian Church
was Catholic from the very first Apostolic days" (page 65). Thus
Johnson's "New Universal Cyclopedia," Article "Catholic Church
": "The phrase, Catholic Church, is equivalent to 'universal Church,'
and cannot properly be limited to any particular sect or body. It was once
employed to distinguish the Christian Church from the Jewish, the latter being
restricted to a single nation, while the former was intended for the
world." Hence
we must remember that the "Catholic Church" for over ten hundred years
included all orthodox, or evangelical, Christians the world over. The great
Eastern, or Greek Church, which was founded by the apostles, and was never ruled
over by the Roman Church, was the first and by far the largest part of the
Catholic, or universal, Church. It bore that title before the Roman Catholic
Papacy existed. Hence, it is true that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ
and the apostles; but this was very different from the Roman Church or Papacy of
centuries later. Hence, when correctly understood, we have no objection to
saying that the Sabbath was changed by the "Catholic Church," for the change was made by the
apostles, the founders of the "Catholic," or universal Church. Rome
is not the "Mother Church." That title belongs to the great Eastern
Greek Catholic Church, founded by the apostles long before the Roman Catholic
Church existed. That Church now numbers one hundred and fifty millions and is
the original "Catholic Church." She was the "Mother Church,"
and the Roman Church for three hundred years was only a mission church, founded
and supported by the Eastern Greek Church. This fact is abundantly supported by
history. Thus
Right Rev. Bishop Raphael, of Brooklyn, N. Y., Bishop of the Eastern Greek
Church, writes me, March 30, 1914: "The
official name of our Church is 'The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church.' It
was founded in the time of the apostles and by the twelve apostles, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief corner-stone. Beginning on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)
our Church has never been subject to the Roman Church, or to the Latin Popes, or
to the Papacy. The Roman Church herself was a Greek Mission for nearly 300
years, and the Greek language was the tongue in which the Liturgy, or Mass, was
said in the city of Rome. The Church of the East has never from the first been
known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any
official document. So,
then, the historical facts are these: The original Catholic Church began with
the apostles, and included all Orthodox Christians centuries before the corrupt
Roman Catholic Church came up. This later Papal Church had nothing whatever to
do with changing the Sabbath. The false claim that the Roman Church changed the
day is based on the further false claim by Romanists that she is the original
pure apostolical Catholic Church. Intelligent Adventist ministers know this very
well, and are not guiltless in omitting to state it. Generally, however, their
members are entirely ignorant of these facts. They ignorantly suppose that the
Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church. Chapter
IV CATHOLICS
LOCATE THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH BACK WITH THE APOSTLES. The
above is the universally accepted doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is
so taught in all her doctrinal works. I have examined a large number of her
catechisms, her religious dictionary, her great "Encyclopedia," many
of her doctrinal works, and I have interviewed one of her bishops and several of
her priests, and find all agreeing in teaching this: The Sabbath was changed
by the apostles. Notice carefully: We are not now inquiring as to whether
the apostles did really change the Sabbath, but as to what the Catholic Church
does believe and teach on this question. In my other
book, noticed in first page of this book, it is
clearly proved that the change in the day was made in the days of the apostles,
hence here I do not go over that ground again. Adventists deny that the apostles
had anything to do in changing the day, and confidently quote Catholics
in such a way as to give the impression that these Catholic authorities say that
their Roman Church, or the Pope, or the Papacy, hundreds of years after Christ,
made the change. This is unfair. And then they studiously omit an important part
of what Catholics plainly teach, and then construe the other part to mean what
Catholics neither believe nor teach. I am very sorry to have to say this, but I
wish Adventists might see the wrong of it and tell the whole truth!
[Webmaster note: There is no reference to
any book in the first page. Based
on other notations in this book, Canright is probably referring to: Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED. See also Life
of Mrs. Ellen G. White - Her Claims Refuted] We
will begin with the very highest authority, in the Catholic Church - the Council
of Trent. "The Catechism of the Council of Trent," published by order
of Pius IV, contains the creed of the Church. Every member has to swear to this
creed when he joins the Church, hence it is authoritative. It devotes eight
pages to the Sabbath question. It says: "The Sabbath was kept holy from the
time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh; the
obligation was to cease with the abrogation of the Jewish worship, of which it
formed a part; and it therefore was no longer obligatory after the death of
Christ. " The
apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the
divine worship, and called it 'the Lord's Day'; St. John, in the Apocalypse,
makes mention of 'the Lord's Day'; and the apostle commands collection to be
made 'on the first day of the week,' that is, according to the interpretation of
St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's Day; and thus we are given to understand that even
then the Lord's Day was kept holy in the Church" (pages 264, 265). Notice
that this creed says the apostles consecrated the day; it was holy, and was
called the Lord's Day. The Scriptures are quoted to prove all this. This is the
creed of the Roman Church. Any
Catholic priest or writer teaching differently contradicts the sacred creed of
his own Church and violates his oath to believe and teach it. The
following is a decisive witness to the position of the Catholic Church as to
when the Sabbath was changed and who changed it. It is a comment on Acts 20:7,
in the Catholic Bible itself. Observe how they place the change just where
Protestants do and quote the Bible to prove it: "
'And on the first day of the week.' Here St. Chrysostom, with many other
interpreters of the Scripture, explain that the Christians, even at this time,
must have changed the Sabbath into the first day of the week (the Lord's Day),
as all Christians now keep it: This change was undoubtedly made by the authority
of the Church: hence the exercise of the power which Christ had given to her;
for He is Lord of the Sabbath." In
1913 Monsignor John Bunyan was the special representative of the Pope in
America. Next to the Pope, he was then the highest official authority of that
Church in the United States, and what he says is authoritative. "Why Sunday
is the First Day" was the title of an article he furnished the Washington
Times, October 11, 1913. He says: "In the New Law the time for the
fulfillment of this [Sabbath] obligation was changed by the apostles from the
Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, to Sunday, or the first day of the
week, primarily to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who, early in
the morning on the first day of the week, arose, glorious and triumphant, from
the dead. Hence it is that in Scripture, the first, day of the week is called
the 'Lord's Day' (Rev 1:10). It was also on this same day of the week that the
Holy Ghost came down upon the apostles, and that the faith and law of Christ was
for the first time solemnly published to the world by them." On
this the Advent Review and Herald, October
23, 1913, says: "As
we read this article we should not forget that we are reading the deliberate
declaration of the highest official in America of that Church which claims to
reach back to Apostolic days." Here,
then, by the highest authority deliberately stated, is the teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church as to who changed the Sabbath and the time when it was done. It
was done by the apostles, in the time of the apostles. All Seventh-Day
Adventists certainly know this, for it was published by the editor in their
official organ, The Advent Review. Now
will they cease teaching that the Catholic Church claims to have changed the
Sabbath several hundred years after Christ without Apostolic authority? Remember
again the question here is not whether the apostles really did make the change,
but what does the Catholic Church claim about it? The papal delegate has settled
that. Cardinal
Gibbons comes next in authority. I wrote him with regard to when his Church
began and when the day was changed. Here is the answer: Baltimore,
Md., July 1896 Dear
Sir: In reply to your favor of the 20th inst., to his Eminence the Cardinal, I
beg to say: First.
The Catholic Church dates back to the day when our Lord made St. Peter the
visible head of the Church, and when St. Peter established, first at Antioch,
then at Rome, the seat of his residence and jurisdiction. In
these days and those immediately following, we find traces of the beginning of
the custom of the Sunday observance. You may refer to the Christian writers of
that period. (Confer Ignatius ad Magnes, 9; Justin Martyr, 1, Apol. 59; Tertul.,
Apol. 16.) All these writers speak of the Sunday as the Lord's Day; no other
more distinct trace has been preserved, and the mention which occurs in the
following centuries rests on the fact of a previous custom more or less general.
C.
T. THOMAS, Sect. It
will be seen that the Cardinal locates the introduction of the Lord's Day at the
beginning of the Church with St. Peter. After
the Cardinal, the next highest dignitary in America is Archbishop Ireland. In
answer to my question as to when the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath, this
high prelate answered as follows: St.
Paul, March 1914 My
dear Sir: In
answer to your question I would state that the Jewish Sabbath was simply a
positive precept in the Mosaic law and lapsed with that law. The apostles and
early Christians instituted the Sunday as a day of special prayer in honor of
the great mysteries of the Christian religion, the resurrection and the coming
of the Holy Spirit, both occurring on the first day of the week. Very
sincerely, That
is clear, positive, and directly to the point. Here is another high Catholic
authority, "The Catholic Encyclopedia on Doctrine," Article,
"Sunday": "Sunday was the first day of the week according to the
Jewish method of reckoning time, but for the Christians it began to take the
place of the Jewish Sabbath in apostolic times as the day set apart for the
public solemn worship of God" (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). The same
Encyclopedia, Article, "Sabbath," says: "St. Paul enumerates the
Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians
(Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:9-10; Rom. 14:5). The Gentile converts held their religious
meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2), and with the disappearance of the
Jewish Church, with the Christian Churches the day was exclusively observed as
the" Lord's Day." Notice
that Catholics quote the same texts as Protestants do to indicate the change.
They trace its origin to the New Testament the same as we do and thus claim
Scripture authority for it. It will be seen that all these high Catholic
authorities agree in locating the change in the days of the apostles and by the
apostles. The
following is from "The Catholic Dictionary, the Universal Christian
Educator, Containing Doctrine of the Church," by Rev. Wm. A. Addis and
Thomas Arnold, A.M., both of the Royal University of Ireland. Endorsed by
Cardinal Manning and Cardinal McClosky. There could be no better Catholic
authority. Now read, Article, "Sunday": "The precept of observing
the Sabbath was completely abrogated in the Christian Church. In commemoration
of Christ's resurrection, the Church observes Sunday. The observance does not
rest on any positive law, of which there is no trace. Sunday is of merely
ecclesiastical institution, dating however from the time of the apostles. Such
is the opinion of St. Thomas. The Scripture given above (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2;
Rev. 1:10) shows that the observance of Sunday had begun in the apostolic age;
but even were Scripture silent, tradition would put the point beyond
doubt." I
quote all these to show only one point; viz., the time when Catholics claim the
change was made by the Church. They all say it was made by the apostles. No
other date is given or suggested. Now
read the written testimony of two Catholic priests: 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 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, The
following statement I drew up, and read to a leading Catholic priest of Grand
Rapids, Mich., who readily signed it, as will be seen below: "The
Catholic doctrine of the change of the Sabbath is this: The apostles, by
instruction from Jesus Christ, changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to
commemorate the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Holy Ghost, both
of which occurred on Sunday. The change was made by the apostles themselves, and
hence by divine authority, at the very beginning of the Church. There are
references to this change in Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2; Rev. 1:10, etc. Yet
these texts do not state positively such a change; hence Catholics go to the
statements of the early Christian Fathers, where this change by the apostles is
confirmed and put beyond doubt. Catholics also rely upon the tradition of the
Church which says that the change was made by the apostles. Catholics never
teach that the change of the day was made by the Church two or three hundred
years after Christ. Such a statement would be contrary to all the facts of
history and the traditions of the Church. "The
Holy Catholic Church began with the apostles. St. Peter was the first Pope.
Hence, when they say that the Church changed the Sabbath, they mean that it was
done by the Church in the days of the apostles. Neither the Church nor the Pope,
two or three hundred years after the apostles, had anything whatever to do with
changing the Sabbath, for the change had been made ages before. Catholics do not
call the first day of the week the Sabbath, for that was Saturday; but they call
it Sunday, or the Lord's Day. This above statement by Rev. D. M. Canright is true and pure
Catholic doctrine." Rev.
James C. Pulcher, Pastor of St. James' Church, Grand Rapids, Mich. See
how all these Catholic authorities agree. Now come to the catechisms which
Adventists are so fond of quoting. This is from a " Systematic Study of the
Catholic Religion." It is the one used by all students in the Catholic High
School in Grand Rapids, Mich. On page 294 I read, "The Church from the time
of the apostles has changed the Sabbath into the Lord's Day." In the Advent
book, "Who Changed the Sabbath?" page 9, the following is quoted from
the "Catholic Christian Instructed." "Quest.
What are the days which the Church commands to be kept holy? "Ans.
The Sunday, or our Lord's Day, which we observe by apostolic tradition instead
of the Sabbath." You
see this catechism refers the change of the Sabbath back to the apostles the
same as all other Catholic writers do. The Church did this in the time of the
apostles, just as all Protestants teach. Here follows another from the same
catechism: "Quest.
What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath,
which was the Saturday? "
Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic
tradition." Here
we are again referred right back to the apostles as before. I
will close this testimony of the Catholics with the following from a
"Mission Priest." These are priests of the very highest education and
influence. Their "mission" is to go from city to city in all the
states to their great church centers and give a course of lectures on Catholic
doctrines to both Catholics and non-Catholics. They are the best educated and
best posted priests in that Church. So what they teach is of the highest
character and reliable as expressing Catholic doctrines. I have obtained from my
next door neighbor (a Catholic family whose daughter attends the Catholic High
School here) the following book: "A Full Course of Instruction in
Explanation of the Catechism," by Rev. J. Perry, edited and adapted to the
present wants of Colleges, Academies, and Private Families, by a priest of the
Mission. It is endorsed by the Archbishop of St. Louis, Mo.
Notice that this is the authority studied in families, high schools,
colleges, and academies. Is there any better witness? Now read: "Third
[Sabbath] commandment. Its obligation transferred from Saturday to Sunday."
"What day of the week is the seventh day or Sabbath Day?" "It is
Saturday." "Then why do we not keep Saturday holy?" "
Because the Church in the apostles' time transferred the obligation from the
seventh to the first day of the week." "Why was this done?"
"In honor of Jesus Christ, and therefore the first day of the week is
called the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10). It was on the first day of the week (or
Sunday) that Christ rose from the dead; that He commissioned His apostles to
teach all nations; that He empowered them to forgive sins; that He sent down
upon them the Holy Ghost; it was on this day that the apostles began to preach
the doctrines of Christ and to establish the Christian religion "(pages
168-169). Here
it will be seen that the Catholics use exactly the same arguments for the change
of the day that all Protestants do, and locate the change at the same date, in
the time of the apostles and by the apostles. But
do not the catechism and Catholic writers, when controverting Protestants,
assert that the "Holy Catholic Church" changed the day? Certainly, but
they also claim that the Catholic Church began with the apostles who changed the
day. Do not Adventists know this? Yes. Why, then, do they not tell the whole
facts in the case? Let them answer. Consider
the high Catholic authorities quoted on this subject - the Council of Trent; the
papal delegate, Cardinal Gibbons; Archbishop Ireland; the Catholic Encyclopedia;
the Catholic Dictionary; written statements of priests; and the teachings of the
catechism. All agree that the change in the day was made by the apostles. Beyond
dispute, this establishes the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the origin of
the Lord's Day. Not a single Catholic authority can be quoted teaching that the
change of the Sabbath was made by the Popes or by the Papacy centuries later.
That is purely an invention of Seventh-Day Adventists. Here, then, is the
testimony of two hundred and fifty million Roman Catholics, all agreeing that
the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day originated with the apostles. Now if
Adventists quote the Catholics, then let them abide by their testimony. Now
read "Rome's Challenge," "Father Enright's Challenge," and a
lot of other Catholic "challenges," which Adventists gleefully gather
up and endorse and peddle the world over as unanswerable. Read them very
carefully and notice particularly that not one of these Catholic
"challenges" ever locates the time when the "Catholic
Church" made the change. In all these "Challenges" they adroitly
leave this point out, and presume on the ignorance of the general public, which
supposes that the Catholic Church began centuries after Christ. Then Adventists
take advantage of this popular idea of the Catholic Church and locate the change
about 300 years after Christ. Such deception is unworthy of Christian teachers. The
position of Protestants on the change of the Sabbath is so well known that no
proof need be given. All hold that the change of the day was made in the days of
the apostles and by the apostles. Here I do not argue as to whether they are
right or not. I simply state what they believe and teach. I could readily name
scores of distinct Churches all differing more or less in various doctrines,
such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, Disciples, United Brethren, Dutch Reformed, etc., etc., etc.
Go ask any of these, "Why do you keep Sunday?" The answer is simple
and always the same by all, "Because Christ rose from the dead that
day." "When was this change made?" "After the
resurrection." "Who made this change?" " The apostles."
All answer the same. I could give many quotations by standard writers from all
these Churches saying this. But what is the use? Every intelligent person knows
this already. The great Eastern Greek Orthodox Church, numbering one hundred and
fifty millions, teaches the same thing. Catholics claim just the same as
Protestants do that the change of the day was made in the time of the apostles
and by the apostles and quote Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10 to prove it just
as Protestants do. The only difference is that Roman Catholics claim that their
Church goes back to the apostles, begins with them and includes them. Hence,
when the apostles changed the day it was done by the "Holy Catholic
Church." That is the whole of it. This is exactly what all Protestants
teach, except that they deny that the apostles were Roman Catholics. Adventists
deny it too. So as to when, why, where, and by whom the day was changed
Catholics agree exactly with Protestants, and contradict what Adventists quote
them to prove. Reader, remember this, and that Adventist bugbear will frighten
you no more. Hastings'
"Dictionary of the Bible," Article "Lord's Day," says,
"When Jesus uttered the cry, 'It is finished,' the Mosaic dispensation
virtually passed away. His Resurrection, Ascension, and Outpouring of the Holy
Spirit were successive affirmations of the great fact, and the destruction of
the temple made it plain to all but the blindest. But in the meantime nothing is
more striking than the tender way in which the apostles and Christians of Jewish
birth were weaned from the old religion. The dead leaves of Judaism fell off
gradually. They were not rudely torn off by man. The new facts, the new dogmas,
the new ordinances first established themselves, and then, little by little, the
incompatibility of the old and the new was realized which necessarily issued in
the casting off of the old. "The
old things of Judaism were made new in Christianity. This, however, was not
accomplished by a deliberate substitution of one ordinance for another; but
first the old ordinances were simply antiquated, and their experience matured
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, proved that the positive institutions of
the new religion more than fulfilled those of the old." "Jesus
enunciated the great truths of the Gospel, and left them to germinate and bear
fruit through their own inherent power" (Levis). Chapter
V THE
PAGAN ROMANS AND GREEKS HAD NO WEEKLY DAY OF REST, OR FESTIVAL, OR WORSHIP. One
of the chief arguments which Seventh-Day Adventists make against Sunday
observance is this: They say that the pagan nations, especially the
Romans, regarded Sunday as a holiday, or festival day: a day of worship of their
heathen gods, particularly the sun, on every Sunday, hence Sun-day. When these
pagans professed Christianity they gradually brought into the Church this pagan
custom of a Sunday festival day. Then the apostate Roman Church adopted it from
these heathens. So now we are keeping a pagan, papal day, hateful to God. Their
literature against Sunday-keeping is largely based on this theory as
fundamental. Their "History of the Sabbath " is saturated with this
argument. It bristles in their tracts, pamphlets, books, and sermons everywhere
and all the time. Their children and members believe it as firmly as they
believe the Bible. Hence, they abominate Sunday observance and delight in
showing contempt for it in every possible way. If they are wrong here the very
bottom drops out of their anti-Sunday arguments. Read
a few of their assertions. Elder J. H. Waggoner says: "I only take it upon
me to fully and clearly show that the Sunday has its origin as a day of regard
and observance in paganism and the Papacy." "I
shall show that the authority, the name and the sacredness of Sunday are
entirely of pagan origin." "Sunday is in every feature a heathen
institution." (Replies to Canright, pp. 125, 126,133) Also "History of
the Sabbath," 1912, page 315: "Sunday was indeed the wild solar
holiday of all pagan times." Scores
of such statements are found in their works. By these assertions they frighten
the common people into giving up Sunday, because they are not able to answer
them. All such statements are absolutely untrue as the following evidence will
abundantly prove. I
do not accuse the brethren of any intent to deceive in this matter. Till nearly
the last years I was with them, I myself taught the same thing. This they now
quote against me. I did not mean to be untruthful, but, without personal
investigation for myself, simply followed our older authors. I know that the
other ministers did the same, and their ministers and writers do the same now.
Their quotations on this subject in their recent publications easily prove that.
It is not intentional dishonesty, but a lack of a candid investigation of
historical facts as they really are. In
my city there is a great Public Library, of 146,000 volumes, containing all
up-to-date publications available. Each department has a clerk who will quickly
bring any book or article on any subject wanted. Here I have found much
contained in these pages. An editorial in a leading daily says: "One
of the outstanding features of modern life is the fact that specialized
knowledge is always on tap for inquiring minds. The first fruits of research may
be procured at any up-to-date and extensive library, such as the one which Grand
Rapids is fortunate enough to possess." Knowing
that our great state and national institutions of learning maintain specialists
in every line of know ledge, I decided to apply to them for information on this
subject. These learned scholars would have no inducement to be one-sided or
unfair. These specialists have every possible means of information at hand and
devote a lifetime of study to their particular branch of knowledge. It is their
business to furnish to inquirers the results of their research. Hence I drew up
a list of questions fully covering every possible phase of this subject, as will
be seen. I carefully avoided giving any intimation of my views, or of the use I
wished to make of their replies, so as not in any way to influence their
answers. The
world-renowned British Museum is the highest authority to which I could refer,
so I will give this first. I quote my letter to them with their answer to each
question one after the other. Grand
Rapids, Mich., Dec. 8, 1911 Dear
Sir: For the information of many who are deeply interested in this subject,
would you kindly answer briefly the enclosed questions? D.
M. CANRIGHT. Here
is the answer: Sir:
I
am commanded by the Assistant Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities to reply as
follows to your questions on the ancient week: Q.
1. Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever have any regular weekly day of rest from
secular work? Q.
2. Did they have any regular weekly festival day? Q.
3. Did they have any regular weekly day when they assembled for pagan worship? Q.
4. Did they have any special day of the week when individuals went to the
temples to pray or make offerings? Q. 5. As Sunday was sacred to the Sun, Monday to the Moon, Saturday
to Saturn, etc., were those supposed deities worshipped on their own particular
days more than on any other days? Ans. No; the old worship of the gods was disappearing when the
seven-day week came about. The
significance of the deities' names was astrological, not religious, e.g., if a
person were born on Monday, the moon would influence his horoscope, but the moon
was never an object of common worship. Q.
6. When was our week of seven days first introduced into the Roman calendar? Ans.
There are traces in the literature of the late republic (first cent. B.C.) that
the Romans used the week of seven days for astrological purposes, in connection
with the many Eastern superstitions of the period. It was probably the third
century, A.D. before the seven day week came into common use. Q.7.
From whom did the Romans learn the week of seven days? Ans.
From the Jews, alternately the Assyrians and Babylonians; the names were
probably fixed by the Hellenistic Greeks. Q.
8. Did the pagan Greeks ever adopt in common life, or in their calendar, the
week of seven days? Ans.
No. Q.
9. Did Apollo, the Sun god, either among the Romans or Greeks, have any special
day on which he was worshipped with prayers or offerings more than on any other
day? Ans.
There were certain set festivals at various temples; these were annual, not
weekly. Q.
10. Did the pagan reverence for Sunday have anything to do in influencing
Christians to select that day as their rest day? Ans.
No; it can hardly be said that there was any special reverence for Sunday in
pagan times (see answer to No. 5). I
am, sir, You
see this historian gives an unqualified NO to all the questions. Notice
particularly that the names of the days of the week were all only astrological,
not religious. There was no religious sacredness attached to a day because
it was named after some planet as Sun-day - Sun's day - or Mon-day, Moon's day,
etc. The sun was not worshipped on Sunday, nor the moon on Monday, nor Saturn on
Saturday, etc. Also notice carefully that Apollo was not worshipped on Sunday or
on any weekday. His festival days were annual,
not weekly, as Adventists have taught. Then note that there was no special
reverence for Sunday in pagan times. Here again Adventists are proved to be
entirely wrong. This again destroys all their contention that Sunday sacredness
originated with pagans. The proof is abundant that no such thing was ever known
among the pagan Romans or Greeks. Hence, Sunday-keeping, or Sunday sacredness,
could not have originated with them. Our
next witness is from the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. This great
institution of learning is supported by the United States Government. Here the
highest qualified specialists in every line of knowledge are employed. Here they
have access to every possible means of up-to-date information in the Library of
Congress, etc. It will be seen that I addressed nearly the same questions to
this learned body and that the answers are the same as from the British Museum: Smithsonian
Institute, Washington, D.C. September 23,
1914 REV.
D. M. CANRIGHT, Grand Rapids, Mich. Dear
Sir: I
have referred your letter of September 14th to Dr. I. M. Casonawicz, Assistant
Curator of Old World Archeology, who furnishes the following replies to your
several inquiries: 1.
Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever have any regular weekly day of rest from
secular work? Ans.
No. 2.
Did they ever have any weekly festival day? Ans.
No. 3.
Did they have any regular weekly day when they assembled for pagan worship? Ans.
No. 4.
When was our calendar of the week first introduced among the Romans and Greeks? Ans.
The division of the month into weeks was introduced into Rome from Egypt. The
date is uncertain, but it was not earlier than the second century, A.D. 5.
When was our calendar of the week first recognized in Roman law? Ans.
The earliest Sunday legislation was enacted under Constantine I, 321 A.D.
No legislation of earlier date on the division of the month is known. 6.
As each day of the week was dedicated to some god, as Sunday to the Sun, Monday
to the Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., was each of these supposed deities
worshipped on one particular day more than any other day? Ans.
No. 7.
Did the pagan Romans have anyone special day in the week when individuals, if
they chose, went to make prayers or offerings to their gods? Ans.
No. 8.
Did Apollo have any special day in the week or month more than any other day
when he was worshipped with prayers or offerings? Ans.
No. Very
truly yours, Here
we have two of the most reliable witnesses in the world perfectly agreeing. If
their testimony is worth anything, then Adventists must revise their theory that
Sunday sacredness, or Sunday festivals, or Sunday rest days originated with
pagans. But
here is another witness confirming the other two but giving the answer more in
detail. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., is the oldest and best known
university in America. I addressed the same questions there. George F. Moore,
professor of Ancient Roman and Greek History, furnished me the following
complete account of all the Roman and Greek festivals. It completely destroys
all claim for any pagan sacredness of Sunday. Professor
Moore wrote me as follows: Divinity
Ave., Cambridge, Mass., May 24, 1913 There
are two seven-day weeks: the Jewish week, with a Sabbath on the seventh day; and
the Astrological week, with days named after the sun, moon, and five planets, in
our order determined by the theories of astrology, but without any day of rest.
The combination of the two is Christian. The Astrological week first appears in
Greek and Latin writings about the beginning of the Christian era. Its
antecedents are unknown. It had no use in ordinary life. Abstinence from labor
on the seventh day, or on one day in seven, is a distinctively Jewish
institution. The edict of Constantine (321 A.D.) closing the courts on Sunday
and prohibiting some kinds of labor on that day, is the first recognition of a
seven-day week in Roman law. The ancient Romans had a market day every eight
days, when the peasants came to town to market, but it was in no sense a day
of rest. In the old Roman calendar there were many days w hen the courts
were closed and other public and private business was not done. They had also
many festivals on which the people left their ordinary occupation to take part
in the celebrations, but these have no periodicity like that of the week.
Very
truly yours, In a second letter he says: REV. D. M. CANRIGHT Dear Sir: In reply to
your inquiries in your letter of November 23d, I would say: 1. The planetary week in which the days were named from their
regents, Saturday, Sunday, etc., was an invention of the astrologers,
probably in the second century, B.C., and has no relation to religion or
influence upon it. Saturn, for example, was not worshipped on Saturday, nor Jupiter
on Thursday. The festivals of the several gods were never weekly festivals,
nor did they occur on days fixed by other divisions of the month, say the
tenth day. 2. The religious calendars of the Greek cities were independent of
one another and underwent many changes in the course of time. Our knowledge of
these calendars is incomplete; only that of Athens is pretty fully known. The
festivals fell in certain months, and on certain days of the month. Thus, at
Athens, where the first month of the year, Hekabombaion, began at the new moon following the summer solstice
(roughly corresponding, therefore, to our July), there was a festival of Apollo
on the first (or on the seventh of the month). The great festival of Athena
Polias, the prophetess of the city, was on the 28th. There were often festivals
on the 12th (Kronia) and on the 16th (Synorkia). The second month had only one,
rather insignificant, festival. In the third month, the 5th day was an All
Souls' Day, a feast of the dead; a thanksgiving was observed on the 12th-15th;
from the 16th to the 25th were the great Athena Elensinia, and so on. No
particular days of the month were to be especially favored, either in general or
for any individual god. 3. The Roman calendar is preserved only from a comparatively late
time, when the worship of Greek and foreign deities was fully established. So
far as the old Roman calendar can be reconstructed it appears that the Ides of
every month were dedicated to Jupiter, who had, besides, festivals on the 23rd
of April, 5th of July, 19th of August, 11th of October, 25th of December. The
festivals of Mars occur chiefly in the month named after him, 1st, 14th, 17th,
19th, 23rd, also February 27th, October 15th and 19th. These examples may
suffice to show that no principle determines the fixing of these days. It may be
observed, however, that, as among many people, the solstices and equinoxes,
which mark the seasons of the year, are recognized in the calendar. Also that
all who have a calendar based on lunar months give some importance to the first
appearance of the new moon, and often to the full moon also. The festivals were public holidays, each with its own rites, and
customs, sacrifices, processions, etc. The priests in Greece and Rome, speaking
generally, officiated on these occasions only. The priest was a citizen, elected
or chosen by lot, for a longer or shorter time (sometimes for life): in most
cases he was not expected to demit his ordinary occupation. A priesthood who were priests and nothing else, who spent their
lives in the service of the temples, with daily offerings and liturgies came in
only with foreign, chiefly Oriental, gods, like the Magna Mater. Private persons went to the temples when they had occasion to offer
prayers or sacrifices or to make vows, etc. There were no stated days for such
visits-though some days were in some temples luckier than others, and there was
nothing like a stated day for the assembling of a worshipping congregation
except the festivals of the local calendar. Yours very truly, It will readily be seen that this is a valuable historical document
covering in detail every phase of Roman and Greek festivals. A weekly Sunday
festival was utterly unknown to either pagan nation. No weekly worship or sacredness whatever attached to Sunday. Our
Advent brethren, if candid, must abandon that theory. To make surety doubly sure, I will introduce one more witness. It
will be seen that all four fully agree in every item. This one is from Prof. W.
H. Westerman, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. University of Wisconsin, Nov. 13, 1913 Dear Sir: I shall answer your questions briefly, and in the order in which
you sent them. 1. The pagan Greeks and Romans never had a weekly day of rest. 2. They never had a weekly holiday or festival day. 3. They never had a special day in the week on which they made
offerings or prayers to heathen gods. (Neither the pagan Greeks nor the Romans
recognized a seven-day division or week division in the month.) 4. They made no offerings or prayers on Sunday to their gods any
more than on other days. 5.
The seven-day period of dividing the month or the week was never adopted into
the calendar of the pagan Greeks. It appears in the Roman calendar after the
time of Theodosius, or after 391 A.D., but the week, or seven-day period, first
appears in Roman law in a constitution of Constantine, promulgated in 321 A.D.
This appears in the Code of Justinian. The
seven-day division of the month, which is, of course from the stand point of the
calendar, a pretty cumbersome method of division, comes from the ancient
Hebrews, whose Sabbath, falling on every Saturday, early became a period of rest.
The word, Sabbath, means, probably, the "divider." The early
Christians, for example, Paul, did not think it necessary for the Christian
communities to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Usually, however, they did observe
it. In the first two centuries of our era they developed the custom of observing
the Lord's Day with prayer and common meals, and out of this, and the Jewish day
of rest, arose our practice of observing Sunday. I
have been very glad to be of service to you. Sincerely
yours, December
18, 1914 Dear
Sir: I will again answer your
questions in the order in which you asked them of me. 1.
In the constitution of Constantine of A.D. 321, which spoke of the
"venerable day of the sun," Constantine regards Sunday as venerable
undoubtedly from the Christian standpoint. It had been so regarded by the
Christians since the second century, as the day of the Resurrection. It would,
therefore, be venerable to Constantine, who had already legalized the Christian
religion. If it was in any way venerable or a holiday to the pagans, so far as
my information goes, the pagans must have adopted the practice from the
Christians. 2.
Apollo was not worshipped on any stated day of the week or month more than any
other. 3.
I do not believe that there is any proof that the early Christians were led to
observe Sunday by the example of any pagan worship upon that day. Indeed, I
think Tertullian's statements, quoted by you, from Chapter XVI of his
"Apology," goes to show that the pagans did not worship the sun upon
that day, rather than the opposite. Very
sincerely yours, The
united testimony of these high authorities is decisive. Neither the pagan Romans
nor the Greeks had any weekly day of rest from work, or any weekly festival, or
any weekly day for worship. They made no use of a week of seven days for
anything. Professor Moore says it had no use in common life. Notice further: The
old astrological week of seven days had no rest day.
The idea of a rest day once a week was unknown to the pagan Romans and
Greeks till they learned it of the Jews and Christians centuries after Christ.
The edict of Constantine, A.D. 321, was the very first time the week of seven
days was recognized in Roman law. All history agrees in this and it is a
decisive fact showing that, up to that date, the Romans had made no use of our
week of seven days, hence, did not, and could not, have observed Sunday as a day
of rest. There was no religious idea connected with the naming of the days from
the planets, as Sunday from the sun, Monday from the moon, etc. All
four of these specialists in ancient history agree in answering these questions
though neither one knew that they had been submitted to the others; yet all four
exactly agree in every particular, though widely scattered, London, Washington,
Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Such a unanimous agreement would settle any
question in a court of law. I
accidentally learned that J. W. Moncrieff, A.Y., D.D., Associate Professor of
Church History, University of Chicago, had carefully studied Seventh-Day
Adventism, especially on this subject. So I sent him this chapter for
examination. He wrote me as follows: University
of Chicago, I
appreciate very much the privilege of reading the two chapters of your
forthcoming book, and shall certainly want a copy of it when it is out. Seventy
years ago, when Seventh-Day Adventism was born, when people possessed a very
meager amount of information concerning the ancients, and when even the great
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary contained the statement that "The division of
time by weeks hath been universally observed in the world, not only amongst the
civilized, but likewise among the most barbarous nations" (I quote from the
edition of 1819), it was excusable in Seventh-Day Adventists to relate Sunday
observance to pagan Roman Sunday observance. But in the last fifty years an
enormous amount of research into antiquarian life has been accomplished by
reliable, competent historians, and when, with one accord, they proclaim the
previously held notion to be a myth, pure and simple, with no support in
well-ascertained facts, it is high time some one is bringing these facts which
are to be found in every recent standard encyclopedia in the articles on
"Calendar" and "Week" to the minds of the uninformed who are
confused by a doctrine wholly at variance with now ascertained historical fact.
I have consulted sixteen encyclopedias and dictionaries, and they differ in no
essential detail in their treatment of the subject. Sincerely
yours, It
will be seen this historian fully agrees with the four preceding ones. Having
given special attention to this particular subject, his testimony is of great
value in confirming the other. I
consulted a graduate of Michigan State University who has for four years made a
specialty of teaching Roman history in the high school. I asked her if the
Romans had any weekly rest day, or day of worship. She said, "No," and
gave me "Roman Festivals," by Fowler, as her textbook. Two university
professors referred me to this same book, so it is good authority. The Preface,
page 7, says: "A week of eight days was introduced at an early
period." Notice, it was eight days, not seven; and the eighth day was
simply a market day, not a day of worship. A large number of festivals are fully
described but there is in all the book no reference to any rest day, or day of
worship, on Sunday. If there had been such a rest day, the author would
certainly have named it. The
Romans, centuries after Christ, learned the week of seven days, partly from
Egyptian astrology and partly from Christians and Jews. The "Standard
Dictionary," Article "Week," says: "It was not, introduced
into the Roman calendar till after the reign of Theodosius in the fourth
century." The
"Universal Dictionary of the English Language," Article
"Week," says: "During the early centuries of their history the
Greeks and Romans had not the institution of the week." Webster's
Dictionary, Article "Week," says: "The week did not enter into
the calendar of the Greeks, and was not introduced at Rome till after the reign
of Theodosius." Constantine
had been dead over forty years before Theodosius began to reign. So at the time
when Constantine issued his Sunday law, A.D. 321, his pagan subjects did not use
the week of seven days, hence, could not have, kept the first day of our week
till taught it by Christians and required by Constantine's law. Prof.
A. Rauschenbusch, of Rochester Theological Seminary, quotes Lotz thus: "It
is a vain thing to attempt to prove that the Greeks and Romans had anything
resembling the Sabbath. Such opinion is refuted even by this, that the Roman
writers ridicule the Sabbath as something peculiar to the Jews. In proof he
cites many passages from the Roman poets, and one from Tacitus. Seneca also
condemned the Sabbath observance of the Jews as a waste of time by which a
seventh part of life was lost." ("Saturday or Sunday," p. 83) Herzog
says: "No special religious celebration of anyone day of the week can be
pointed out in anyone of the pagan religions" (Article
"Sabbath"). The
renowned Max Muller in "Chips from a German Work Shop," Vol. V, page
116, says: "It is well known that the names of the seven days of the week
are derived from the names of the planets, and it is equally well known that in
Europe the system of weeks and week days is comparatively of very modern origin.
It was not a Greek, nor a Roman, nor a Hindu, but a Jewish or Babylonian
invention." The
early Christian Father, Tertullian, A.D. 200, bears a decisive testimony that
the pagans had no weekly festival, did not keep the Lord's Day with Christians.
Reproving Christians for attending heathen feasts, he says: "Oh, truer
fealty of the heathen to their own religion which taketh to itself no rite of
the Christians. We are not afraid lest we be openly declared to be heathen! If
thou must needs have some indulgence for the flesh too, thou hast it and thou
hast not only as many days as they, but even more. For the heathen festival is
on but one day in every year, thine upon every eighth day.
Gather out the several solemn feasts of the heathen and set them out in
order; they will not be able to make up a Pentecost." (Ante-Nicene
Lib.," Vol. XI, pp. 162-163) I
notice that he says the heathen did not have a. festival on the Lord's Day, nor
on Pentecost, and that the heathen festivals came only "once a year"
not every week, like the Christian Day. He says that all their feast days,
if gathered together, would not be as much as Pentecost. This is decisive, that
the heathen did not have a weekly festival day, nor did they have a festival on
the same day the Christians did; viz., on the Lord's Day. Johnson's
"New Universal Encyclopedia," Article "Week," says:
"The Greeks divided the month into periods of ten days, and the Romans
gathered the days into periods of eight days; with both, the first day of a
period was market day, on which country people came to town and stirred up both
business and public life. The period of seven days, the week proper, was
introduced to the Romans and Greeks, partly by Christianity, partly by Egyptian
astronomy." This
demolishes the theory that keeping the first day of our Christian week came to
Christians from the pagan Romans. Exactly the opposite is true. The Jew and
Christians taught it to the pagan Romans. Schaff,
in his "Church History," says: "The pagan Romans paid no more
regard to the Christian Sunday than to the Jewish Sabbath." The
"Encyclopedia Americana," Article "Week," says: "The
Romans and Greeks each divided the months into periods, and were not acquainted
with the week till a late period. The Romans had, however, for civil uses, as
the arrangement of market days, a cycle of eight days, the ninth being the
recurring one, instead of the eighth as with us." I
have before me a book of 160 pages, entitled, "Sunday is the Christian
Sabbath, or Lord's Day," by M. H. MacLead, Pueblo, Colo. It is the most
exhaustive and scholarly work I have yet found on the history of the Sunday
question in the first four centuries. He carefully quotes a large number of high
authorities showing that the pagan Romans and Greeks had no weekly day of rest
or worship on any day of the week. On the subject of heathen rest days he says:
"I have given it an uncompromising consideration. It was not without a
study of the matter that I ventured even to myself a final and unchangeable
denial of any truth in the claim." What the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians,
or other ancient nations believed or did has nothing to do with our question. It
is claimed by Adventists that Sunday, as a day of rest and worship, came into
the Church from pagan Rome. Hence, that is the only question to settle. The
simple fact that Sunday was named from the sun, dedicated to the sun, or was
sacred to the sun, does not furnish the slightest evidence that people ceased
work on that day. Every
day in the week was named from some supposed deity and was sacred to that god.
"The World's Standard Dictionary" says: "Monday, the day sacred
to the moon." Did pagans worship the moon that day? Did they cease work
that day? Saturday was Saturn's day, sacred to Saturn. Did they rest that day?
So of all the days of the week. If they rested every day named after some god,
when would they work? Sunday was no more sacred than any other day and pagans
reverenced none. So
plain is the evidence on this subject that some of the best read Adventists have
admitted that pagans did not rest from work on Sunday. Thus Elder J. H. Waggoner
says of Constantine's Sunday law, A.D. 321: "Though the venerable day of
the sun had long - very long - been venerated by them and their heathen
ancestors, the idea of rest from worldly labor in his worship was entirely
new." (Replies to Elder Canright, p. 130)
Mark this confession, for it gives up the main pillar of their argument
in their effort to prove that Sunday-keeping was taken from the pagans. The
pagans never kept Sunday. It was a new idea to them when they were required to
cease work that day! Where did they get that new idea? From the emperor who had
just recently professed Christianity. He got it from his Christian brethren who
had always kept it! See the folly of arguing that the pagans taught Christians
to keep Sunday, when the pagans themselves had never kept it. Here
is another confession: Elder
L. R. Conradi, Seventh-Day Adventist, author of "History of the
Sabbath," edition of 1912, in a letter to me dated Hamburg, February 9,
1914, says: "A weekly rest day from work and solely dedicated to divine
worship was unknown in heathenism and only known among the people of
Israel." In
answer to my question, "Did the pagan Romans keep Sunday as a religious
day?" he says: "We never claimed that. The idea of keeping a day
means, in the present age, resting from work and giving the time solely to
worship. But this the pagans never did. They only made prayers to the sun-god and then followed their
regular work." Here
we have two witnesses from Seventh-Day Adventists themselves, confessing that
the pagans had no weekly day of rest from common work. Of course, they could say
nothing else, for all history says the same. So then this point is settled
beyond denial. "Admissions
in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies constitute the highest kind of
evidence." These
confessions from the two Adventist elders give up the question, as any candid
person must see. Elder
Conradi, above quoted, says of the pagans: "They only made prayers to the
sun-god and then followed their regular work." Here he assumes that the
pagans made Sunday a special day of worship when they made prayers to the
sun-god. He asserts that for which there is not a particle of proof. No prayers
were made to the heathen gods on Sunday more than on Saturday or any other day.
He cannot produce a scrap of proof for his assertion. The quotations given above
from the historians of the several universities squarely deny what he asserts
without any proof. Did all these pagans leave their homes every Sunday and go to
their temples and offer prayers? No. They had no meetings whatever that day, nor
on any other day of the week. On some special occasion, as a birthday, or
recovery from sickness, or to avert some feared evil, or on some yearly
festival, persons would go and offer incense or gifts to the gods. That was all.
There was no regular day in the week for any offerings of gifts or prayers. The
Adventists have invented a pagan Sunday of rest and worship which never existed.
No
pagan nation today keeps Sunday. The great Chinese nation, numbering four
hundred millions, keeps no day. Elder W. A. Westworth, Seventh-Day Adventist, in
the Battle Creek, Mich., Daily Journal, May
18, 1914, says: "I have put in 15,000 miles in inland China visiting our
stations. The Chinese have no week, nor any day of the week, kept as a weekly
rest." The same is true of the Japanese, 67,000,000, the Koreans, the
millions of pagans in Africa, etc. Then the Mohammedans, numbering 200,000,000,
rest on Friday, and all work on Saturday and Sunday. They copied the idea of a
weekly rest day from the Jews and Christians in the seventh century after
Christ. India has a population of 315,000,000. They have no weekly rest day. The
entire population of the earth is sixteen hundred millions. Of these only six
hundred millions believe in the Bible and Christianity, and hence nominally
respect Sunday. So ten hundred millions, nearly two-thirds of the people on the
globe, have no regard for Sunday or Saturday and never had. All on this globe
who now, or at any other time, have ever rested on Sunday have learned it from
Christians. So Christians could never have learned it from pagans, for none of
them ever kept Sunday. The
observers of the seventh day continually assert that Sunday with pagans was
always a popular festival day, a day for religious assemblies and pagan worship,
then of festivity or, perhaps, work, by some. The above testimony from numerous
reliable authors squarely contradicts these assertions. Listen
now to the Adventists. Of Sunday they say: "They are assembly days at early
morn, then given up to busy pleasure and to labor." "Many of his
[Constantine's] pagan subjects reverenced the same day as a day of prayer in
honor of the sun." Again: "The very effect of joining the pagans in
their devotions on Sunday was to let down the bars which God had put up."
(History of the Sabbath," edition 1912, pp. 373, 384,385, 363)
Here
is another: "The bishops would very readily adopt the most popular heathen
festival day [Sunday] in order to gain the favor of the pagans." "The
observance of Sunday was itself the custom which was brought into the Church by
converts from heathenism." "Sunday, the wild solar holiday of all
pagan times." (Fathers of the Catholic Church, by E. J. Waggoner, pp. 324,
326, 328) Here
is one from a Seventh-Day Baptist, Rev. A. H. Lewis, in "History of the
Sabbath and Sunday," page 70: "Sunday, already a festival among the
heathen." "The sun's day had been a leading weekly pagan festival for
many centuries" (page 521). Elder
Andrews in "Testimony of the Fathers," pages 26, 34, 43, says:
"The Roman people observed a festival on the first day of the week."
"The day commonly honored as a festival by the Romans." These
are only samples of what is repeated over and over by opposers of the Lord's
Day. These assertions are made, not only without proof, but directly contrary to
all reliable testimony, as we have quoted above. There was absolutely nothing of
the kind with Romans or Greeks. Elder
Waggoner says: "Sunday is in every feature a heathen institution."
(Replies to Canright, p. 133) Let us see. What
are the features of Sunday as kept by Christians?
1. All secular work ceases. These
are the features of the
Christian observance of Sunday. Waggoner says that in every feature
it is pagan! How many of these features can be found in the pagan day?
Absolutely not one. They did not even cease work that day as he himself says
above. Is not his assertion recklessly untrue? Could the pagan Romans give to
the Christians these features of Sunday observance when they themselves never
had one of them? It is absurd. But Adventists believe and teach it as a fact
while all reliable evidence shows that it is all absolutely untrue. The
strong, clear, united historical quotations given in this chapter prove, beyond
denial, that the pagan Romans never had any religious regard for Sunday, never
had the week of seven days in common life, or in their calendar, or in their
civil or religious laws. The very first deference they ever paid to Sunday was
in obedience to the law of Constantine the first Christian emperor. Because
one day was named Sunday, sun's day, and because the ancient Babylonians and
others worshipped the sun, therefore Adventists always assume and assert that
Sunday was specially devoted to the worship of the sun. Thus one writer says:
"The worship of the sun is one of the oldest and most universal forms of
idolatry, and Sunday was the special day honored by the sun worshipper."
Another writer says: "The very name Sun- day is a standing witness that it
was the day of sun worship." This is simply in the sound of names, nothing
more, without any foundation, in fact. This
ready assumption is entirely groundless. Each day of the week was named from
some planet: as Sunday from the sun, Monday from the moon, Saturday from Saturn,
etc. The first hour of each day was supposed to be ruled over by the planet of
that day. This was purely an astrological invention for civil purposes and had
no religious significance whatever; no idea of worship was connected with the
name of anyone of these days. Religious worship had nothing to do in naming the
days. The idea was purely and only astrological. Thus Johnson's "New
Universal Encyclopedia," Article "Week," says: "It was found
as a civil institution in the very earliest times among the Hindus, Persians,
Assyrians, and Egyptians. But the Jews were the only nation with which the week
had a religious significance." So also the answers from the above quoted
historians all agree that names of the days are purely astrological, not
religious. Sun worship had no connection with Sunday whatever, no more than any
other day. Chapter
VI HISTORICAL
EVIDENCE THAT OUR LORD'S DAY WAS OBSERVED FROM THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES.
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 observance existed here, then it
did not originate several hundred years later with Constantine, or with the
Papacy. We will begin soon after the close of the New Testament. PLINY'S
LETTER, A.D. 107 Pliny
was governor of Bithynia, Asia Minor, A.D. 106-108. He wrote A.D. 107 to Trajan,
the emperor, concerning the Christians, thus: "They were wont to meet
together, on a stated day before
it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as God. . .
. When these things were performed, it was their custom to separate and then to
come together again to a meal which they ate in common without any
disorder" (Horne's" Introduction," Vol.
I, Chap. iii, Sec. 2, p. 84. 129). That
this was Sunday is evident.
1. They came together to worship
Christ. The "stated day" for this was Sunday. "Upon the
first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread"
(Acts 20:7). This is exactly parallel to Pliny's statement. 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, p. 126) 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 St.
John died. The "Advent History
of the Sabbath," edition of 1912, is compelled to admit that Sunday
observance was in the Christian Church at the beginning of the second century.
The author says: "The results of our investigation concerning the origin of
Sunday [is] that it was not introduced into the Christian Church until the
beginning of the second century" (page 450). That is exactly the date when
Pliny wrote, immediately following the death of the last apostle. 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. Johnson's
" New Universal Encyclopedia" says: "It is frequently cited by
the Fathers, and was by many regarded as being of authority in the Church; some
even claiming for it a place in the sacred canon." 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 next
to the Gospels themselves as early as A.D. 120, or within twenty-four years of
the death of St. John, it shows what Christians believed and practiced
immediately after the apostles. In this epistle we read: "Incense is a vain
abomination unto me, and your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure. He has,
therefore, abolished these things" (Chapter II). Elder Andrews admits that
"he presently asserts the abolition of the Sabbath of the Lord."
(Testimony, etc., p. 22) Coming to the first day of the week, Barnabas says;
" Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also,
on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Chapter XV).
Notice this fact: All admit that this epistle of Barnabas was in
existence in the beginning of the second century, or not later than the middle
of it. At
that time it was supposed by the Churches to have been written as a part of the
New Testament Scriptures. It is in the oldest copy of the Bible right after
Revelation. It states in positive terms that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished
and that Christians kept the day of the resurrection. Now would the Churches,
week after week, read this language as inspired, and then not keep Sunday? That
is not reasonable. Hence this book does show what Christians believed and
practiced at that date, A.D. 120. But
Adventists say this writing was a forgery. It was no such thing. There is not a
word in the whole epistle claiming that the author was the apostle Barnabas. No
name is attached to it nor is there any claim that it was written by an apostle.
For some reason, not now known, it came to be attributed to Barnabas. The book
of Hebrews has no name to it; it is supposed that Paul wrote it and we accept it
as such, but some doubt it, and it cannot be proved. Shall we call it a forgery?
Just as well as to call the epistle of Barnabas a forgery. Here,
once for all, we will notice the chief argument on which Adventists depend to
invalidate the testimony of all the early Fathers in favor of the Lord's Day.
They try to show that Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Origen, etc., held some notions
which none of us now believe. Hence their testimony must be unreliable. This
argument they repeat over and over at great length in the case of every early
writer who witnesses for Sunday. Now it occurs that one of their writers, Elder
J. H. Waggoner, when it happens to suit his purpose, has himself answered this
argument. Of the Reformers he says: "We think the Reformers retained a
grievous error of their early training; but that does not invalidate their
testimony in regard to a matter of fact with which they were well
acquainted." (Replies to Canright, p. 164) Now
apply that to the early Fathers. They lived there, and state over and over, all
agreeing in it, that they themselves and all Christians then observed Sunday.
This was a simple matter of fact with which they were well acquainted. Waggoner
says such testimony is reliable. Of course it is. It proves beyond question that
the Lord's Day was an unquestioned practice of the early Church.
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 Popes
centuries later. THE
TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, A.D. 125 This
was not written by the apostles; yet its date is very early. Some place it as
early as A.D. 80. Professor
Harnack, of Berlin, says many place it between A.D. 90, and A.D. 120. This is
the date most favored. It cannot be much later. The New York Independent says of
it: "By all odds the most important writing exterior to New
Testament." Prof. D. E. Dungan, President of Drake University, says:
"It is evident that it is not far on this side of the death of the apostle
John." The noted scholar, Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, in his "Sabbath for
Man," page 383, says: It was "written, as the best scholars almost
unanimously agree, not later than forty years after the death of the last of the
apostles, and during the lifetime of many who had heard John's teaching." In
the preface to this important document, the editors, Professors Hitchcock and
Brown in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, say: "The genuineness of
the document can hardly be doubted." "The document belongs undoubtedly
to the second century; possibly as far back as 120 A.D.; hardly later than
160" (Introduction). 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 Testimony of the Fathers," by Elder Andrews:
"Justin's 'Apology' was written at Rome about the year 140," "and
this at a distance of only forty-four years from the date of John's vision upon
Patmos." "It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held
with him in doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He
speaks of it as abolished, and treats it with contempt" (page 33). This
is the confession which even the historian of the Seventh-Day Adventists is
compelled to make. The Jewish Sabbath was disregarded by Christians within
forty-four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is proven by the
testimony of an eminent Christian minister who lived right there. 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 Rome and that he is quite unreliable. But the facts are just the
reverse. He was a Greek, born in Palestine and held his "Dialogue with
Trypho" at Ephesus, Asia Minor, in the church where St. John lived and
died, the very center of the Eastern Church, and only forty-four years after
John's death. Of Justin the "Encyclopedia Americana " says: " One
of the earliest and most learned writers of the Christian Church. ... He was
also equally zealous in opposing alleged heretics." "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "In these works Justin professes to present the
system of doctrine held by all Christians and seeks to be orthodox on all
points. The
only difference he knows of as existing between Christians concerned the
millennium. Thus Justin is an incontrovertible witness for the unity of the
faith in the Church of his day, and to the fact that the Gentile type of
Christianity prevailed." Notice
carefully: At that date, A.D. 140, the only difference among Christians was
about the millennium. Then they must all have agreed in keeping Sunday, as
Justin says that was the day all kept as we will soon see. "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") Doctor
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. I, p. 482).
Not only were his books accepted without dispute as expressing the
practice of the Church, but his itinerant life, now in Palestine, then in Rome,
Greece and Ephesus, enabled him to know this practice, and stamps his testimony
with a force equal to demonstration. So, then, Justin is an unimpeachable
witness for the faith and practice of Christians generally a few years after the
death of the apostles. 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 offers
prayers 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, Chap. xlvii) This
"Apology" was written by Justin when Christians were being terribly
persecuted. It was addressed to Antoninus, the emperor, "also to the sacred
senate and the whole Roman people in behalf of those who of all nations are now
unjustly hated and aspersed." (Eusebius, "Eccl. History," Book
IV, Chap. xii, p. 139) It
was in behalf of the entire Christian Church in all the vast Roman Empire, as he
plainly states. Hence it presents
the practice of the general Church, not simply a local church at Rome as
Adventists unfairly state. It was addressed to the Roman emperor and the senate
to correctly inform them of the faith and practice of Roman Christian subjects.
Justin was martyred because he would not sacrifice to pagan gods. Notice that he
says that, "On the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities, or in the
country gather together to one place," etc. "But Sunday is the day on
which we all hold our common assembly." This practice was general among all
Christians as far as he had traveled, and he was an itinerant preacher like
Moody, or General Booth of the Salvation Army. Hence
this is positive proof that Sunday-keeping was general in the Christian Church
at that early date. Justin does not state simply his opinion, but a fact then
existing, viz., that all Christians "whether in cities or country "
"in all nations" held their assemblies on Sunday.
Justin
does not call Sunday the Sabbath nor the Lord's Day (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.
xxvi). 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 there the naked facts stand, clear, positive and undeniable, that
within forty-four years after the book of Revelation was written Christians did
hold their assemblies on Sunday. And Justin says that Jesus taught these things
to the apostles. Probably the
Jewish Christians did continue to observe the Sabbath the same as they did other
Jewish customs for a time. But even these also kept the Lord's Day as will be
seen later. Justin
plainly states that the Gentile believers did not keep the Sabbath. He says;
“The Gentiles who have believed on Him, although they neither keep the
Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts" yet are God's
children. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. xxvi) 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 CORINTH IN GREECE, A.D. 170 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 IV, Chap. xxiii). 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 Greece, not Rome. So the
resurrection day was a "holy" day, A.D. 170. In
this chapter Eusebius gives quite a lengthy account of Dionysius as a most
devoted Christian, a bishop of great and wide influence. He warned others
against all heresies in many letters he wrote. Eusebius
quotes his exact words about the "Holy Lord's Day " as above. As these
letters were sent to many other Churches it shows that the Lord's Day was by all
regarded as a holy day. BARDESANES
OF EDESSA, SYRIA, A.D. 180 Coming
down only ten years later, we have the testimony of the heretic Bardesanes, the
Syrian, who flourished about A.D. 180. He belonged to the sect of the Gnostics
which was very numerous all over the far East. He says: "What then shall we
say respecting the new race of ourselves who are Christians, whom in every
country, and in every region the Messiah established at His coming?
For, lo, wherever we be, all of us are called by the one name of the
Messiah, Christians, and upon one day, which is the first day of the week, we
assemble ourselves together." (Laws of Countries, A.D. 180) Notice
that these Christians were scattered widely "in every country and every
region." Bardesanes
says just the same as Justin Martyr, "We assemble ourselves together "
upon the first day of the week. These two witnesses are much alike as to Sunday.
Justin, strictly orthodox, says that "all in cities and country"
assemble on Sunday. Bardesanes, heretic, says the same for all the countries of
the Far East. The observance of Sunday was general both among orthodox and
heretics. Notice here also a refutation of the idea so strongly urged by
Sabbatarians, that Sunday-keeping originated at Rome, and was for a long time
confined there. Elder Andrews has to admit that the Gnostics at this date used
Sunday as a day of worship. But, the Gnostics were emphatically an eastern sect,
originating in Syria, and were most numerous in Alexandria, Asia Minor, and the
East. Rome
never had any influence over them. Bardesanes himself lived at Edessa, in
Mesopotamia, 2,500 miles east of Rome, on another continent, under another
nation. This sect was numerous in
the East as early as A.D. 150, or fifty-five years after the death of John. So
we have Sunday-keeping not only at Rome, but all over the East as early as A.D.
150, hundreds of years before there was any "Pope" at Rome. No
exception to this can be found whether orthodox or heretic. All observe the
Lord's Day. Even Sabbatarians are compelled to admit this. Elder Andrews says:
"Those Fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the
festival called by them the Lord's Day" (Testimony of the Fathers, p. 11).
Yes, while some did, for a while, keep the Sabbath, yet even they, in
every instance, also kept the Lord's Day. CLEMENT
OF ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT, A.D. 194 Clement
was one of the most celebrated of the Christian Fathers. He writes about A.D. 194.
He says: "He, in fulfillment of the precept, keeps the Lord's Day when he
abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the
Lord's resurrection in himself " (Book VII, Chapter XII). The Lord's Day,
it will be seen here, and all along, is the resurrection day. Clement lived, not
at Rome, but in Egypt. So Sunday-keeping was not simply a Roman usage, as
Adventists claim. Adventists
seek to discredit Clement's testimony about the Lord's Day by saying that he was
influenced by Greek philosophy as taught by Plato, Socrates, etc. But this is
easily answered by the fact that neither the Greeks in general, nor any of the
philosophers, ever practiced, or taught, any
observance of Sunday. They never knew anything about a weekly day of rest or
worship. The weekly calendar was unknown to them till taught it by Christians at
a later date. (See Chapter V.) Hence,
whatever else Clement and the Church at Alexandria gathered from Greek
philosophers, they did not get the Lord's Day from them. When they adopted
Christianity they accepted the Lord's Day as a part of it. Heathen Gnosticism
knew nothing of any weekly rest day; hence, Christian Gnostics could not get
their Lord's Day from them. TERTULLIAN
OF AFRICA, A.D. 200 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 Rome have a particle of influence
over him only to drive him the other way. He was
strictly orthodox in faith and a lover of the Scriptures. Hence if it were true
that Sunday-keeping, as a heathen institution, was being introduced into the
Church by Rome, Tertullian is just the man who would have opposed and fearlessly
condemned it. 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 Rome." The
"Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia" says of him: "One of the grandest and
most original characters of the ancient Church." "Greek philosophy he
despised." Of
his great book they say: "One of the magnificent monuments of the ancient
Church." Authon's "Classical Dictionary" says of him: "He
informs us more correctly than any other writer respecting the Christian
doctrines of his time. . . . Tertullian was held in very high esteem by the
subsequent Fathers of the Church." Neander says; "Tertullian is a
writer of peculiar importance." (Rose's "Neander," p. 424) 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. Tertullian
says: "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," Chap. xvi.) 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, Chap. xxiii).
Sunday, then, was observed by Christians at that early date, but Saturday
was not. The
above testimony of this great Christian teacher is clear, positive, and
decisive. The Jewish Sabbath was not kept; the Lord's Day was. Tertullian was
one of the greatest Christian teachers of that day, A.D. 200. Could it be that
these influential leaders taught and practiced thus, while all the Churches
believed and did just the other way? That
is, kept the Jewish Sabbath and did not keep the Lord's Day? Might as well say
that Moody and Spurgeon taught Sunday observance while none of their followers
believed it. In
the case of Tertullian, the last edition of the "Advent History of the
Sabbath" devotes twelve large pages trying to discredit him. Why? Because
his testimony is squarely against them and they fear it. It is a significant
fact that Adventists do not find even one single Christian writer or leader for
hundreds of years after Christ who is worthy of any reliance! All are fools,
forgers, unreliable, apostates, semi-pagans, etc.! Why this effort to impeach them all? The reason is easy to
find-all bear a decided witness against Sabbatarian teachings. 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 "Encyclopedia"). The
following items about Origen are gathered from the "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia." He was born at Alexandria, A.D. 185. Was carefully trained
by Christian parents. His father
was martyred. He was one of the most learned men of his age. He was devoutly
pious. He became the teacher of the greatest men of his time, even teaching
bishops and emperors. He traveled extensively to Rome, Arabia, Antioch, Greece,
Tyre, Cappadocia, Jerusalem, Caesarea, etc. Hence he was familiar with all the
customs of Christians everywhere. This makes his testimony to the Lord's Day at
that early date reliable and of great importance. 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 VIII, Chap. xxii.). In
his commentary on Exodus, Par. 5, he says: "It is plain from Holy Writ that
manna was first given on earth on the Lord's Day. But if it be clear from the
Holy Scriptures that God rained manna from Heaven on the Lord's Day, and rained
none on the Sabbath Day, let the Jews understand that from that time our Lord's
Day was set above the true Sabbath-for on our Lord's Day God always rains down
manna from Heaven; for the discourses which are delivered to us are from
Heaven." Here Origen shows that the Jewish Sabbath was set aside, and the
Lord's Day was the superior day, the day on which Christians assembled to hear
discourses from God's ministers. This agrees with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
all as above. Notice that this witness is from the East, not from pagan Rome.
Origen was a Greek, not a Latin. As Origen traveled extensively among the
Churches and preached for them, and his books were read by them, it shows that
the observance of the Lord's Day was general among them all. He would not have
been everywhere invited to preach for them if they had not believed as he did. THE
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, A.D. 250 Of
the "Apostolical Constitutions" (A.D. 250) Elder Andrews, Adventist,
says: "The so-called 'Apostolical 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., p. 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 Rome. These, then, will be
good witnesses to the practice of the Church about A.D. 250. In section 7,
paragraph 59, we read: "And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is
the Lord's Day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the
universe by Jesus and sent Him to us." "Otherwise what apology will He
make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning
the resurrection." In Book
VII, section 2, paragraph 30, he says: "On the day of the resurrection of
the Lord, that is, the Lord's Day, assemble yourselves together, without fail,
giving thanks to God," etc. In the same paragraph, in speaking of the
resurrection of Christ, the writer says: "On which account we solemnly
assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's Day,"
etc. These
testimonies are decisive, and do show beyond a doubt that the Christians of
those early days used the Lord's Day just as it is used now for religious
worship. CYPRIAN,
BISHOP OF CARTHAGE, A.D. 253 Cyprian
was one of the greatest scholars and men of influence in all Christendom about
seventy-five years before the date of Constantine's edict of A.D. 321. He was a
most devoted Christian, had great wealth, half of which he gave to the poor.
Refusing to reverence the pagan idols, he was martyred. He opposed the Roman
Church and bishop. Of him the "Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia" says:
" At the time when the controversy concerning baptism broke out between him
and Bishop Stephen of Rome (255) Cyprian stood undoubtedly as the prominent and
most influential leader in the Christian Church." "The Papacy was not
yet born." (Cyprian's "Epistles," No. 68, Sect. 4.) Of
this great leader, the "Advent History of the Sabbath" (1912) says:
"The next Father offering an argument for Sunday is Cyprian" (page
370). Hence there is no doubt that Cyprian kept the Lord's Day and defended it.
He said: "Because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath,
was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and
give us circumcision of the Spirit; the eighth day, that is, the first day after
the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day, which went before in the figure."' Did
not the Churches practice as this great leader did and taught? Surely. Then they
kept the Lord's Day sixty years before Constantine's conversion, a generation
before his Sunday law. Notice that
Cyprian lived in Africa, not at Rome, and that he opposed Rome. ANATOLIUS,
A.D. 270, BISHOP OF LAODICEA, ASIA He
was Bishop of Laodicea, Asia Minor. Not a Roman, but a Greek. This Church was
raised up by Paul himself, and must have been well acquainted with the apostle's
doctrine. In his seventh canon Anatolius says: "The obligation of the
Lord's resurrection binds us to keep the paschal festival on the Lord's
Day." In his tenth canon he uses this language: "The solemn festival
of the resurrection of the Lord can be celebrated only on the Lord's Day."
In his sixteenth canon he says: "Our regard for the Lord's resurrection
which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrate it on the same
principle." See how all these early Christians call the resurrection day
"the Lord's Day " and how they honor it. How entirely different from
our Sabbatarians who can hardly find terms mean enough
by which to express their contempt for Sunday! Why is this difference and what
does it show? 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 giving 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.) Here
is another Christian bishop who says most distinctly that Christians did not
keep the Jewish Sabbath and that the Lord had abolished it; but they did
religiously regard the Lord's Day. This was twenty-one years before
Constantine's Sunday law and sixty-four years before the Council of Laodicea. PETER,
BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, A.D. 306 "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 for keeping the Lord's Day that Christians give
now. This
was more than two hundred 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 Rome as Seventh-Day Adventists say. These show that
Sunday-keeping was as widespread as the Christian Church itself, and that from
the earliest days. EUSEBIUS,
A.D. 324 Eusebius
was born in Palestine, the very home of Christ and the apostles and the cradle
of the early Church. He was Bishop of Caesarea where Paul abode two years (Acts
23:33; 24:27). He studied at
Antioch where Paul labored for years (Acts 15:1). He traveled to Egypt and over
Asia Minor. He was one of the most noted men of his age. He wrote the first
history of the Christian Church and bears the title of "Father of Church
History." The "Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia" says: "As a
repertory of facts and documents, his work is invaluable." Johnson's
"Cyclopedia" says: " He was very eminent for learning, as well as
talents." Home's "Introduction" says; "A man of
extraordinary learning, diligence and judgment, and singularly studious in the
Scriptures.... His chief work is his 'Ecclesiastical History,' in which he
records the history of Christianity from its commencement to his own time.... He
has delivered, not his own private opinion, but the opinion of the Church, the
sum of what he had found in the writings of the primitive Christians."
(Vol. I, Chap. xi, Sec. 2, p. 42) 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 Caesarea 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, pp. 124-126) 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. 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 and 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 Days
very much like us in commemoration of His resurrection." (Ecclesiastical
History, pp. 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." (Commentary on Ps. 92) This
testimony of the great historian of the early Church is decisive. It puts it
beyond doubt that Christians in general in all the world did then keep Sunday,
the Lord's Day, and did not keep the Jewish Sabbath. Eusebius
bears witness to an actual existing fact, not to some speculative theory. He
says that all Christians throughout the world kept the Lord's Day. He lived
there and knew of what he affirmed. Is
not his testimony better than that of some sectarian Adventist 1,500 years
later? Eusebius
says, "We have transferred" the duties of the Sabbath to the Lord's
Day. On this Adventists try to make it appear that Eusebius himself with
Constantine and others at that date, A.D. 324, were the ones who transferred the
day. This is an unfair inference contradicted by all that has gone before.
Eusebius writes this as a Christian History relating what the early Church had
done. To illustrate: Roosevelt
says: "We defeated the British
in 1776." "We took Texas from Mexico." Does he mean that he and
his officers did this now? All know
better. Eusebius writes in the same way of what his brethren did centuries
before. That is all. TESTIMONY
OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE, A.D. 325 This
was the first general council. There were three hundred and eighteen bishops
present from all Christendom with about fifteen hundred lower clergy. Surely
these would know which day was then observed.
The twentieth canon says: "As some kneel on the Lord's Days, and on
the days of Pentecost, the holy synod has decided that for the observance of a
general rule, all shall offer their prayers to God standing." There
was no objection to this rule, no question about it, all agreed in it as a thing
universally understood. The Lord's Day was the Christian day of worship. The
Sabbath was not even mentioned, showing that none of them kept it.
As the delegates represented the entire Christian Church and in all
nations, it proves that the observance of the Lord's Day was then kept the world
over. ATHANASIUS,
A.D. 326 In
the great council of Nice A.D. 325, the one man who towered above all others in
influence was Athanasius, the "Father of Orthodoxy." There he defeated
the heresy of Arianism and settled for the Church ever since the Deity of
Christ. He traveled extensively
among the Churches, knew their customs well, and was himself a leader among
them. It is certain that his teaching and his custom as to the Lord's Day was
that of the entire Church. I will quote from the "Seventh-Day Adventist
History of the Sabbath," edition 1912, so that his position will not be
questioned. The author says:
"Of the early Fathers the later ones spare no effort to manufacture new,
fanciful, rhetorical phrases to surround Sunday with greater luster, and to
cause the Sabbath to fade out of sight. Athanasius
of Alexandria (A.D. 326) gives us a fair sample. The sixth psalm is said to be
upon the Sheminith (the eighth) an instrument for the eighth key. This is seized
upon by Athanasius as a proof for Sunday. " What else could this octave be
but the resurrection of Christ?" Then again speaking of Psalm 118:24,
"What day can this be but the resurrection day of the Lord which has
received its name from Him, to wit, the Lord's Day?" (pages 418, 419). Then
the author gives other quotations from Athanasius along the same line defending
the Lord's Day. Notice
that all the great leaders of the Church kept the Lord's Day and defended it,
but rejected the Jewish Sabbath. Then did not the general Church follow their
leaders? Leaders determine what
their Churches believe and practice. Lutherans
follow Luther, Methodists follow Wesley, etc. All the leaders of the early
Church condemned the Jewish Sabbath and observed the Lord's Day. Did
not the Churches follow their teachers then the same as they do now?
Seventh-Day Adventists confess that the leading men, ministers, and
writers, during the first centuries opposed the Jewish Sabbath. Thus Elder J. N.
Andrews in "History of the Sabbath," edition of 1873, says:
"Several of the early Fathers wrote in opposition to the seventh
day. We now give the reasons assigned by each for that opposition. The writer
called Barnabas did not keep the seventh day" (page 299). Andrews
finds that Barnabas gave seven, reasons why the Sabbath should not be kept. He
wrote A.D. 120, at the very beginning of the second century. His book was read
in the Churches as Scripture. Then did those Churches keep the Sabbath? Of
course not. JUSTIN
MARTYR, A.D. 140 Of
this renowned early Christian Father Andrews says: "He expressly affirms
the abolition of both the Sabbath and the Law." "Here are three reasons" (pages 301, 303). So
Justin gave his reasons for rejecting the Sabbath. Of him the "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "In these works Justin professes to present the
system of doctrine held by all Christians." IRENEUS,
A.D. 178 Of
him Andrews says: "These things indicate that Ireneus was opposed to
Sabbath observance" (page 305). He was one of the greatest and most beloved
of the early Fathers. Did he oppose the Sabbath and yet all his people keep it?
Hardly. TERTULLIAN,
A.D. 200 Of
him Andrews says: "Tertullian offers numerous reasons for not observing the
Sabbath" (page 305). He not
only did not keep it, but gave numerous reasons for his faith. Of him Authon's
"Classical Dictionary" says: "He informs us more correctly than
any other writer respecting the Christian doctrine of his times."
He had a tremendous influence on the Church then. Did they all keep the
Sabbath while he opposed it? Reader,
how is this? EUSEBIUS,
A.D. 324 No
early church Father surpasses Eusebius for learning or influence in the Church.
Of him Andrews says: "Eusebius came out and declared that Christ
transferred the Sabbath to Sunday" (page 358). The same "History of
the Sabbath," edition of 1912, says: "Eusebius sets aside the Sabbath
of the Lord" (page 396). Then that was what all Christians did the world
over. Now if the leaders and representative writers opposed the keeping of the
Sabbath, will any one believe that the common Christians all kept a day which
all their leaders and writers opposed? Elder Andrews in "History of the
Sabbath," page 308, 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." This is the confession 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 and gave their reasons for it!" 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? I
could multiply indefinitely from Sabbatarian authors such confessions as these.
Against their will, they are compelled to make them. They prove conclusively
that the observance of the Jewish Sabbath had, largely at least, dropped out of
the Church at that early date. THE
COUNCIL OF LAODICEA, A.D. 364 This
Christian council plainly states that the Jewish Sabbath was no longer to be
kept, while the Lord's Day was. The twenty-ninth canon says: "Christians
ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but
preferring the Lord's Day, should rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if
they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ." Thirty-two
bishops were present, all Greeks, in the Eastern Church. Did they know which day
the Church kept at that date? Surely. They agree with all the witnesses already
quoted. At that date keeping the Jewish Sabbath was condemned, and the Lord's
Day approved. ST.
AUGUSTINE, A.D. 395 Next
to Paul, probably Augustine has had a wider influence on the Christian Church
than any other man. He was born in Numedia, Africa, A.D. 353. His mother was a
devout Christian. He became Bishop of Hippo, Africa. Of him the "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "From his diocese a relentless war was waged upon
every heresy." "These made him immortal, and have tempered the
theology of all after times." "The This
great Christian leader, within three hundred years of St. John, had access to
all the Christian writings before him, knew perfectly the practice of the
Christians in his day the world over and wrote against pagans and every heresy
then extant. He explicitly teaches that the Sabbath was not for Christians. Of
Sunday he writes often and fully. We quote only a few lines. "That day
which we now call Sunday is the first day of the week, as is clearly seen from
the Gospels. The first day of the week is thus named as the day of the
resurrection of the Lord, by all the four evangelists, and it is known that this
is the day which was later called the Lord's Day." "Sunday was not
appointed for the Jews, but through the resurrection of the Lord for
Christians." "We celebrate the Lord's Day, and Easter, and other
Christian festivities." "To fast on the Lord's Day is a great
scandal." (To Casulanua, Epistle 28.) Certainly
this is plain enough. This brings us down to A.D. 400, with the Lord's Day so
fully and clearly recognized in all Christendom that it is useless to follow it
further. Now read the testimony of the ancient Eastern Greek Church, the first
one founded by the apostles. Right Rev. Bishop Raphael, of Brooklyn, N. Y., head
of that Church in America, writes me under date of March 30, 1914, as follows:
"Our Church, which included all the very first Churches founded by the
apostles, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, and even
Rome, for the first three hundred years, has kept the first day of the week as a
day of rest and in holy remembrance of the resurrection of our blessed Lord from
the dead. From the dawn of Christianity she bears witness that it has been the
sacred day on which the faithful assembled for the partaking of the Lord's
Supper, for the saying of public prayers, and the hearing of sermons. All our
historians bear record to this fact." This
witness fully confirms the testimony of all the early Christian Fathers quoted
in this chapter. 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 principal 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 apostolical, 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. . . . Religiously
regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the holy eucharist, for united
prayer, for instruction, for almsgiving." So
Johnson's "New Universal Cyclopedia," Article "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." No
higher authority than this could be quoted. It states the truth exactly. So the
"Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Article "Sunday," says:
"In the second century its observance was universal. . . . The Jewish
Christians ceased to observe the Sabbath after the destruction of
Jerusalem." Doctor
Schaff, than whom there is no higher authority, says: "The universal and
uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by
the fact that it had its roots in apostolic practice." (History of the
Christian Church," Vol. I, p. 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 then. 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. Chapter
VII SUNDAY
OBSERVANCE ORIGINATED WITH THE EASTERN, OR GREEK CHURCH, NOT WITH ROME IN THE
WEST. This
is a very important fact bearing on the Sunday question. Adventists are
constantly pointing to "Rome," to the "Pope of Rome," to the
"Roman Church," to the "Roman Papacy," to the "Roman
Councils," and to the " Roman pagans "as the originators of
Sunday observance. They publish
"Rome's Challenge," "Rome's Catechism," etc. Their cause
stands or falls with these claims. It is easy to show that all these assertions
are groundless. The change of the day was made in the Eastern Greek Church in
the time of the apostles, and was carried thence to Rome, not from Rome to the
East. The proof of this is abundant. Generally
people know little about the Greek Church, hardly know that it exists. Yet it is
the oldest Church and numbers now one hundred and fifty millions. Generally
people suppose that Rome is the "Mother Church," which is not true. As
we all know from the book of Acts, the Christian Church began in the East, in
Asia, not in Rome. It
started in Jerusalem in the East; thence spread over Judea, Samaria, Asia Minor,
Greece, Egypt, Damascus, and far-off Babylon on the Euphrates. Rome and the West
came later. Notice
briefly; Jesus and all the apostles lived in the East, where the Greek language
was spoken. Every book of the New
Testament except Matthew was written in Greek. Revelation, written as late as
A.D. 96, is in Greek. Largely the preaching of the apostles was in Greek. The
Gospel began at Jerusalem in the East (Acts 2:1-11). Notice who heard that first
sermon on Pentecost: "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers
in Mesopotamia, and Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and
Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers from
Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our
tongues the wonderful works of God." Here
were persons from far-off Parthia, Media, and Mesopotamia, away east on the
Euphrates, about two thousand miles east of Rome; then come Egypt and Libya;
then Arabia; then Asia Minor; then Macedonia; then Crete - all these were in the
East. Only one city in the West was named as being represented at Pentecost -
Rome. These first converts carried the Gospel into all these far Eastern
countries. The apostles soon
followed and raised up Churches there. See where Paul went - Damascus, Arabia,
Antioch, Ephesus, Troas, Corinth, Philippi, Galatia - all Grecian cities.
Revelation is written to the seven Churches which are in Asia, none in Rome
(Rev. 1:4). Peter's first letter seems to have been from Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13). Paul
was the first minister to visit Rome. This was not till A.D. 65. (See Acts 28.)
Even then Paul found only a few brethren at Rome, and these were Jews (Acts
28.), but no bishop or Pope. For
three or four hundred years after Christ the Bishop of Rome had no authority
even over a large share of the Churches at home in the West. Over the great
Eastern Greek Churches he had none whatever. On the other hand, for about three
hundred years the Church at Rome was a Greek mission, supported and ruled over
by the Greek Church, as we will soon see. Long
before Paul visited Rome great Churches of thousands had, for half a century,
been established in the East, even in far-off nations outside the Roman empire. Notice
another fact. All the first witnesses for the Lord's Day were not Romans, but
Greeks living in the East. (See Chapter VI.) These were Barnabas, Justin Martyr,
Dionysius, Clement, Anatolius, Origen, Eusebius, etc. Not a single one of the
first witnesses for the Lord's Day was a native of Rome. This speaks volumes as
to the birthplace of Sunday observance. It was born in the East, not in Rome in
the West. What
the Christian world owes to the Eastern, or Greek Church, is thus stated in the
"Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Article "Greek Church":
"This Church is the oldest in Christendom, and for several centuries she
was the chief bearer [missionary] of our religion. She still occupies the sacred
territory of primitive Christianity, and claims most of the apostolic sees, as
Jerusalem, Antioch, and the Churches founded by Paul and John in Asia Minor and
Greece. All the apostles, with the exception of Peter and Paul, labored and died
in the East. She produced the first Christian literature, Apologies of the
Christian Faith, Refutation of Heretics, Commentaries of the Bible, Sermons,
Homilies, and Ascetic Treatises. The great majority of the early Fathers, like
the apostles themselves, used the Greek language.
Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius,
Basle, Gregory of Nazienzen, Gregory of Nyssia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Cyril of Alexandria, the first Christian emperors since Constantine
the Great, together with a host of martyrs and confessors, belong to the Greek
communion. She elaborated the ecumenical dogmas of the Trinity and Christology,
and ruled the first seven ecumenical councils which were all held in Constantinople
or its immediate neighborhood (Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus). Her palmy period
during the first five centuries will ever claim the grateful respect of the
whole Christian world." Notice
that the Eastern, or Greek Church, ruled the first seven general councils which
were all held in the East, none of them in the West, or papal territory. The
date of these seven councils was A.D. 325, 381, 431, 451, 557, 680, and 787. All
these were dominated by the Eastern Greek Church, not one by Rome. These take us
down this side the latest date Adventists fix for the change of the Sabbath. Hence,
if the Roman Church, or Pope, or Papacy changed the Sabbath, it could only have
changed it in the West, for it had no authority or influence over these hundreds
of great Greek Churches in the East, many of them outside of Roman rule. The
following is from the Right Rev. Bishop Raphael, head of the Greek Church in
America. Few Protestants are aware
of the importance and number of that great primitive Church. Read it: "The
official name of our Church is 'The Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church.'
It was founded in the time of the apostles and by the twelve apostles,
Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, beginning on the Day of
Pentecost (Acts 2). Our Church has never been subject to the Roman Church or to
the Latin Popes or to the Papacy. The Roman Church herself was a Greek mission
for nearly three hundred years, and the Greek language was the tongue in which
the Liturgy, or Mass, was said in the City of "The
first seven General Councils, beginning with Nice A.D. 325, on down to 787,
which were the only General Councils acknowledged alike by Eastern and Western
Christendom, were all held within the domain of the four ancient Eastern
Patriarchates. They were dominated by the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic
Church. Even the Popes of Rome, as in the case of Pope Leo in the matter of the
exaltation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to an equality in temporal and
spiritual powers, to Rome (vide Acts of the Fourth General Council-Chalcedon),
were compelled to assent, like all others, to the Decrees of the General
Councils, which latter were always higher than Popes or Patriarchs. "Rome
never dominated any of the first seven General Councils; on the contrary, they
dictated to her and in some cases, e. g., Pope Honorius, excommunicated and
condemned Popes as heretics. "The
name 'Catholic' was common to all Orthodox Churches, Eastern or Western, Greek
or Roman, for eight hundred years after Christ. Rome, in the West, exclusively
assumed the name 'Catholic,' yet prefixing it by the appellation ' Roman,' by
default on the part of the schismatics within her own patriarchate, in the
sixteenth century; but the Holy "Our
Church, which includes all the very first Churches founded by the apostles, such
as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, and even Rome, for the
first three hundred years, has kept the 'first day of the week' as a day of rest
and in holy remembrance of the Resurrection of our Blessed Lord from the dead.
From the dawn of Christianity she bears witness that it has been the Sacred Day
on which the faithful assembled for the partaking of the Lord's Supper, for the
saying of public prayer, and the hearing of sermons. "Our
Holy Traditions, the Sub-Apostolic, Anti-Nicene and Sub-Nicene Fathers, as well
as all of our historians, also bear testimony to this fact. Under the head of
the Fourth Commandment in our Catechism, which is accepted by the whole Holy
Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church, this instruction is given. And both the
Roman Church and all other Churches which regard the authority of antiquity,
calling themselves Protestant, agree on this very fact, viz., that the Lord's
Day (the first day of the week) has been observed from the morning of the
Resurrection till this moment. "The
Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church consists to-day of not only the four
ancient Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but
of the great Churches of Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro,
Albania, Cyprus, Mount Sinai, and the four independent Churches of Austria,
etc., and here in America,
under the Holy Synod of Russia, a prosperous Mission, consisting of different
national Churches, which extends from the northern limits of Canada to the City
of Mexico. All these Churches are equal in authority and united in Doctrine,
Discipline and Worship. She is the same Church without break, in her succession
of bishops, traditions and teaching, from the days of the twelve apostles, when
they met in the Upper Room at Jerusalem before there was ever heard of or
thought of a Pope in Rome, and when St. James, spoken of as the first Bishop of
Jerusalem, presided over the council of the Apostles and Brethren, when they
considered the admission of the Gentiles into the "The
Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church has never perceptibly changed in
Doctrine, Discipline or Worship since Apostolic Days, and numbers to-day about
150,000,000 members." RAPHAEL
HAWAWEENY, Their
catechism is very plain on this point. The Longer Catechism of the Greek Church
says: "Is
the Sabbath kept in the Eastern Church? "How
does the Christian Church obey the fourth commandment? "Since
when do we keep the day of the Resurrection? The
catechisms of a Church are the very best authority as to what that Church
believes. Here are the Churches
raised up by the apostles themselves and have continued this ever since. They
have always kept Sunday. Here is a clear and emphatic testimony from the highest
authority in that great Eastern Church. All her historians, bishops, councils,
catechisms, and traditions agree in witnessing to the observance of the Lord's
Day from the very beginning of the Church. This is not a mere theory, but an
actual historical fact witnessed to today by one hundred and fifty million
members. And all outside history confirms this. All
the first writers to defend the faith against both pagans and heretics were
members of this early Eastern Church. None were Romans. The fundamental
doctrines of Christianity now held in common by the Greek, the Roman, and
Protestant Churches were first formulated and settled by the Eastern Church, not
by the Roman Church. Her great scholars and teachers, her Christian literature,
her preachers, and world-wide influence, far exceeded that of Rome and the West
for over six hundred years. Rev. A.
H. Lewis, Seventh-Day Baptist, admits that the Greek Church was the Mother
Church. He
says: " In the changes of the first four centuries after Christ, the
Eastern Church, which was really the Mother Church, and the home of primitive
Christianity, was kept unaffected by way of influence which started the strong
current of empire westward by way of Rome.
But the truth is that a very large factor of church history is the
Eastern current, and especially so in regard to the earliest ideas and
practices, that of the Apostolic Period." (Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 220,
221) This
is true, and is an important concession from a Sabbatarian confirming the above
from Bishop Raphael. Justin Martyr states in explicit language that as early at
least as A.D. 140 that Mother Church was keeping Sunday. (See previous chapter.)
How then could Rome, two hundred years later, introduce Sunday to this old
Church? How could Sunday originate with the pagan Romans in the time of
Constantine, A.D. 321? It
was her apostles and consecrated missionaries who carried the Gospel to Rome and
the West and Christianized them. It was not Rome and the West that taught the
East. It was exactly the other way. Specially was this true of the observance of
the Lord's Day. It was carried from the East to the West, from the Greeks to the
Romans. It was not pagan Romans, as Adventists say, who introduced the keeping
of the Lord's Day to the great Eastern Church, but it was the Eastern Church
that carried that day West and taught the converted pagans to observe it. The
following is from "The Historians of the History of the World,"
Article "Papacy," Vol. VIII, p. 520: "But the history of Latin
Christianity was not begun for some considerable (it cannot but be indefinable)
part of the first three centuries. The Church of Rome, and most, if not all, the
Churches of the West, were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies.
Their language was Greek, their organization Greek, their Scriptures The
"Britannica," Article "Papacy," says that the Church at Rome
was not founded till A.D. 41-54. Then it says of the fourth century: "The
Roman Church, having ceased to know the Greek language, found itself practically
excluded from the world of Greek Christianity." "During the fourth
century it is to be noticed that, generally speaking, the Roman
Church played a comparatively insignificant part in the West." These
historical facts show that Rome for centuries was taught and ruled by the
Eastern Greek Church, not the East by Rome. The following is from the noted
scholar, the late Dean
Stanley, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in his "History of
the Eastern Church." It is of
the highest authority. He says: "By whatever name we call it 'Eastern,'
'Greek,' or 'Orthodox' - it carries us back, more than any other existing
institution, to the earliest scenes and times of the Christian religion."
(Lecture 7. p. 56) "Jerusalem,
Antioch, Alexandria, are centers of local interest which none can see or study
without emotion, and the Churches which have sprung up in those regions retain
the ancient customs of the East, and of the primitive age of Christianity, long
after they have died out everywhere else" (page 57). Again Stanley says:
"We know, and it is enough to know, that the Gospel, the original Gospel,
which came from the East, now rules in the West" (page 95). The Church in
far-off Eastern Asia, Chaldea, the home of Abraham," was the earliest of
all Christian missions-the mission of Thaddeus to Agbarus" (page 58). A
delegate from that Church came to the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. "The
early Roman Church was but a colony of Greek Christians or Grecized Jews. The
earliest Fathers in the Western Church, Clement, Irenseus, Hermas, Hippolytus,
wrote in Greek. The early Popes were not Italians, but Greeks" (page 65). Consider
carefully these facts. It was the Eastern Greek Church which sent missionaries
to Rome, founded that Church, furnished it her teachers and supported it as a
mission for centuries. For over two hundred years the observance of the Lord's
Day was fully and universally established among all the thousands of the old
Eastern Churches before the Church at Rome in the West ceased to be taught and
supported as a Greek mission. Read the previous chapter. This shows that
Sunday-keeping went from the East to the West, not from Rome to the East.
Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and others show that the Greek Churches were all
observing the resurrection day in the first part of the second century when they
were yet sending teachers and pastors to Rome. Would not these carry their home
custom there and teach it to the Roman Church? Certainly, and that is the reason
why the West and the East were always agreed about keeping the same day, the
Lord's Day. Did that "mission" force on all the old, long established,
powerful Eastern Churches a Western Roman pagan day of worship, and that without
a word of protest from these Apostolic Churches? Candid men will not accept such
an unreasonable assertion. Again
I quote from Dean Stanley. "She [the Eastern Church] is the mother, and
Rome the Again:
" There can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church was far
higher than that of the Western" (page 76). "The whole force and
learning of early Christianity was in the East. A general council in the West
would have been an absurdity. With the exception of the few writers of North
Africa, there were no Latin defenders of the faith" (page 100). For over
four hundred years the East was the mother, the missionary, the teacher, the
leader, the ruler, while the West was the child, the mission, the taught, the
led, the one to receive, not give. With the rest of the Gospel the East brought
the Lord's Day to Rome and taught it to the less educated Roman. Here
is a notable fact: While the Jewish Christians, and perhaps a few Gentiles
living among them, continued for a while to keep the Jewish Sabbath, all
Christians, Jews or Gentiles, without a single exception, kept the Lord's Day.
Not one single Church in all the early history of the Church has ever been found
which did not hold their assemblies on Sunday. Let Adventists name one if they
can. They never have, and never can. Another notable fact is: While there was
some dispute with a few about the Sabbath, there is not the slightest hint of
any dispute among the widely scattered and differing sects of Christians about
the Lord's Day. Only one reason can be given for this; namely, the custom of
keeping the resurrection day must have begun at the very first with the apostles
and was universally accepted by all from the beginning. Starting
out from Jerusalem after Pentecost, the apostles and teachers went everywhere
carrying the practice of the Mother Church to all nations. "The
Lord's Day," Rev. 1:10, was thus accepted by all, Rome with the rest. Here
is another great fact. Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others wrote extensively against all heresies,
but not one ever mentioned Sunday observance as a heresy, though it was often
mentioned incidentally as a well-known existing Christian practice. The
"Advent History of the Sabbath," edition of 1912, makes this
confession: "Although Ireneus writes five books against the heresies, it is
rather strange that he himself nowhere alludes to Sunday" (page 334). If
the Lord's Day had been a heresy lately introduced from the pagan Romans, he
certainly would have named it. His silence is proof that Sunday was not a
heretical, pagan institution, for he wrote against all that. Weigh this fact
well. SUMMARY 1.
The Eastern Greek Church was first, the Roman Church second and later. 3.
Christianity went from East to West, not from West to East. 18.
In all church history there is not the remotest reference to any dispute between
the Roman Church and the Greek Church about keeping Sunday. 19.
The histories, the catechisms, the teaching of her bishops, and her traditions,
all agree in teaching in the most positive terms that the Eastern Greek Church
has always kept the Lord's Day from the days of the apostles. 20.
The Eastern Church strongly asserts that she has kept the Lord's Day from the
very beginning. 21.
Her catechisms, her historians, and her traditions all confirm this. 22.
There is no record of any period in all her history when she did not observe the
Lord's Day. Adventist, find it if you can. 23.
There is no record showing, or intimating, that she ever received Sunday from
Rome or the West. 24.
There is no record of any period this side of the apostles when she began
keeping the Lord's Day. 25.
Justin Martyr, a Greek Christian, a Church Father of the Eastern Church, two
hundred years before the date of Constantine's Sunday law, gives a full detailed
account of the observance of Sunday by his brother Christians of the Eastern
Church. 26.
Eusebius, the first church historian, an Eastern Greek bishop of Palestine,
before Constantine's law was issued, says, "We have transferred to the
Lord's Day all the duties of the Sabbath" (page 153 of this work). 27.
The Greek Church, which gave us the Lord's Day, also gave us our New Testament 28.
It was the Greek Church which, through her early scholars and councils, gave to
all Christendom, Rome included, our canon of inspired New Testament books. 29.
The Eastern Church has always jealously held to her own custom against all
efforts of Rome to change them. 30.
The Roman Catholic Church always teaches that the "Holy Catholic
Church" changed the Sabbath in the days of the apostles. (See Chapter IV.)
But there was no Roman Pope or Papacy in existence at that time. Even Adventists
will admit this. So Rome bears witness that the day was changed in the East, not
at Rome. Mark well this fact. 31.
With all these notorious facts before us, it is absurd to say that Rome changed
the Sabbath, originated the observance of the Lord's Day, and handed it over to
the old Eastern Church and then to all Christendom. Such a theory is an utter
perversion of all the plainest facts of the history and traditions of the
Christian Church. In
the matter of the observance of the Lord's Day, we are not dealing with a mere
theory as in the question of election, foreordination, falling from grace,
condition of the dead, etc., but with an actual condition, with historical
facts. Today
there are said to be two hundred and fifty million Roman Catholics, one hundred
and fifty million Greek Catholics, one hundred and fifty million Protestants,
all agreeing in reverencing the Lord's Day, all agreeing that it originated with
the apostles. In proof of this all appeal to their present practice, to their
entire church history in the past, to all their traditions of their Churches,
and to their catechisms. If all this is to be ignored as of no weight, then all
the experience and history of all the world is worthless. FIVE
MONUMENTAL WITNESSES OF ALL CHRISTENDOM Today
we have with us, the world over, five monumental witnesses to the life of
Christ, all mentioned in the New Testament. 1.
The Church. "I will build My
Church" (Matt. 16:18). 2.
The New Testament Scriptures. "What thou seest write in a book " (Rev.
1:11). 3.
Baptism. "Go baptizing them" (Matt. 28:19). 4.
The Lord's Supper. "Eat the Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. 11:19). 5.
The Lord's Day. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day " (Rev. 1:10). Today
all Christendom has all five of these in some form; all have come down
hand-in-hand together, and one is as old as the other, and each has always been
held as sacred as the other, and all have been equally blessed of God. The
Lord's Day is older than some of the New Testament books, its early beginning is
better and more clearly attested than most of the New Testament books,
especially Hebrews and Revelation. THE
EASTER CONTROVERSY This
question furnishes strong proof that the Lord's Day originated with the
beginning of the Church itself, and was universally observed by all Christians
from the very first. Of this controversy Dean Stanley says: "It was the
most ancient controversy in the Church." (History of the Eastern Church, p.
173) It began immediately after the death of the apostles. The "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia," Article "Easter," says: "In the early Church
there was no uniformity in the day observed." Some Churches celebrated it
on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, the day of the Passover, no
matter what day of the week it came on. The Churches of Syria, Mesopotamia,
Cilicia, and Asia Minor followed this date. Others celebrated it on the day of
the Resurrection, no matter what day of the month it came on. The Eastern
Churches of Egypt, Greece, Palestine, Pontus, and the Church of Rome followed
this custom. This shows that the apostles felt that it was a matter of
indifference and had left no definite instruction about it. The
above named Encyclopedia says: "In the second century this difference was
the occasion of a protracted controversy which agitated all Christendom."
In A.D. 154 Polycarp visited Rome and tried to reach an agreement but failed. In
197, Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatened to excommunicate those who held to Nisan
15th, but no one obeyed him. Even the Churches in the West paid no regard to his
order, while the Eastern Churches condemned and defied him. This shows how
little influence the Bishop of Rome had at that date. This controversy continued
to divide and agitate the Church till it was settled by the Council of Nice A.D.
325. The council says: "It has been determined by common consent,"
indicating that it was not a matter of vital importance either way. Remember
that this question was settled by the Eastern Church, not by Rome, for this
council was entirely dominated by the East. Now
notice: This simple question as to whether Easter was to be celebrated on a
certain day of the month, or on a certain day of the week, divided all
Christendom in a hot debate for nearly three hundred years, yet it pertained to
only one day in the whole year! Nor did it pertain to more than a few hours'
service even in that one day. Now compare this with the question of the Lord's
Day. This came every week during the entire year, fifty-two days, and it
embraced the whole day, twenty-four hours every week, yet during all these three
hundred years of the early Church there was not one word of division over the
observance of the Lord's Day. The question never came up for discussion as to
any difference between any parts of the Church, East or West, North or South,
Greece or Rome. During the entire Easter controversy the Lord's Day was often
mentioned, but only incidentally as an institution well known to all and equally
regarded by all, East or West. This uniformity could not have been obtained
unless all the apostles had agreed in it and had established it at the very
beginning of the Church so that there was no question about it later. Opponents
of the Lord's Day have never been able to satisfactorily answer this. Further,
while there were some still who kept the Jewish Sabbath for a while, all these
invariably kept the Lord's Day. No
exception to this can be found whether orthodox or heretic. All observe the
Lord's Day. Even Sabbatarians are compelled to admit this. Elder
Andrews says: "Those Fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate
with it the festival called by them the Lord's Day." (Testimony of the
Fathers, p. 11) Yes,
while some did, for a while, keep the Sabbath, yet even they, in every instance,
also kept the Lord's Day. "I have
read this chapter and find it correct. -
BISHOP RAPHAEL." Bishop
Raphael was educated in three seminaries: Damascus, Constantinople, and Kiev,
Russia. He has twice received the
degree of "Doctor of Divinity." He is the head of the Greek Orthodox
Church in America. Hence, he is well qualified to state correctly the position
of the Eastern Church on this question. Chapter
VIII. CONSTANTINE'S
SUNDAY LAW, A.D. 321 Constantine,
the first Christian emperor of Rome, issued the following edict in A.D. 32: "Let
all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the
venerable day of the sun, but let those who are situated in the country, freely
and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often
happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the
critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by
heaven." This law applied only
to the Roman Empire.
At that date there were numerous Christian Churches outside of the Roman
jurisdiction, all keeping Sunday. (See Chapters VI and VII.) This
law in no way could affect them. Then where did they get the Lord's Day if this
law first introduced it? Adventists
claim that this was a pagan law because it does not use a Christian term, as
Lord's Day, or Christian Sabbath. The answer is easy: Christians needed no law
to compel them to keep the day, for they all kept it already as a Christian
duty. But the pagans kept no weekly day. Hence the law was directed to them,
and, of course, used pagan terms for that day, "the day of the sun."
That is the manifest explanation of why the pagan name was used. Gibbon says:
"Constantine styles the Lord's Day Dies Solis, a name which could not
offend the ears of his pagan subjects." (History of Rome, Chap. 20, Note
8.) Doctor
Schaff says: "So long as Christianity was not recognized and protected by
the state, the observance of Sunday was purely religious, a strictly voluntary
service." (History of the Church, Vol. III, p. 379)
"Constantine is the founder, in part at least, of the civil
observance of Sunday." Before this law all Christians had voluntarily kept
the Lord's Day as a religious duty. Now the civil law required pagans to respect
the Christian rest day. That is the simple truth and the whole of it.
Doctor
Schaff, page 380, continues: "Christians and pagans had been accustomed to
festival rests; Constantine made these rests to synchronize, and gave the
preference to Sunday, on which day Christians from the beginning celebrated the
resurrection of their Lord and Saviour. This, and no more, was implied in the
famous enactment of 321." The
pagan festivals were only yearly, not weekly.
Now they were required to keep a weekly rest day on Sunday so as to
harmonize with Christians. Adventists now voluntarily kept Saturday as a sacred
duty though the civil law does not demand it. Just so Christians voluntarily
kept the Lord's Day as a religious duty, though there was no civil law requiring
it. Now the civil law required pagans also to respect the Christian's day, the
day which was then observed by the emperor and all his household. As
to the reliability of Doctor Schaff as a historian, Elder J. H. Waggoner says:
"Doctor Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whose
testimony regarding facts no one will call in question." (Replies to
Canright, p. 132) Good and true.
Doctor Schaff says Christians from the beginning voluntarily kept the
resurrection day and Constantine made a civil law requiring the pagans to make
their festival days harmonize with the established Christian day. The pagans had
to conform to the Christian day, not Christians
to the pagan day. As
we have abundantly proved in Chapter V, the pagan Romans had no weekly
festivals. These festivals were all yearly, like our Fourth of July,
Thanksgiving, etc. But the Christian’s day was weekly, every Sunday.
Constantine made these to synchronize. How? "By giving the preference to
Sunday," the Christian's day. This is plain enough. Notice
carefully one clause in the decree, viz.: "Those in the country" were
to have full liberty to attend to the business of agriculture. Doctor Schaff
gives the reason thus: "He expressly exempted the country districts where
paganism still prevailed." (Church History, 3d period, Par. 75, p. 379).
This is true, and it shows that the pagans did not keep Sunday nor did they wish
to. Hence, where they were greatly in the majority, they were exempted from
obeying this law. But in the cities where Christians largely were, there secular
business had to cease. This law was made to protect Christians and the
Christian's day, not pagans nor a pagan day. Because Constantine, while yet a
pagan with other pagans, reverenced Apollo, the sun-god, Adventists argue that
he reverenced Sunday as a sacred day. But this argument is fallacious. Sunday
was simply the astrological name of the day, named from the planet, the sun. It
had no religious significance whatever, no connection with the worship of
Apollo. He was not worshipped on Sunday more than any other weekday. That
argument is founded on the jingle of words, but not on facts. (See Chapter V) The
father and mother of Constantine were both Christians, and he venerated them
both greatly. His mother was the sainted Helena, one of the most devout
Christians of the early centuries. Her influence over her son was always great.
Constantine himself thus states the reasons which led him to trust in his
father's God, the God of the Christians. "My father revered the Christian
God, and uniformly prospered, while the emperors, who worshipped
the heathen gods, died a miserable death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy
life and reign, I will imitate the example of my father, and join myself to the
cause of the Christians who are growing daily, while the heathen are
diminishing." (Schaff, 3d period, Vol. I, Sect. 2, pp. 19, 20).
He reasoned thus when made emperor in A.D. 306. Of him Ridpath says:
"He perceived the conclusion of the great syllogism in the logic of events.
He saw that destiny was about to write Finis at the bottom of the last page of
paganism. So,
for policy, the emperor began to favor the Christians." (History of the
World, Vol. I, Chap. liii , pp. 881, 882) In
the year A.D. 312, while on his march towards Rome with his army to meet his
enemy, the Emperor Maxentius, he saw, or at least pretended to see, in the
heavens, the sign of the cross with the words, "By this conquer." He
then adopted that as the banner for his army under which it ever after marched,
and always to victory. Here he openly professed conversion to the Christian
religion. He immediately issued an edict in favor of the Christians. It has been
lost. The "Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Article
"Constantine," says: "By the second (Milan 313) he granted them
not only free religious worship and their recognition by the state, but also
reparation of previously incurred losses. ... A series of edicts of 315, 316,
319 and 323 completed the revolution." By these edicts paganism was
overthrown and finally outlawed from 323. (See the life of Constantine in any
history or encyclopedia.) Adventists
unfairly try to place his conversion after his Sunday law in A.D. 321. Thus Mrs.
White says: "The first public measure enforcing Sunday observance was the
law enacted by Constantine two years before his profession of
Christianity." (Great Controversy,
edition of 1884, Chap. 30, p. 391). This statement alone destroys her claim to
inspiration, for it is nine years too late, made with the evident intent to
prove his law was pagan. Elder J. H. Waggoner, after naming the decree of 321,
says: "At the time when these decrees were issued he had made no profession
of Christianity." (Replies to Canright," p. 29). It is astonishing
that a man should put in print a statement so entirely untrue. Nothing is more
clearly stated in history than that Constantine openly professed conversion to
Christianity nine years before his Sunday edict was issued. (See the life of
Constantine by Eusebius.) For years before this he himself and all his household
had piously observed the Lord's Day. (See Eusebius, as above.) The
"New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Article "Constantine,"
says: "The impression produced by this apparition (the vision of the cross)
found its consummation in a dream by night. It is certain from the sources that
the decisive conversion of Constantine to Christianity is to be fixed at the
outset of the campaign, or in the spring of 312; also that this conversion
rested not upon a single experience, the apparition or the dream, but that
preparatory experience cooperated with it. ... Where in passages in Eusebius and
elsewhere he speaks of the one religion and belief in one God, he means
historical Christianity, and bids, not the Christians, but the pagans, to this
doctrine, and in this light alone did his Christian and pagan contemporaries
understand him." Here
is the clear testimony of an unbiased authority gathered from all the facts in
the case which places the professed conversion of the emperor in A.D. 312, just
where all reliable historians do. It was nine years before his Sunday law. Dean
Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, Lecture 6, pp. 201, 202) places the
conversion of Constantine at the same date, 312, right after his vision of the
cross. He says: "That some
such change, effected by some such means, took place at this crisis, is
confirmed not only by the fact of Constantine's adoption of the Christian faith
immediately afterwards, but by the specific introduction of the standard of the
cross into the army." Gibbon
in his "History of Rome," Vol. XI, Chap. XX, p. 184, says: "About
five months after the conquest of Italy, the emperor made (A.D. 313) a solemn
and authentic declaration of his sentiments by the celebrated edict of Milan
which restored peace to the Catholic Church." From
this time on he joined himself with Christians, did all he safely could for them
and against paganism till in 323 he outlawed paganism entirely. The
"Encyclopedia Britannica," Article "Constantine," says:
"Rome was naturally the stronghold of paganism to which the great majority
of the Senate clung with great devotion. Constantine
did not wish to do open violence to this sentiment, and therefore resolved to
found a new capital." Stanley
relates how the emperor refused to take part in a popular pagan procession in
Rome. He openly ridiculed it. Says Stanley, "The Roman people were furious.
A riot broke out in the streets." His statue was stoned. This is good proof
of his hatred of paganism. His opposition to paganism was his reason for
forsaking Rome. He caused his sons to receive a Christian education.
Motives of political expediency, however, caused Adventists
are guilty of misconstruing the plainest intent of that law. They assert that
this law compelled pagans and Christians alike to cease work on Sunday, except
in the country where both were allowed to work. Then they emphasize the fact
that this was the first law ever enacted forbidding work on Sunday. Thus Elder
Waggoner says: " It has been fully proved that the decree of Constantine
was the first authority for Sunday rest." (Replies to Canright, p. 136)
Yes, certainly, but to whom did this law apply? To pagans. It was the
first civil law by the state after its head had become Christian. Again
Waggoner says: " In the country it permitted all to labor, both pagans and
Christians." (Replies to Canright, p. 150) On this it is fair to quote: " A half truth is as
bad as a lie." Does that law in any way mention Christians? No. Waggoner
assumes that it does, and by this false assumption concludes the Christians
worked Sunday, when there is not a hint of such a thing in that law. Our law now
permits people to do many things which no Christian will do. At that time
Christians reverenced the Lord's Day regardless of what the civil law permitted.
Because
the law permitted farmers to work Sunday, Adventists assert that Christians
worked on Sunday up till that time. They have no proof of this. (See this work,
Chapter VI.) For three hundred years it had been a sacred day with Christians.
They kept it voluntarily, as Doctor Schaff states above, hence the law in no way
applied to them, but it did require pagans, especially in cities where
Christians mostly were, to cease work on that day. Constantine,
his mother Helena, all his children, his household, his servants, and he himself
devoutly observed the Lord's Day at the time this edict was issued, 321.
Adventists try to ignore all this to carry their theory that this was a pagan
law requiring Christians to reverence a pagan day. It is a bad cause that
requires such reasoning. Another
Seventh-Day advocate, Rev. A. H. Lewis, D.D., says: "This edict makes no
reference to the day as a Sabbath, as the Lord's Day, or as any way connected
with Christianity. Neither is it an edict addressed to Christians."
(Sabbath and Sunday, p. 142) This is a good confession and states the truth
exactly. That law was for pagans who had never rested Sundays. This law required
them to do what they had never done before-cease work on Sunday. Christians
required no such law, for they kept the day as a religious duty without any
civil law requiring it. It would have been absurd and useless for Constantine to
issue an edict forbidding Christians to work on the Lord's Day when for three
hundred years that had been a part of their sacred faith. The very argument
Sabbatarians make to prove that this law was addressed to pagans, in pagan
terms, is good proof that Christians needed no such law. They
kept Sunday voluntarily. Look at the absurdity of the Adventist theory: The
pagans were keeping Sunday; Christians were not, but instead were keeping
Saturday. Constantine wished all to keep the same day. To whom then would he
have addressed this law? To Christians, of course, requiring them to change
their day. But he did no such thing; for there was no occasion for it. Elder
J. H. Waggoner makes this confession: "Constantine did nothing whatever
that can be construed into changing the Sabbath. In his decrees he said not one
word either for or against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible. To this he did not
refer in any way." (Replies to Canright, pp. 149, 150) Of course not, for
his law was addressed only to pagans who kept neither Saturday nor Sunday. But
after his professed conversion in 312, did he not keep pagans in high offices?
Did he not order sacrifices to be made to pagan gods? Did he not order some
pagan rites to be performed for himself? Yes. Why? Out of policy. He had to do
so to avoid a rebellion of his pagan subjects who were yet numerous and
powerful. He had to bide his time as all wise rulers and reformers do. He could
not change the religion and customs of a whole empire in a day. He used common
sense, as Lincoln did in abolishing slavery. Lincoln delayed it years after
radicals denounced him for his half measures and delay. Now all justify the
course he took. Constantine pursued the same wise course in abolishing paganism. So
Adventists denounce him as half pagan because he did not play the fool and
fanatic and try to do immediately what was impossible. When he first became
emperor pagans were in the majority and filled all important offices. He had
these to reckon with till he could gradually change all this. By this course he
avoided an opposition which would have defeated him. Then he accomplished the
religious revolution in a remarkably short time,-ten years. Neither before nor
since has the world ever witnessed so tremendous a revolution in so short a
period, and his conversion to Christianity did it. I
have before me the " Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, Bishop of
Caesarea, Palestine. He was often with the emperor, in his palace, at his table,
in church, in church councils, etc. He related how the emperor, as rapidly as
possible, favored Christians and put down paganism, closed their temples,
forbade their worship, and wrote and preached against idols. But
Constantine, long after he professed Christianity, retained the heathen title
and office of "Pontifix Maximus," or Supreme Pontiff of paganism. Yes,
because that still gave him authority to regulate that worship, and he used it
to gradually curtail one thing after another in that religion till, in 323, he
suppressed it entirely. In this he followed a successful policy, that is all. In
the preceding pages we have clearly proved that Christians had kept Sunday as a
sacred day centuries before the time of Constantine. Eusebius, who lived with
Constantine, repeatedly says that all Christians were keeping Sunday at that
time, and before. We have proved positively, back a few pages, that the pagan
Romans did not rest on Sunday, and hence had no Sunday rest day to give to
Christians. Nothing
can be more reasonable and simple than the fact that when Constantine professed
Christianity he should, as soon as possible, make a law to protect the Christian
rest day, the same as Christian rulers have done ever since. That is just what
he did do, and that is the whole of it. Whether he was a really converted man,
or a mere professor from policy, has no bearing on the question. He professed to
be a Christian, and all his edicts were issued to favor them, the Sunday law
with the rest. That
the law was enacted specially to protect the Lord's Day for Christian worship is
distinctly stated by Eusebius in his "Life of Constantine," Chapter
XVIII. Eusebius lived right there where this law was made and when it was made.
He was closely associated with Constantine, and has stated clearly why that law
was given. Would he not know better than some partisan Adventist sixteen
centuries later? Hear Eusebius: "He [Constantine] ordained, too, that one
day should be regarded as a special occasion for prayer; I mean that which is
truly the first and chief of all, the Day of our Lord and Saviour. The entire
care of his household was entrusted to deacons and other ministers consecrated
to the service of God, and distinguished for gravity of life and every other
virtue; while his trusty body-guard, strong in affection and fidelity to his
person, found in their emperor an instructor in the practice of piety, and, like
him, held the Lord's salutary day in honor, and performed on that day the
devotions which he loved. The
same observance was recommended by this blessed prince to all classes of his
subjects; his earnest desire being gradually to lead all mankind to the worship
of God. Accordingly he enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman Empire to
observe the Lord's Day as a day of rest." Notice
that all the servants in Constantine's household were Christians, and all kept
the Lord's Day with the emperor. He commanded all his subjects to rest that day
so that Christians could be free to attend worship on the Lord's Day. Many
Christians were slaves to pagan masters, and could not rest unless their owners
did. This law compelled these pagan masters to cease work on that day. Then
their slaves could keep the Lord's Day. Constantine
considered himself called of God to care for the Church in external things as
the bishops were to care for the internal matters. He said: "You are
bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church. I also am a bishop, ordained by
God to overlook whatever is external to the Church." (Eusebius, "Life
of Constantine,” Chap. xxiv) That
was why he made his Sunday law-it was to help the Church.
Then there is another reliable witness to the fact that Constantine's
Sunday law was to protect the Lord's Day, not a pagan day.
The historian Sozomen was born in Palestine, the home of the apostles,
only about sixty years after the death of Constantine. He was a noted lawyer in
Constantinople, the home of Constantine; hence, was familiar with all the laws
of the emperor, and knew their object. Of that Sunday law he says: "He also
enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's Day, which the Jews call
the first day of the week. He honored the Lord's Day, because on it Christ arose
from the dead." (Eccl. Hist., Chap. ix, p. 22.) This
witness by such an authority living right there should be, and is, decisive.
That law was to protect the Lord's Day because Christ arose that day, not
because it was a pagan festival day. Every
candid man must see this. This entirely explodes the Adventists' theory that it
was a pagan law enjoining a pagan day. Elder
A. T. Jones was once the editor of their church paper, and the best posted
historian Seventh-Day Adventists ever had. In his recent book, "The
Reformation," published in 1913, he not only admits, but truthfully argues,
that Constantine's Sunday law was issued at the request of Christians to help
the Church. He says: "The Sunday institution and all that was attached to
it was wholly of the Church. And when from the federated Church the State
accepted and embodied in the law this exclusively church institution, this, in
the very fact of the doing of it, was the union of the Church and the
State." "It was only in the furtherance of the grand scheme of the
bishops and their church-combine to establish the State as 'the Kingdom of God
'" (page 315). Here
we have the real truth about that Sunday law. It was issued by a professedly
Christian emperor, to favor the Christian Church by protecting their Christian
day of worship long held sacred by them. It is readily agreed that the zeal of
Constantine to help the Church was unwise and detrimental in its results; but
the fact remains just the same. The
edict of Constantine was the very first law ever made by any one prohibiting
secular business on Sunday. All historians agree in this. This very fact
overthrows the Adventists' claim that the day, as a rest day, originated with
the pagans. Consider
now: If these pagan Romans had been keeping Sunday as a sacred day of worship
why did they never before have a law forbidding work on that day? Did all these
heathens, for ages, cease their work that day voluntarily without any law
requiring it? Even in Christian lands, with strict laws against Sunday business,
it is difficult to get people to observe the day. Were the heathens more
religious than Christians? The Roman emperor was always the head of the pagan
religion, the same as the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. His edict was
law to them. He was "Pontifix Maximus," which authorized him to
regulate the pagan worship. If it was part of the pagan religion to regard the
day as sacred, why is it that the first law prohibiting work on Sunday was never
issued till the Roman emperor professed Christianity? I have asked Adventists
this question and they make only an evasive answer. The simple fact is this:
Up till the time of Constantine Christians were terribly persecuted and
were in the minority, and so could make no civil law forbidding work on Sunday,
the day they all kept, as we have seen. The
pagans did not observe Sunday, but worked that day, the same as on all other
days. Hence, they wanted no law to prohibit the work they were all accustomed to
do that day. A Sunday law was just what the pagans did not want; hence, he, by
his authority as emperor, issued an edict requiring his pagan subjects to rest
on Sunday, the same as Christians did and had done for three hundred years. That
law was made to favor Christians, not pagans. That this law was made at the
request of Christians is admitted by Adventists. Again
Elder Jones, in the Battle Creek Journal, December 11, 1888, says: "It is
demonstrated that the first Sunday law that ever was enacted was at the request
of the Church; it was in behalf of the Church, and it was expressly to help the
Church." This
truthful admission overthrows the claim that this law was a pagan law to protect
a pagan day. It was exactly the opposite-a law to compel pagans to cease work on
the day which Christians kept as a sacred day. Put with this the admission of
Waggoner above quoted, viz., that "the idea of the rest from worldly labor
in its worship was entirely new to pagans." So it was, but Christians had
kept the day for centuries. With whom, then, "originated " the custom
of resting from work on Sunday and keeping it as a sacred day of worship? It
had its origin with Christians, not with pagans. Chapter
IX. THE
LORD'S DAY AT THE COUNCILS OF NICE, A.D. 325, AND LAODICEA, A.D. 364 This
world-renowned council was held at Nice in Grecian territory near
Constantinople, A.D. 325. It was the first general council of the Christian
Church. Dean Stanley, in his "History of the Eastern Church," devotes
one hundred pages to this council. On page 99 he says it was Eastern, held in
the center of the Eastern Church. Its decrees were accepted by all Christendom
"as a final settlement of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity"
(page 102). It was a democratic assembly; no Pope ruled over it (page 107). In
calling the council, the Bishop of Rome was not consulted, nor did he or any
bishop from Italy attend. Only two presbyters came to represent Rome and only
five or six bishops from all the West. There were three hundred and eighteen
bishops present. All these were from the Eastern Greek Churches, except the six
as above. It was emphatically an Eastern Greek council, held in Greek territory,
and conducted in the Greek language. The "Encyclopedia Britannica,"
Article "Nice," says: "The West was but feebly represented. Two
presbyters as deputies of the Roman Bishop, Sylvester, were present. Thus an
immense majority of the Synod hailed from the East." McClintock
and Strong's "Encyclopedia" says: "Most of the Eastern provinces
were strongly represented." Bean Stanley names bishops present "from
far up the Nile," from "the interior of Asia," one from Armenia,
and one from far-off India. The
"Catholic Encyclopedia" says: "Most of the bishops present were
Greeks." It finds only five Western bishops present. Eusebius in his
"Life of Constantine," Chapter VII, names the many countries from
whence they came, as "Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians,
delegates from Palestine, and others from Egypt, Thebians and Libyans, with
those who came from the region of Mesopotamia. A Persian bishop too was present
at this conference, nor was even a Scythian found wanting to the number. Pontus,
Galatia, and Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia, furnished the most
distinguished prelates, while those who dwelt in the remotest districts of
Thrace and Macedonia, of Achaia and Epirus were notwithstanding present.
Even from Spain one came. It will be noticed that this list agrees with
the countries named in Acts ii. on Pentecost. Bishops now came from all those
countries. Neither Rome nor Italy was even mentioned by Eusebius. As this was a
general council of Christendom at that date, 325, it shows how little influence
the Roman Church had at that time. At
that date there were one thousand Greek bishops, representing three million
Christians in the East. Doctor Schaff estimates that there were from twelve to
fifteen hundred of the lower clergy in that council besides the three hundred
and eighteen bishops, or eighteen hundred in all. Of these only six were from
the West. The twentieth Article unanimously adopted by that council reads thus:
"As some kneel on the Lord's Day and on the days of the Pentecost, the holy
synod has decreed that for the observance of a general rule, all should offer
their prayers to God standing." This,
it will be seen, simply recognizes the Lord's Day as a well-known Christian day
of worship familiar to all that great Eastern council. There was no discussion
over it, no opposition to it. Here were eighteen hundred bishops and clergy
nearly all from the Eastern Churches. Did any one of them object that they kept
the Sabbath instead of the Lord's Day? No, not a hint of it. All were agreed on
the day. And this was over a hundred years before the Papacy was born and only
four years after Constantine's Sunday law of A.D. 321. Did
any of those eighteen hundred ministers of the old established Greek Churches
object that the Lord's Day was a new and pagan day which had recently been
imposed upon them? Could all Christendom be so quickly and easily changed in so
important a matter as that and not a single delegate raise an objection? The
simple fact that this great council, so soon after the days of the apostles,
should unanimously, without a question, endorse the Lord's Day is proof positive
that the observance of the Lord's Day had long been the established custom of
the entire Church. The Bishop of Jerusalem, the first Church of all, was there,
and voted with the rest. What was said about keeping the Sabbath? Not a word. It
is not even mentioned in any way. This shows that it had been dropped very long
before this. An
editorial in the Advent Review and Herald, February 26, 1914, quotes the
following: "I find that three hundred and twenty-five years after
Christianity was born, a council of human beings, called the Council of Nice,
convened by a human being named Constantine the Great, instituted the first day
Sabbath to displace the seventh day Sabbath." The editor endorses this
language thus: "The position which the writer of the letter takes is
impregnable and the arguments unanswerable." So
according to the Review, the editor, and this writer, the first day as the
Sabbath was "instituted " here and by this great council! But as we
have seen, this was an Eastern council, not a Western one; a Greek council, not
a Roman one. Out of three hundred and eighteen bishops present, only six were
from the West, or Roman territory, only two presbyters from Rome or Italy. The
Churches of Rome, Italy, and the West were of so little account in that great
council that Eusebius in his lengthy account of it does not even mention Rome
nor Italy! So, then, if the editor and his writer are correct, the Lord's Day
was instituted by the Eastern Greek Church, not by the Roman Church, nor by the
Pope, nor by the Papacy, for neither had any influence in this council. Their
own argument upsets their claim that Rome changed the day. But,
as noted above, this Greek council at Nice, A.D. 325, in no way "
instituted " the first day Sabbath to displace the seventh day Sabbath.
There is not the slightest hint of such a thing. That is purely an Advent
invention, a fair illustration of their groundless assumptions. The Sabbath is
not even mentioned. It simply recognized the Lord's Day as a well-known,
previously existing institution, and only regulated the attitude in prayer on
that day. The change of the day is not even mentioned. It is by such unwarranted
statements that the Jewish Sabbath can be defended. Here,
then, were in this august body the most learned and devoted Christian delegates
just out from the fires of martyrdom, representing over three million Eastern
Greek Christians in Churches founded by the apostles only a short time before.
All were unanimous in keeping the Lord's Day.
Had the pagans from the then far-off Roman countries brought a pagan day
to these devout Greek Churches, and had over three million Greek Christians all
immediately given up the old Sabbath and readily accepted this new pagan Roman
day without argument or protest? And Adventists ask us Now
listen to the following from the last edition, 1912, of the "Advent History
of the Sabbath": "Both
Gnosticism and the council set aside the Sabbath of Jehovah. . . . The emperor
and the council showed such aversion to the Sabbath of the Lord" (pages
394, 395). It
makes one sad to read such contradiction of the plainest facts of history.
Neither the emperor nor the council so much as mentioned the Sabbath in any way.
How then did they show aversion to the Sabbath? Such unwarranted assertions are
frequently to be found all through their "History of the Sabbath" and
other books. The
Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364 Over
twenty years ago in a widely-circulated article the present writer affirmed that
outside of Catholic catechisms, Adventists could produce no proof that the
Popes, the Papacy, or the Roman Church changed the Sabbath. Elder J. H.
Waggoner, one of their ablest authors, was appointed to the task. Every facility
was afforded him. The libraries of America and Europe were searched. As the best
he could do he selected the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, as the place and time
when and where the Sabbath was changed by On this Elder Waggoner says: "Now, if any one can imagine what
would be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to
learn what it could be." "Now I claim that I have completely met his
demand; I have shown the time, the place, and the power that changed the
Sabbath." ("Replies to Canright," pp. 141, 161)
He claims that this was "a Catholic council," and that
"historians early and late have made much mention" of this council.
Now let us examine his position. 1. If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Pope right here, as
he affirms, then certainly it was not changed before nor after nor at any other
place. So if this fails their whole
cause is lost. Let the reader mark
the importance of this face. 2. He admits what every scholar knows, that till after the time of
Constantine the Bishop of Rome had no "authority whatever above the other
bishops" and so could not have changed the Sabbath before that time.
He says: It was Constantine himself that laid the foundation of the
Papacy." ("Replies to Canright," p. 148)
Surely the Papacy did not exist before its foundation was laid. 3. He admits, as already shown, that Constantine did nothing to
change the Sabbath. 4. But we have abundantly proved in preceding pages that all
Christians long before this date were unanimous in observing the Lord's Day.
This one simple fact proves the utter absurdity of the claim that the Sabbath was changed at Laodicea, A.D. 364, or by the
Papacy at any time. 5.
In the year 324, or just forty years before the Council of Laodicea, Eusebius,
Bishop of That
is the way the Sabbath and Sunday stood in the Church forty years before
Laodicea. They did not keep the Sabbath, but did keep the Lord's Day, had
transferred all things to it. How much truth, then, can there be in the position
that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Pope forty years later? But
let us look at the real facts about the council at Laodicea. Seventh-Day
Adventists claim two things, viz.; that the Sabbath was changed by the Roman
Church, and that it was done by the authority of the Pope. Then they select the
Council of Laodicea as the place and time. But, 1.
Laodicea is not Rome. It is situated in Asia Minor over 1,000 miles east of
Rome. It was in Asia, not in Europe. It was an Eastern, not a Western town, an
Oriental, not a Latin city. 6.
Liberius was Bishop of Rome at the time of this council at Laodicea. He was
degraded from his office, banished, and treated with the utmost contempt. Bower
says that in order to end his exile, Liberius "wrote in a most submissive
and cringing style to the Eastern bishops." (History of the Popes, Vol. I,
p. 64.) And this was the Pope who changed the Sabbath at a council of these same
Eastern bishops, 1,000 miles away, which he never attended! 7.
The Council of Laodicea was only a local council, a small, unimportant affair
and not a general council at all. Elder Waggoner magnifies it into a great
" Catholic [general] council," a claim which is utterly false. The
general councils are: 1. That at
Nice, A.D. 325. 2. That at
Constantinople, A.D. 381. 3. That
at Ephesus, A.D. 431, etc. (See Chapter VIII of this work, p. 188. See also the
list in Johnson's "Cyclopedia," or any ecclesiastical history.) Bower
in his extensive work, the "History of the Popes," gives an account of
all the general councils, the important local councils, and all with which Rome
or the Popes had to do, but does not even mention this one at Laodicea. He
mentions many councils held about that time, but not this one. He says: "
Several other councils were held from the year 363 to 368, of which we have no
particular account." (Vol. I. p. 79.) 8.
I have searched through a number of cyclopedias and church histories and can
find no mention at all of the council at Laodicea in most of them, and only a
few lines in any. Doctor Schaff, in his "History of the Church," gives
an extended account of all the general councils, but makes no mention of
Laodicea. Rev. W. Armstrong, a scholar of Canton, Pa., says: "This council
is not even mentioned by Mosheim, Milner, Euter, Reeves, Socrates, Sozomen, nor
by four other historians on my table." McClintock and Strong's
"Cyclopedia" says of this council: "Thirty-two bishops were
present from different provinces in Asia." All bishops of the Eastern
Church, not one from the Roman Church! And yet this was the time and place when
and where, according to Adventists’ views, the Roman Church and the Pope
changed the Sabbath! At that date there were about two thousand bishops and
eight million Christians scattered all over the world. 9.
Now think of it: this little local council of thirty-two bishops revolutionizes
the whole world on the keeping of the Sabbath immediately without opposition! 10.
The fact is that this council simply regulated in this locality an already long
established institution, the Lord's Day, just the same as council after council
did afterwards. If this changed the Sabbath to Sunday, then it has been changed
a hundred times since! Sabbatarians point to these different regulations as so
many acts in changing the Sabbath, when they have not the remotest relation to
such a thing any more than have the resolutions with regard to keeping Sunday
which are passed year by year now in all our religious assemblies. Elder E. J.
Waggoner makes this truthful statement: "The decrees of councils have not
as a general thing been arbitrary laws telling what must be, so much so as they
have been the formulation of the opinions and practices largely prevalent at the
time. . . . Infallibility had been attributed to the Pope hundreds of years
before it became a dogma of the Church."
(Fathers of the Catholic Church, p. 333) Exactly, and just so the Lord's Day had been kept by the
Church hundreds of years before the Council of Laodicea mentioned it.
But
what did that council do about the Sabbath anyway? It says Christians should not
Judaize by keeping the Sabbath, but should keep the Lord's Day. What occasioned
this reproof? Eusebius, the first church historian, writing forty years before,
has this in Chapter XXVII: "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 the Resurrection." In
his " History of the Church," Eusebius gives the doctrines and
practices of the great Christian Church at that time, which then numbered five
million. But there was a little heretical sect called Ebionites. What was their
error? Wherein did they differ from the universal Church? They insisted on
keeping the Jewish Sabbath together with the Lord's Day. So then, forty years
before Laodicea, keeping the seventh day was branded by all the Church as a
heresy, just the same as it is now. It was practiced only by a few, and this
council condemned it. The Eastern Greek Church was the one that here put down
the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, that is, if this was the time and place
when it was done. What, then, becomes of the assertion that the change of the
Sabbath was made by the Pope, the Papacy, or the Roman Church? Now
when Elder Waggoner rested his case on the Council of Laodicea as the time and
place when and where the Sabbath was changed, did he not fail and fail utterly?
As seen above, that was a council of Eastern bishops, a Greek council, which
neither the Pope nor any one to represent him attended. Neither the Pope, nor
the Papacy, nor the Roman Church had the remotest thing to do with it. As well
claim that Russia established our Fourth of July. In Waggoner's failure, the
denomination failed, for he was chosen to defend them on this vital point. Chapter
X "The
Papacy changed the Sabbath." ("Replies to Canright," p. 119) This
is a leading tenet in the Seventh-day Adventist faith, strongly urged in all
their teachings. Here is a sample in their own words from "Words of
Truth," Series No. 33: "They believe that the change of the Sabbath
from the seventh day to the first day of the week was brought about by the
Papacy, and that this change of the Sabbath is foretold in prophecy (Dan. 7:25),
and that it constitutes the sign, or (Dan. 7:25), and that it constitutes the
sign, or mark of the Papacy." All their literature, specially that of Mrs.
White's, abounds in these strong assertions. Nothing
could be farther from the truth than this claim. All history is against it. It
should be carefully understood that the Papacy is distinctly and wholly a
product of the local Church at Rome, the Latin Church, the Church in the west,
in Italy. The " Papacy," in no sense of the word, began to exist at
the very earliest till four or five centuries after Christ. At first it was
confined entirely to Italy, then was gradually extended over the Western
Churches. It was not fairly established even there till A.D. 600.
It never was recognized in the East by the great Eastern Greek Church,
not even up to this day. The " Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Article
"Papacy," says: "During the first period after the foundation of
the Christian Church, the Bishops of Rome exercised no primacy. The Council of
Nice (325) knows nothing of a primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church."
This is well into the fourth century. Johnson's
" New Universal Cyclopaedia," Article " Pope," says: "
No supremacy was either claimed or recognized during the first, second, and
third centuries, and when, in 343, at the Council of Sardica, the supremacy of
the Roman see over the Christian Church was spoken of for the first time in
undisguised terms, the Oriental (Eastern) bishops protested and left the
council." This is near the middle of the fourth century again, but even
here it was opposed and that council was never recognized in the East. But
Adventist authorities themselves will settle this point. Elder J. H. Waggoner
says: " Sylvester was Bishop of Rome during the most of the reign of
Constantine [312-336]. He decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord's Day.
[There is no such decree. D. M. C.] But this could affect the Church of Rome
only, for the Bishop of Rome had not then yet attained to any authority whatever
above the other bishops." "It was Constantine himself who laid the
foundation of the Papacy." ("Replies to Canright," pp. 143, 148) Elder
Waggoner admits what history abundantly proves, namely, that up to the fourth
century the Bishop of Rome had no authority over other bishops, and that the
foundation of the Papacy was not laid till A.D. 325 at the Council of Nice.
Certainly then the Papacy did not exist before the foundation for it was laid.
But, in Chapter YI of this book, we have given plenty of proof that Sunday was
observed by all Christians as early, at least, as A.D. 140, or nearly two
hundred years before even the foundation of the Papacy was laid, as Waggoner
admits. Turn back to page 137 and read where Justin Martyr says: "On the
day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to
one place," and then describes their meetings nearly the same as we conduct
them now. Again he says: " But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our
common assembly," etc. Here we have Sunday observed by all Christians two
hundred years before the Papacy existed, before the Bishop of Rome could
exercise authority over other bishops. This shows the folly of attributing the
beginning of Sunday-keeping to the Papacy two hundred years later. Coming
down still further to the middle of the fifth century, Waggoner quotes with
approval the following from McClintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia ": "Leo
I, saint and Pope, surnamed the Great, noted as the real founder of the
Papacy." This
was as late as the middle of the fifth century. In the same article McClintock and Strong say of Leo's
attempt to rule other Churches: "A strong opposition was speedily organized
both in the West and in the East, and soon assumed the attitude of open
defiance." Only a small part of even the West paid any heed to Leo's
claims. The East defied him. How much influence could the Papacy at that date
have in changing the Sabbath the world over?
None at all. The Catholic
monthly, The Ecclesiastical .Review, February, 1914, page 237, speaking of the
controversy over Easter, A.D. 154, says: " Shy then, as it always has been,
of introducing Western observances, the Eastern Church sent St. Polycarp to
Rome" to protest against this meddling with the Eastern custom. As this
Catholic author admits, that has always been the attitude of the Eastern Greek
Church towards Rome the attitude of opposition.
How, then, could the Papacy impose on those great independent Eastern
Churches a pagan day which they had never kept?
Adventists take their stand at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, and
claim that the Sabbath was changed there. Of
the decree of this council Waggoner says: " I have shown the time, the
place, and the power that changed the Sabbath." ("Replies to
Canright," p. 151.) Here
is his proof that the Papacy changed the Sabbath and he stakes all upon it. But
in Chapter IX we have shown that this was an Eastern Greek council, held in
Greek territory, Asia Minor, by the Greek Church, attended only by Greek
bishops. Not one single person was there from the Roman, or Latin, Church in the
West. Neither Pope nor Papacy had the slightest thing to do with it. Hence, the
attempt to prove that the Papacy changed the Sabbath here is a failure.
Moreover, neither Pope nor Papacy yet existed. The Bishop of Rome at that
time had no authority over other bishops of equal rank with himself of which
there were many. The
Papacy was entirely a Roman affair, limited for centuries to Italy, then
gradually gaining influence over the Western Churches. But in the East, among
the millions of Greek Christians, who for centuries were far greater in number,
intelligence, and influence, any such thing as a Papacy was wholly unknown.
There no one centralized authority has to this day ever been acknowledged. Four
patriarchs of equal authority nominally govern there. These are in
Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. In the fourth, fifth, and
sixth centuries when the Roman Papacy undertook to claim some jurisdiction
there, it was hotly resented by all the Eastern Churches. The opposition between
these two great sections of the Church grew with increasing bitterness till A.D.
1052, when the East excommunicated Rome because it would never acknowledge any
authority of the Roman Papacy. They are separate now. The Greek Church now
claims a membership of about one hundred and fifty million. With the Protestant
Churches, who number over one hundred and fifty million and who all repudiate
the Papacy, one-half, or more, of all Christendom is outside the Roman Papacy
and opposed to it. So it must be remembered that the Roman Catholic Church, or
the Papacy, or the Pope, has never had rule over more than a divided part of the
Christian Churches. Yet all the Churches which were never subject to Rome keep
Sunday and always have. This proves that Sunday observance did not come from
Rome. Another
very important fact is to be noticed here; namely, that in the first four
centuries during which the observance of the Lord's Day was fully settled in all
Christendom, the Roman Church was greatly in the minority both in numbers, in
great Christian leaders, in learning, and in influence. Here
is another fact: All the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Churches, whether
Protestant, Papal, or Greek, were first wrought out and settled in their present
form by the Eastern Greek Christian scholars, church leaders, and ecumenical
councils dominated by the Eastern Church. These include the canon of our Holy
Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the passing of the Jewish Sabbath,
the observance of the Lord's Day, etc. The Papal Church accepted all these from
the Eastern Church and later endorsed them, but originated none of them. This
cuts up by the roots the Advent theory that Sunday-keeping originated with the
Papacy. The
Greek General Council, 680, excommunicated Pope Honorius. On this the "Schaff-Herzog
Cyclopedia," Article " Councils," says: "A fact rather
embarrassing to the dogma of papal infallibility." This shows what little
influence the Popes or Papacy had as late as 680, and how little attention the
Greek Church paid to Rome. Schaff's " History of the Church," Vol.
Ill, p. 325, says: It consisted of five hundred and twenty bishops, only five of
whom were from the Western or Roman Church all the rest were Greeks and
Orientals, and that is the date when Leo I was Bishop of Rome, the one who is
said to be the first founder of the Papacy. It shows how little influence in the
great councils of the Church that infant had then. Stanley
says: " The Council of Constantinople was avowedly only an Eastern
assembly; not a single Western bishop was present." (Hist. East., p. 102.)
Yet this was a general council and accepted by Rome. But
according to the arguments of the Adventists themselves, the Sabbath was changed
by the Greek council at Laodicea, A.D. 364, eighty-seven years before the Papacy
was so much as founded! In view of the above facts what becomes of the assertion
that the Sabbath was changed by the Papacy? Adventists cannot produce a single
witness saying that the Papacy changed the Sabbath. Yet it is the main prop of
their theory. The
arguments of the Adventists themselves put together overthrow their own
position. Thus of the year A.D. 300, their " History of the Sabbath,' pp.
373, 374, edition of 1912, says: " We have now followed the history of
Sunday from the time it was first mentioned by the Gnostic Pseudo-Barnabas, A.D.
120, as the mysterious eighth day, until it stands out clearly and definitely as
the first day of the week called the Lord's Day." Here then, A.D. 300, it
was clearly and definitely " the Lord's Day." This they have admitted.
Coming to the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, the Advent Review, February 26, 1914,
says: " The Council of Nice instituted the first day Sabbath to displace
the seventh day Sabbath." So here as early as A.D. 325, they have the
Sabbath changed by this great Eastern Greek council. So
their "History of the Sabbath," edition of 1912, of this council says:
"By this Canon 20, the council set its seal upon the Sunday law of
Constantine passed by the State. Henceforth Sunday was not only the legal
holiday of the State, but its observance was acknowledged and regulated by the
action of the first general council of the Church." " Thus the highest
civil and ecclesiastical authorities enforced Sunday as the universal, legal
weekly holiday for all the subjects of the vast empire" (page 406). All
right. Now if the observance of Sunday was thus firmly established both by the
State and the Church, A.D. 325, was not its observance settled forever? Surely.
How then could the day be changed by the Papacy which was not founded till over
a hundred years later? And if the change of the Sabbath was made and settled
both by the Church and the State in all the vast empire A.D. 325, how could the
Sabbath be changed again at Laodicea A.D. 364, about forty years later? Their
various and contradictory theories eat each other up. As we have seen both the
Encyclopedia and Waggoner agree that Leo was the real founder of the Papacy.
But, as above, Waggoner himself definitely locates the change of the Sabbath in
A.D. 364, or at least seventy-six years before the founder of the Papacy came
into office! But
when was the Papacy really established? Adventists themselves locate it in A.D.
528 Smith in " Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation," on Dan 7:25, says:
Justinian "issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the Pope
the head of all the Churches, and from the carrying out of which in 538 the
period of papal supremacy is to be dated." This was in the sixth century.
That great work, Bower's " History of the Popes," (Vol. I, pp. 426,
427) locates the establishment of the Papacy in A.D. 600. For
two hundred years previous to this the Bishop of Constantinople had held the
title of "universal head of the Catholic Church." It had been
confirmed to him by emperors and a great council (See Bower as above, same
page.) Dowling's "History of Romanism" is another high authority on
this subject. On page 39 read: "The papal supremacy not established in the
fourth century." On page 41 he says that the Council of Chalcedon (451
A.D.) decreed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. The great
patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were made subject to the Bishop of
Constantinople who was thus greater than the Bishop of Rome and opposed him
bitterly. On page 51 Dowling says: "During the last few years of the sixth
century, the contest for supremacy between the Bishops of Rome and
Constantinople raged with greater acrimony than at any previous period. The
Bishop of Constantinople not only claimed an unrivalled sovereignty over the
Eastern Churches, but also maintained that his Church was, in point of dignity,
no way inferior to that of Rome. "It will be seen that Rome had no
influence over the Eastern Churches, and hence could not have effected any
change in their day of worship if it had tried. Is
there any statement anywhere in any history that the Pope or the Papacy ever
tried to change the keeping of the day in the Eastern Church? There is not the
remotest hint of such a thing. Roman
Catholics never mention it, never claim it. It is useless to follow the history
of the Lord's Day this side of Laodicea, A.D. 364, for even Adventists admit
that the change of the day had been made by that time. All agree, and Adventists
admit, that the Papacy was not formed till after this - long after. So the
Papacy could not have changed the Sabbath when it had already been changed
hundreds of years before there was any Papacy. But
Adventists try to get over this difficulty this way; They say "The spirit
of the Papacy There
was never any Papacy or spirit of Papacy m the Eastern Church, or any
recognition of the Roman Papacy, but a bitter hostile opposition to it till
finally it caused a separation of the two in 1052. Hence, "the Spirit of
the Papacy " never has existed in the Eastern Church where the Sabbath was
changed. Specially
mark this fact: The observance and sanctity of the Lord's Day was fully
established throughout all the great Eastern Churches long before the Roman
Papacy could rule even in the West, much less in the East. Adventists make this mistake: Beginning right after the
apostles, wherever they find Christians falling into false notions or heretical
doctrines, or adopting worldly ways, they pronounce that "the spirit of the
Papacy." All their books on the history of the Sabbath and Sunday are
largely made up of this kind of argument. But it is a fallacy. At present we
have numerous Churches which are neither orthodox nor evangelical, such as
Universalists, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Swedenborgians, etc. But none
of these have any of the spirit of the Papacy. So we have many worldly
Christians and worldly churches, but they do not favor any Papacy. So
in the early centuries, those in the Eastern Church who fell away from the
faith, or lapsed into worldliness, did not thus become papists, nor have the
spirit of the Papacy. The Papacy, from its very earliest inception to its full
establishment, was entirely of the local Church at Rome and the bishops of that
Church. Because it was the imperial city, these bishops finally became ambitious
to rule over other Churches. They schemed and worked till after long centuries
they gradually subdued Church after Church, bishop after bishop, and see after
see, till about A.D. 600 the Roman Papacy was established in the West, but never
in the East. The
"spirit of the Papacy " was born at Rome in the Bishops of Rome and
was wholly confined to the Roman Catholic Church in the West. It was never
tolerated in the Eastern Church, nor has it ever had the slightest thing to do
with the Sabbath question there. But the Lord's Day was firmly established in
all Christendom, East and West, centuries before the Papacy succeeded in
establishing itself even in Rome. Hence it is utterly false, absurd, and
contrary to the plainest statements of all history to claim that the Lord's Day
originated with the Papacy at Rome, and was then forced on the great Eastern
Churches over which the Papacy never had any authority. "I
have read this chapter and find it correct." -BISHOP RAPHAEL Bishop
Raphael was educated in three seminaries: Damascus, Constantinople, and Kiev,
Russia. He has twice received the degree of
"Doctor of Divinity." He is the head of the Greek Orthodox
Church in America. Hence, he is well qualified to state correctly the position
of the Eastern Church on this question. Chapter
XI THE
MARK OF THE BEAST - WHAT 1S IT? Seventy-day
Adventists teach that the ten-horned beast of Rev. xiii. 1-10 is the Papacy and
that the two-horned beast of verses 11-18 is the United States. No commentator
or Christian scholar of this or any other age of the Church agrees with them in
this. Plausible expositions of these symbols have been offered, many of them far
better sustained than the one Adventists have invented. For myself, I am sure
they are wrong on both these beasts, but I will not argue that point as it is
not essential in the question before us. Grant their claim that the beast is the
Papacy, then the question is, What is the supreme mark of the Papacy? This is
easily settled. 1.
Seventh-Day Adventists assert in the most positive manner that the Pope changed
the Sabbath to Sunday. "The Pope has changed the day of rest from the
seventh to the first day." (Mrs. White, "Early Writings," p. 55) 2.
Then they affirm that "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast."
("The Marvel of Nations," by U. Smith, p. 183)
"The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark
of the beast." (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850) "Sunday
the distinctive mark of papal power." This is the heading of Chapter XXII
in their "History of the Sabbath," 1912.
The whole chapter is devoted to it. They thunder this into the ears of
people, and threaten them with God's wrath if they keep Sunday, till they
frighten ignorant souls to give it up. 3.
This change in the Sabbath, they say, was made by the Popes at the Council of
Laodicea, A.D. 364. ("Replies to Elder Canright," p. 151) This was
over 1,500 years ago. 4.
All who keep Sunday, they assert, worship the beast and receive his mark.
"Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and all who submit to
obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark,
'the mark of the beast.' . . . Those who worship the beast and his image by
observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the
golden calf." (Advent Review Extra, pp. 10 and 11, August, 1850) This
language is too plain to be mistaken. All who keep Sunday are idolaters and have
the mark of the beast. 5.
But, strange to tell, they now all deny that any one has ever had the mark of
the beast. "We have never so held, "says Smith. ("Marvel of
Nations," p. 184) All right, though this is a square denial of what they
once taught, as above. It is a common thing for them to change their positions
and then deny it. We proceed: 6.
The United States will soon pass a strict Sunday law and unite Church and State;
then all who still keep Sunday will have the mark. ("Marvel of
Nations," p. 185) ANSWER Does
the Bible say that the mark of the beast is keeping Sunday? No, indeed. That is
only 1.
The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross (Col. 2:16). Hence, it was not
changed by the Pope. 2.
Sunday is the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10. (See Chapter XI of this book) 3.
The Pope never changed the Sabbath. This point I have proved conclusively. This
fact alone upsets their whole argument on the mark of the beast. THE
ABSURDITIES OF THEIR POSITION 1.
Sunday-keeping has been the mark of the beast for 1,500 years. During all this
long time millions have kept Sunday on the sole authority of the Roman Church,
and yet no one had the mark! 2.
The keeping of Sunday has been time and again and in many countries enforced by
law and severe penalties, just as they say it will be in the future here, and
yet none of those who have kept it as thus enforced have had the mark of the
beast! 3.
Church and State have been united in various countries, and have enforced this
institution of the Papacy, as they call it, and yet it was not enforcing the
mark of the beast! 4.
For over 1,500 years, taking their own dates, all the pious of the earth, the
martyrs, the reformers, the Luthers, Wesleys and Judsons, have observed Sunday
and enjoyed the blessing of God, but now, all at once, the whole world,
Christians and all, are to be damned and drink the wrath of God for doing just
what all holy men have done for ages! Of Sunday-keeping in the future, Mrs.
White says: "That must be a terrible sin which calls down the wrath of God
unmingled with mercy." ("Great Controversy," p. 282) This
terrible sin is just what all the Church of Christ has practiced for ages, and
yet have had God's blessing! How absurd. 5.
It is attempted to dodge this point by saying that those of other ages did not
have the light on the Sabbath. This is not true. Luther, Bunyan, Baxter, Milton,
all had the "light" on the Sabbath question, and rejected it and wrote
against it. Then I can do it, too, and not have the mark of the beast, if they
did not. 6.
If it is worshipping the beast to rest from physical labor on Sunday after one
knows that 7.
Deny it as they may, the Seventh-Day Adventist teachings do make all
Sunday-keepers, both now and in past ages, worshippers of the beast, having the
mark of the beast. Here is proof in their own words: 1.
The Pope changed the Sabbath. Sunday is only the Pope's day. (See above.) 2.
"The mark of the beast is the change the beast made in the law of God"
in the Sabbath. ("Marvel of Nations," p. 175) Then the mark of the
beast existed as soon as the change was made, which they locate 1,500 years ago.
Is not this conclusion inevitable? If the mark of the beast is the change of the
Sabbath which was made by the Papacy in the fourth century, then that mark has
existed ever since. There is no escape from this conclusion. 3.
All who have kept the law since that date, as changed by the beast, have been
keeping the law of the beast, not the law of God; have been worshippers of the
beast, not worshippers of God. Here is their own argument for it: Referring to
the prophecy that the Papacy should "change times and laws " (Dan.
7:25), which they claim the Pope fulfilled A.D. 364 by changing the Sabbath to
Sunday, Elder Smith says: "When this is done [which is 1,500 years ago],
what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding
obedience" - the law of God and the law of the Pope. "If they keep the
law of God, as given by Him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as
changed by the Papacy, they worship that power. . . . For instance, if God says
that the seventh day is the Sabbath, on which we must rest, but the Pope says
that the first day is the Sabbath, and that we should keep this day, and not the
seventh, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is
thereby distinguished as a worshipper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is
thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. . . . From this
conclusion no candid mind can dissent." ("Marvel of Nations," pp.
174 and 175) Then,
for the past fifteen hundred years, all who have kept Sunday have been
"marked" as followers of the beast and have worshipped him! From their
own argument, does not this inevitably follow? Of course it does. When they try
to deny and evade this conclusion, they simply contradict and stultify
themselves. Either their argument is a fallacy, or else this conclusion must
follow. Look at this hideous Moloch which they have set up to frighten the
ignorant. The Pope in the fourth century changed the law of God by changing the
Sabbath to Sunday. This change is the mark of the beast; whoever after that
keeps that law as thus changed is keeping not the law of God, but the Pope's
law; is worshipping, not God, but the Pope. But all Christians for fifteen
hundred years have kept Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast, and,
as Smith says, were "thereby marked as followers of the power that made the
change." From this conclusion there is no escape. And so all Sunday-keepers
have had the mark of the beast, and have it now. But
they say that they do not teach that any one as yet has had the mark of the
beast. This Even
if the Pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday, that would not make Sunday his
mark. The mark of any person was
that which he used to mark things as belonging to him. In Bible times a master
would put his mark on the right hand or forehead of his slaves. Heathen gods had
their worshippers marked so. This custom is referred to and used here as an
illustration. So the worshippers of the beast would be required to do something
which would mark or distinguish them as his followers. But keeping Sunday does
not distinguish a Catholic from members of other Churches, for all Churches keep
Sunday - the Greek, Armenian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, etc. The Pope has
never used Sunday to distinguish his followers from others, nor as proof of his
authority as head of the Church. He does point to the keys of St. Peter and his
regular apostolic succession from him as proof of his authority. Says Dowling:
"The Popes assert 'their divine right of supremacy in consequence of their
claiming to be the successors of the Apostle Peter.'" ("History of
Romanism," p. 44) On this, not on Sunday-keeping, they base their claim of
power. Some obscure writer is quoted, claiming authority for the Church to
"command feasts and holy days," because that Church has made Sunday
holy. This falls infinitely short of making Sunday the proof of all their
authority, the one "mark" of that Church. 4.
It is absurd to say that observing Sunday as the Sabbath is such a fearful crime
as Adventists affirm. Hear Elder
Smith: "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." "The
reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that
can be committed against WHAT,
THEN, IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST? What
do Catholics themselves claim as the mark of the Papal Church? Do they say what
it is? Yes, most emphatically. In
every doctrinal book they publish, no matter how small, even a few paged
catechism for little tots, up to a great cyclopedia of many volumes, this mark
is always given in bold head-lines, thus: MARKS
OF THE CHURCH Here
is a sample from "A Shorter Catechism of the Catholic "The
true Church of Christ may be known by these four marks. She is (1) One; (2)
Holy; "Which
Church has all these four marks? "It
is plain that no Church has all these four marks except the Roman Catholic
Church, that is, the Church which acknowledges the Pope of Rome as the head
" (pages 37-38). Here
are the marks of that Church given exactly the same in every catechism and
doctrinal work. Is Sunday-keeping one of them? No. It is never named in that
list of marks. The crowning one of these is to acknowledge the authority of the
Pope of Rome. So to acknowledge his supreme authority is to acknowledge that
Church as the true Church. Here you have the mark of the beast, if the Papacy is
that beast! Seventh-Day Adventists say that the " Beast" of Rev. xiii.
1-10 is the Papacy. Suppose we grant it. Then they say that Sunday-keeping is
the " mark " of this beast, the Papacy. This we emphatically deny. The
supreme mark, the one distinguishing characteristic of the Papacy, is the
supremacy of the Pope. This one feature distinguishes it from all other
churches. Thus Johnson's "New Universal Cyclopedia" says: "Roman
Catholic Church, that body of Christians which acknowledges the authority of the
Pope of Rome." Again in the same article it says : " The best summary
of the leading articles of the Roman faith is contained in the creed of Pope
Pius IV, which is binding upon all priests and public teachers, and which must
be confessed by all converts." There are eleven articles. The tenth says:
" I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to
St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ."
Every
Catholic must take this oath. No one can become a member without it. Whoever
confesses his adherence to this dogma thereby is marked as a papist, distinct
from all other Churches. When he swears acceptance of this article, he thereby
promises obedience to all the requirements of the Roman Church. Then is not this
the mark of that Church? Surely. Here
are a few more quotations from Catholics on the same subject: "The
whole Catholic world of more than two hundred and fifty millions of souls
acknowledges and obeys the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St.
Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth." (Same book, p. 233) Notice
that all the time it is the supremacy of the Pope that is insisted upon as the
one important mark of the true Church. It was a protest against this claim of
the supremacy of the Pope that brought on the great Reformation under Luther and
others. Thus Conway, a Catholic, in the "Question Box," says:
"The Reformers of the sixteenth century, indeed, claimed a special mission
to overthrow the existing government of the Church by denying the universal
jurisdiction of the Pope" (page 187). Yes,
it was a protest against the supremacy of the Pope's authority which brought on
the great Reformation. Hence, the name "Protestants." Rome still urges
the acknowledgment of this papal mark. As late as September 29, 1913, Cardinal
Gibbons, in the Baltimore American says: Notice
that " the first essential thing " is to recognize the supremacy of
the Pope. That is the one supreme question, the one test above all others.
Accept that and all else will be easily settled! Of course, for that carries
with it obedience to the whole papal system. Here you have the mark plainly
enough. "There
must be a distinguishing characteristic which through all the differences of
color, nationality, or education, will inevitably mark each adherent of that
system and leave no question as to one's relation to it. "A Catholic may be
a loyal Englishman, an American, a Chinaman, a Japanese, a negro, or an Indian,
no matter where he lives, or to what nation he belongs, the one person towards
whom his fealty never wavers is "the Holy Father," the Pope of Rome. Even
Elder Smith, Adventist, says of this mark: "It will evidently be some act
or acts by which men will be required to acknowledge the authority of that power
(Papacy) and yield obedience to its mandates."(Thoughts on Revelations, p.
591) That is correct. Every
Catholic is required to do just exactly that, acknowledge the supremacy and
infallibility of the Pope of Rome and yield implicit obedience to his authority
and mandates. Does keeping Sunday do that? Here
is a question. Mark it well. Does Rome ever require a person to promise to keep
Sunday as a test of admittance as a member? Never! My neighbor is a Catholic in
good standing, yet he works every Sunday. Could he deny the supremacy of the
Pope and remain a member? No. Which, then, is the mark of loyalty to Rome? Is it
Sunday-keeping? Even an Adventist must see the absurdity of that. During
the long night of papal supremacy hundreds of thousands were persecuted, their
goods confiscated, themselves driven out to die as martyrs, because they would
not acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope. This is what all Protestants
have been warring against for three hundred years and are doing it still.
"The Supremacy of the Pope of Rome" has been the one disputed question
in the history of the Church from the sixth century on till now. The great
Eastern, or Greek, Church would never submit to it, and finally severed all
connection with Rome on this very account. That issue is just as prominent
to-day as ever. Protestant Churches protest against it now the same as then.
Read our church papers; also the Menace, Protestant Magazine, etc. If
a man confesses his faith in the Roman pontiff as head of the Church and
infallible, is he not counted by all as a Roman Catholic? Certainly. Now
contrast this with Sunday-keeping. In my city there are Baptists, Methodists,
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Disciples, Lutherans, United
Brethren, and other Churches-all keeping Sunday. Does this mark them as Roman
Catholics? Does any one think of them as papists on this account? Do they
themselves ever think of it as marking them Catholics? Do the Catholics
themselves count these as Catholics because they keep Sunday? Absolutely no.
Every intelligent person knows that keeping Sunday does not mark any one as a
papist. But to acknowledge the Pope as the infallible head of the Church does do
this. Is not this absolutely true? Then what is the one universal mark of a
Roman Catholic? Is it Sunday-keeping? We all know better. It is loyalty to the
Pope of Rome. No candid man will deny that. Every Catholic authority will agree
with it. Here, then, is the "mark" of the Papacy. What
is the one characteristic mark of a Mohammedan? It is loyalty to Mohammed as
God's prophet. What of a Christian Scientist? Loyalty to Mrs. Eddy as head of
that Church. What of a Christian? Loyalty to Christ as the head of the Church.
What, then, is the chief mark of a papist? Loyalty to the Pope, "the Holy
Father," as the supreme infallible head of the Papacy. Every Catholic will
say that. Here is the mark of the beast, if the Papacy is the beast as
Adventists claim. Chapter
XII THE
TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT CHANGED BY CATHOLICS ADVENTISTS DECAPITATE THE DECALOGUE Seventh-Day
Adventists say that the Catholic Church has cut out the second one, the one
against images, has changed the Sabbath precept, and divided the tenth one into
two to make up the ten. How do they try to prove this? They quote from Catholic
catechisms, small ones, where only a few words of the longer commandments are
given, while the rest is omitted. The
short ones are given in full and our tenth divided into two. Then they compare
these commandments in the Catholic catechisms with those in our Bible. Is this
fair? No. They should compare the commandments in Catholic Bibles with those in
our Bibles, and those in Catholic catechisms with those in Protestant
catechisms. This is the only fair way. If they did this, they would find no
material difference in either. I have both Bibles before me. Opening to Exodus
20 all the ten commandments, every word of each one, images, Sabbath, the tenth,
and all, are given in full in the Catholic Bible; not a word is omitted. Get one
and see for yourself. Now
compare Catholic catechisms with Protestant catechisms. Is there any material
difference between them in quoting the commandments? None at all. In order to be
sure on this point, I have spent much time to thoroughly investigate it. I have
gathered a large number of Catholic catechisms. Have them here now. Then have
gone to the pastors of many Protestant Churches, as Baptist, Episcopal,
Presbyterian, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, etc., and have examined their
catechisms. In all these I find they have done practically the same as the
Catholics have. In the Protestant catechism for small children, generally only a
few words from the long commandments are given, while the short ones are given
in full. This is to save space and memorizing. The Catholics have done the same
thing and for the same reason. Then each Church, Protestant or Catholic,
explains these their way; but the commandments themselves are On
one side of my home is a Catholic family, on the other side is a Protestant
family - Lutheran. I borrowed catechisms of both. Here are the ten commandments
in the small Catholic catechism: "Say
the ten commandments. I.
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage. Thou shall have no strange gods before me; thou shalt not make
to thyself any graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in the heaven
above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shall not
adore them nor serve them. II.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. III.
Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. IV.
Honor thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest
live long on the earth. V.
Thou shalt not kill. VI.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. VII.
Thou shalt not steal. VIII.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. IX.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. X.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. Notice
here that Catholics include in the first commandment what we call the second
commandment. Then our tenth is divided into two. Lutherans divide them just the
same way. Further on I will give the reason for this. Observe that the command
against images is given in full. And this is a small Catholic catechism used by
my neighbor. Now
here are the commandments as given in the small catechism used by my Lutheran
neighbor, a Protestant: I.
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. II.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. III.
Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy. IV.
Honor thy father and thy mother that thou mayest live long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee. V.
Thou shalt not kill. VI.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. VII.
Thou shalt not steal. VIII.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. IX.
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house. X.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his
maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. Notice
in this Protestant catechism that our second commandment is omitted entirely.
Why? Was it to get rid of that one
because it forbids images? No, for Lutherans use no images, but oppose them.
They include our second in their first, the same as do Catholics. So they give
only the first words and omit the long explanation. That is all. Then the tenth
is divided into two, the same as the Catholic. None of this was done, whether by
Lutherans or Catholics, to "mutilate the law of God," as Adventists
say. It is one of the ways of dividing them, that is all. (See explanation and
table at close of this chapter.) My
Catholic neighbor, mentioned above, also loaned me a larger catechism which his
daughter studies in the Catholic high school here. It is entitled, " A Full
Course of Instruction in Explanation of the Catechism, by Rev. J. Perry, for
Colleges, Academies, and Private Families. Endorsed by the Archbishop of St.
Louis." Notice, this is used in high schools, colleges, academies, and
families. Beginning on page 151, there are fifty-nine pages given to the ten
commandments. Each one is given in full. The first one begins, and properly too,
with "I am the Lord thy God," etc. Then all, every word, of our first
and second commandments, is given in the first one; not a word against images is
omitted. Coming
to the Sabbath precept, our fourth, but their third, I read: "Recite the
full text of the third commandment." Then
every word of the Sabbath precept is given in full, not a word omitted or
changed, and so of the whole ten. Obedience to each of these is taught as
Catholics understand them. What
now becomes of the assertion that Catholics have "mutilated the law of
God" or have expunged one of the ten commandments? It is not the truth. All
that can be truthfully said is that they explain them differently from what
protestants do But they believe in them all, teach all of them and print all of
them in full in their Bibles and in their larger catechisms. In their small
catechisms they do just as Protestants do in their small ones, viz., give a few
words of each. Hence it is unfair to compare these little catechisms with the
whole law in our Bible. Roman
priests are guilty of withholding the entire Bible from their people, so that
the great mass of them never see a Bible. When priests do quote the Bible, they
quote it correctly enough, but explain it to suit Romanism. They quote the
precepts about images and the Sabbath correctly, but explain both to fit their
views. As they are accused of breaking the second commandment by the use of
images, they are careful, as seen above, to put in every word of that precept
even in their small catechisms. Then, of course, they have to explain it all
away. They have perverted the entire Gospel as well as the Old Testament. Neither
the Popes nor the Roman Church had anything to do with dividing the Decalogue. It
should be remembered that in the Hebrew, in which the Decalogue was written, the
words all ran right along together. There were no marks whatever between the
words or the commandments. Hence all were left to divide them as each judged
nearest correct. So it happened that they were divided differently, that is all. THE
CATHOLIC DIVISION OF THE DECALOGUE Seventh-Day
Adventists have made a great ado over the way Catholics divide and number the
ten commandments. They have gotten up a chart showing in one column the
Decalogue "as changed by the Pope "and in another as " given by
God." Here they show how "the Pope has changed God's law in
fulfillment of Dan 7:25." According to this, the Catholics included in the
first commandment what we have in the first two. Then our third is their second,
our fourth their third, and so on till our tenth, of which they make two.
Adventists claim that the Pope did this to get rid of the second commandment and
to change the Sabbath. But the whole thing is utterly false, as may be seen
under the word decalogue in any religious encyclopedia. The "Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia" says: "There have been three arrangements of the
Decalogue - the Talmudic (Jewish), theAugustinian (adopted by the Roman Catholic
and Lutheran Churches), and the Hellenistic (Greek), the view of Philo,
Josephus, Origen, the Greek and Reformed Churches, etc. The following table
exhibits the differences, the record in Exodus 20 being used.
It
will be seen here that the Catholics have simply followed Augustine, one of the
early Fathers, in this, while we have followed the Greeks. Augustine,
A.D. 353-430, was neither a Pope nor a papist. Next to Paul, he was the most
devoted and renowned minister Christianity ever produced. He had the most
profound reverence for the Holy Scriptures. The Catholics and Lutherans have
followed his division of the Decalogue. Hence this division was not made by a
Pope nor by the Papacy. A little investigation of facts exposes the weakness of
many of the Sabbatarian arguments like this one. THE
DECALOGUE DECAPITATED Strange
as it may seem, Adventists themselves are the ones who "mutilate" the
commandments. They leave off the
most important part of the Decalogue, viz., that part which tells who gave the
law, when it was given, and to whom given. Consulting a lawyer, he tells me that
every law passed by a state, or by the United States, in order to be of binding
force, must begin with what is called, "The Enacting Clause." Thus,
opening to a law passed by the legislature of Michigan, February 16, 1882, I
read : "Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the
State of Michigan," etc. Then follows the body of the law of which this
"enacting clause" is a necessary part. That introductory clause tells
who gave the law, when it was given, and to whom given. Leave these words off
and the law is a dead letter. Exactly
so with the Decalogue. The enacting clause is there in plain words. Let
us examine it. Moses says distinctly that all the words which the Lord spoke
were written on the tables of stone: "And the Lord delivered unto me two
tables of stone, written with the finger of God: and on them was written
according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in the Mount, out of
the midst of the fire " (Deut. 9:10). This text is too decisive to be
evaded. All that God spoke was written on the tables and was a part of the
Decalogue. Here are the first words: " And God spake all these words,
saying, I am the Lord, thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," etc.
(Ex. 20:1-3). These words are as much a part of the Decalogue as any of the rest
of it. They were spoken by God from heaven, written by His finger, were engraven
on the stone, and put in the ark. Adventists
urge that the ten commandments are of higher importance than other parts of the
law, because they were spoken directly by God's own voice, written with His
finger, engraved on stone, put in the ark and placed in the Most Holy Place.
Very well. All this is true of these words in the enacting clause, or first
words. These words were spoken by God, written by God, engraved on the stone,
put in the ark, and then in the Most Holy Place just the same as all the rest of
the commandments. Hence one is as sacred as the other and all should be kept
together. These explain directly who the author of that law is, viz., The Lord
thy God that brought thee out of Egyptian bondage. Nothing could be plainer.
They should be left where God put them. Now look at the law chart
which the Seventh-Day Adventists hang up as the "Law of God."
Are these words on there? No, indeed. They are left off.
If put on, they would spoil their whole theory of that law. They
assert that the Sabbath precept is the only thing in the Decalogue that tells
who gave it. Thus: "Aside from this precept [the Sabbath] there is nothing
in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given." (Mrs. White,
in "Great Controversy," p. 284) This
is not true. The opening words of that law, "the enacting clause,"
tell as plainly as words can tell who gave it, when it was given, and to whom
given. See how clear it is: "I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of
Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. "To whom does "Me" refer? Only one answer can
be given: It refers to the Lord God who has just spoken. He first tells them who
He is, and then all the commandments that follow are given on His authority. But
Adventists mutilate the law by cutting the head right off, by leaving off the
enacting clause, and then assert that there is nothing in the Decalogue except
the Sabbath precept to tell who gave that law! Is not this misleading? Take
an audience of one hundred people, hang up the law chart as Adventists print it
with the introductory words left off, and how many of the audience would notice
the omission? Few, if any at all. The preacher then asserts that there is
nothing in that law except the Sabbath precept to tell who gave the law! No
wonder people are misled. In the second copy of the law given in Deut. v. 1-22
all reference to creation is omitted while every word of the enacting clause is
on there. This shows that deliverance from Egypt was the authority on which that
law was made. Adventists
accuse Catholics of mutilating the Decalogue. It is exactly the other way.
Catholics include all the introductory words in the first commandment, and then
give the whole together. Thus
"A Study of the Catholic Religion," by Rev. Chas. Coppens, page 283:
"The first commandment is thus: 'I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange
gods before Me,'" etc. You see Catholics always include all the enacting
clause in the first commandment, just as should be done. In every Catholic
catechism or doctrinal book when the commandments are quoted they all begin the
same way with these words, just as God Himself began them: "I am the Lord
thy God that brought thee out of Egypt." There are two hundred and fifty
million Catholics, half of Christendom, who all quote the commandments that way.
So also the entire Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, numbering one hundred and
fifty millions, all include those words in the first commandment. I went to
their priest and he showed me how they quote them. Then all the Lutherans, fifty
millions, do the same. Then all the Jewish people, fourteen millions, do the
same. So over five hundred million believers in the Bible all include those
words in the first commandment. But Adventists leave off these words. Leaving
all the words of the ten commandments on just as God gave them spoils the
argument that the Sabbath is the seal of the law. To prove this they assert that
there is nothing else in that law that tells who gave it. But the first words
tell who gave it. This squarely contradicts their position, as is readily seen. I
call on them to throw away their old charts of the ten commandments and print
them just as God gave them. Evidently
originally the Adventists did not leave off these important words with the
purpose of deceiving. Elders White, Bates, Rhodes, etc., the first leaders, were
not scholarly men. In printing the law chart, they simply copied it after those
used by the Episcopal Church and others in church service. By them the words
were omitted to save length in repeating. While I was an Adventist minister I
have, hundreds of times, preached from that law chart and argued just as they do
now with no thought of deceiving. I simply did not then know any better, nor do
most of them now. But their intelligent leaders should know better, because, for
over twenty years past, I have called their attention to this unfair omission
which plainly contradicts the argument that the Sabbath precept is the only
thing that tells who gave the law. "HE
SHALL THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS" - Dan 7:25. Seventh-Day
Adventists make great capital of this text. They argue that it means the Pope, or
Papacy. Then they claim that the
Papacy changed the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, and thus fulfilled this
prophecy. To this we object. In Chapter YI we have proved that the change in the
day was made in the Apostolic Church, hundreds of years before there was any
Papacy. In Chapter VII we have shown that the change in the day was made in the
Eastern Church, where the Papacy never ruled. The
wording of Dan. 7:25 shows that the text has a far wider meaning than merely
changing the Sabbath. It was to change "times and laws"- both plural.
To change the Sabbath would only be changing one time and one law. This would
not fulfill the prophecy. But the Papacy has changed numerous "times and
laws." Read the following from "Systematic Study of the Catholic
Religion," by Chas. Coppens, page 318: "THE
COMMANDMENTS OF THE CHURCH" "The
laws enacted by the Church, in order to guide her members to eternal salvation,
are many and numerous. They are contained in her Canon Law." Then
follows a long list of holy "times" and church "laws" which
are not in the Bible, and these times and laws have been changed time and again
through the centuries. (See any commentary on Dan. 7:25.) The
Roman Church has fulfilled this prophecy many times over outside of any
reference to the Sabbath. The
Pope claims the right to change or annul the laws of beings or states and has
often done so. He decrees holy days
and holy times, then changes them at his will. All this has been prominent in
the history of the Papacy during the Dark Ages. This has amply fulfilled the
prophecy without any reference to the Sabbath. This
text, Dan. 7:25, is the one on which Adventists rely to prove that the Papacy
has changed the Sabbath. They quote it on all occasions as proof positive on
this point. But the careful reader will notice that they have to read into the
text what the Lord omitted to put there. The Sabbath is in no way mentioned in
the text. They have to go a long way and assume much to even make their theory
look plausible. Just
so Rev. xiv. 12, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God," is
their great text to prove that the Sabbath is to be restored by them now. But
here again they put in what the Lord left out - the Sabbath. If
the Lord meant the Sabbath in both texts why did He not say so instead of
leaving it for Adventists to insert later? They make these texts play the tune
which fits their theory, that is all. PRINTED
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|