[122]
Section Titles
Which Day Is the Christian Sabbath?
The Sabbath In The Book Of Acts
A Fatal
Admission
Canright Examines First-Day Texts
Was Sunday Commanded by Christ During the Forty Days Between
His Resurrection and Ascension?
The Lord's Day
Jesus Versus Human Authority
Canright
Appeals To The Fathers
Canright Shifts to Roman
Catholic Position
Canright Presents 100 Bible Facts To
Support Keeping Of The Seventh-Day Sabbath
Sixty Bible
Facts Concerning the Seventh Day
Forty Bible Facts
Concerning the First Day of the Week
Mr. Canright the Baptist makes a strong effort to prove
that the seventh-day Sabbath was not carried over into New Testament times. We
wish to call attention here to some of the very extravagant statements made by
him on this point. Let the reader note carefully the following quotations from
his book.
“Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day
is not once mentioned in the whole New Testament.”—Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p. 267.
“On all other points the New Testament is clear and
full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, and book
after book packed full of instruction on every Christian duty in every possible
phase of it. The duty or the sin covered by each of the other nine commandments
is directly named many times over in the New Testament. But the duty to keep
the seventh day is not once mentioned…. ‘Another remarkable fact is
that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no
Christian was ever commanded to observe it.’”—Ibid., pp.
265, 266.
This looks pretty bad for the Sabbath, doesn't it? with
all these references to the other nine commandments of the moral law, and
not even one mention of the Sabbath, or the fourth, commandment. Not
even one reference to it “in the whole New Testament”!
The strange thing is that after making this very
positive statement that there is no mention made in the New Testament of our
duty to keep the Sabbath, he devotes an entire chapter of his Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced (chapter 12) to an effort to refute the New
Testament
[123]
scriptures in which the seventh-day Sabbath is
mentioned, and finally admits, on page 273, that it is mentioned fifty-nine
times by New Testament writers! On page 267 he asserts with great emphasis that
there is not one such mention of it; on page 273 he finds that there are
fifty-nine such references. Here is a discrepancy that is certainly
difficult to understand.
But let us permit Mr. Canright as a Seventh-day
Adventist to reply to Canright as a Baptist on this point also. Before he
renounced the moral law and became a no-law advocate, he wrote:
“It is claimed that nine are referred to while the
fourth is not; but this is false. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament
oftener than any other of the ten commandments, being not less than fifty-nine
times in all. It is worthy of notice that in all these numerous references not
one word is spoken derogatory to the honor and sacredness which it had always
possessed.”—The Two Laws, p. 120.
“The New Testament was written by Christians, in
the Christian dispensation, for Christians. It was written by Inspiration;
hence it uses Christian language, and tells us what Christians did. Every word
of it was written years after the resurrection of Christ. Now let us see what
these Christian Scriptures say upon the Sabbath question. [Let the reader keep
in mind his later statement that it is not once mentioned.]
“The Son of God Himself lived upon our earth over
thirty years. He worked with His father as a carpenter. He labored six days in
a week, and rested upon the Sabbath. ‘And He came to Nazareth, where He
had been brought up; and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the
Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.’ Luke 4:16. Returning to the place
of His nativity, it is particularly mentioned that He still observed the
Sabbath according to His former custom. We have, then, the example of God's own
Son for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath.
[124]
“When questioned on this subject of the Sabbath, He
said, ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ Mark 2:27. And the book of
Genesis tells us just when and how God made the Sabbath for man. If it was made
for man, it is because man needed it. Next, Christ says of Himself,
‘Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ Verse 28.
Which day is this?—The seventh, as all know. This, then, is the Lord's
day—the day of which He is Lord.
“In Matthew 12:1-12, the Pharisees accused Jesus of
breaking the Sabbath because He disregarded their silly regulations concerning
it. He simply taught His disciples to eat upon the Sabbath when they were
hungry. Jesus defended what He had done by referring to the example of David
and the priests as recorded in the Old Testament, and concluded by saying,
‘Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.’ Verse 12.
Thus He recognizes not only the Sabbath, but the law of the Sabbath, in the New
Testament.
“When predicting the overthrow of Jerusalem, which
occurred thirty-nine years after His resurrection, He said to His disciples,
‘But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath
day.’ Matt. 24:20. Here He points them forward thirty-nine years into the
gospel age. He tells them that they will have to flee for their lives, but
commands them to pray the Lord that they may not be compelled to flee either in
the winter or on the Sabbath day. If they should go in winter, they might
perish. But why not flee upon the Sabbath day? If it was not a sacred day, they
could flee on that day as well as on any other. This text, then, plainly shows
that not only was the Sabbath to exist so many years after the resurrection of
Christ, but that it was still to be regarded as a holy day. If not, there would
be no reason in this command. Here, then, we find a New Testament command from
the lips of Jesus Himself for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
“Sunday keepers assert that the first day of the
week is the Christian Sabbath, or the Sabbath of the New Testament.
[125]
Seventh-day Adventists maintain that the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the New Testament. Go into a church on the first day of the week,
and you hear the minister call it the Sabbath. Go among the seventh-day people
on Saturday, and they call that the Sabbath. Now, who is right? We appeal to
the New Testament.
“‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene,’ etc. Matt.
28:1. Notice particularly; here are two days. One is the Sabbath day. ‘In
the end of the Sabbath.’ Very well, there is one day, then, that is
the Sabbath. Now which day is this? Sunday keepers say it is the first day of
the week, and we say that it is the seventh day. Read further. ‘In the end
of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week.’ Reader, which is the Sabbath day? It cannot be the first day,
because the one which is called the Sabbath is the day before the first day.
The Sabbath is ended before the first day comes. Remember this is not the
testimony of the Old Testament. It is from the Gospel that we are reading, the
Christian Scriptures, the New Testament; and hence, if you please, the Sabbath
here mentioned is the ‘Christian Sabbath.’
“Here is another text: ‘When the Sabbath was
past, … very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came
unto the sepulcher.’ Mark 16:1, 2. Notice carefully; here are two days
spoken of again. One of them is the Sabbath. Which day is it? Is it the first
day? Surely not, because the Sabbath is past before the first day comes.
‘When the Sabbath was past, … the first day of the week, they came
unto the sepulcher.’ Remember this is New Testament, not Old,—gospel,
not law,—Christian, not Jewish, testimony. To this we appeal. Which day is
the Christian Sabbath? This was written a long time after the resurrection,
written by a Christian, and for Christians. Reader, which is the Christian
Sabbath?
“Once more: ‘And they returned, and prepared
spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to the
commandment.’ Luke 23:56. Thus did the holy women who had followed Christ
all His life and were acquainted with all His
[126]
teaching. This was written thirty years after the
resurrection. It is in the Christian Scriptures. What does it say? They kept
the Sabbath day. What Sabbath day? ‘The Sabbath day according to the
commandment.’ Then it is the right Sabbath, the one the law requires. Now
what day was this? The next verse will settle it. ‘Now upon the first day
of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.’
Notice, the next day after the day they had kept, was the first day of the
week. Thus, reader, the first day of the week cannot be the Sabbath day
according to the commandment, because the Christians had kept the Sabbath day,
the day before the first day of the week. Do not think we are reading from the
Old Testament. No, indeed; this is New Testament Scripture.
“We turn to Acts, which was written some
thirty-three years this side the commencement of the gospel age, and written by
a Christian. It shows us the language of the apostolic Christians touching the
ancient Sabbath, and how they used it. We find them always calling it ‘the
Sabbath,’ just as it had been called in the old dispensation, and using it
for religious worship as of old. Of Paul and Barnabas it says: ‘They came
to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat
down.’ Acts 13:14. This was the seventh day, the day on which the Jews
worshiped. Inspiration here calls it the Sabbath day, not a
Sabbath day, nor the old Sabbath day, nor the Jewish Sabbath day, nor the day
that used to be the Sabbath, but ‘the Sabbath day.’…
“Paul, in his sermon referring to that day, says
that the prophets ‘are read every Sabbath day.’ Verse 27. Here the
apostle calls it definitely ‘the Sabbath day.’ When he had finished
his discourse, ‘the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached
to them the next Sabbath.’ Verse 42. Here, even the Gentiles called it
the Sabbath. Once more: ‘And the next Sabbath day came almost the
whole city together.’ Verse 44. Luke, the historian, here calls it the
Sabbath, and records the meetings they held upon it. James, in Acts 15:21, says
the
[127]
Scriptures are ‘read in the synagogues every Sabbath
day.’ Thus, James still designates that as the Sabbath day.
“Once more: ‘And on the Sabbath we went out of
the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made.’ Acts 16:13. On
what day?—The Sabbath. Who will contradict the Scriptures, and say that it
was not the Sabbath? Every one holds that the day here referred to was the
seventh day; and this record is in the New Testament. This day, then, is the
‘Christian Sabbath.’
“Again: ‘Paul, as his manner was, went in unto
them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.’
Acts 17:2. It was Paul's custom to observe the Sabbath, as we here see. On what
days did he preach there?—On the Sabbath days. But this was on the
seventh day, not on the first. Which, then, is the Sabbath day, according to
Paul? … Thus we find that the seventh day is always and invariably termed
‘the Sabbath’ in the New Testament, while the first day is
never so called….
“Here we think we have plainly found the
‘Christian Sabbath;’ that is, the Sabbath day which the Christian
Scriptures plainly teach. We ask, then, By what authority do you apply the term
‘Sabbath’ to the first day of the week? God has never changed it, and
why should you?
“In conclusion we ask, Where did the Lord ever give
you permission to work on His holy day? Who gave you liberty to use it for
secular work? When was the blessing or sanctification removed from it? Where do
you find in the New Testament that a Christian ever worked on the seventh day?
We pray you to consider these things in the light of the
judgment.”—D. M. Canright, The Christian Sabbath, pp. 2-7.
Mr. Canright the Baptist makes another admission in his
book which is fatal to his Sabbath-abolition argument, when he says:
“All church historians agree that the Jewish
Christians
[128]
continued to observe the seventh day, even for some time
after the fall of Jerusalem, as we have seen.
“Philip Schaff, the greatest of living authors, in
his ‘History of the Apostolical Church,’ page 118, says: ‘So far
as we know, the Jewish Christians of the first generation, at least in
Palestine, Scripturally observed the Sabbath.’”—Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p. 277.
This is very important. The “Jewish
Christians” all continued to observe the Sabbath for the first generation
of the Christian Era, “even for some time after the fall of
Jerusalem.” That, then, took in Paul, Peter, James, Andrew, Philip,
Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, and John the revelator. It included the New
Testament writers, with the exception of Luke, who was probably a Greek. These
persons were observers of the seventh-day Sabbath throughout the first
generation, that is to say, as long as they lived, for they died before the
first century of the Christian Era was passed. They kept the Sabbath till they
died. They spoke of no change when they wrote their Gospels or Epistles,
whether writing to Jews or Gentiles, and they made no change in their practice;
they “Scripturally observed the Sabbath.” That is, they recognized
that the Scriptural injunctions to keep the Sabbath are still binding in the
Christian Era, and they kept it according to the Scriptures. To this agree the
words of Luke, the Greek, as he speaks of Christ's followers in connection with
His death and burial: “They returned, and prepared spices and ointments;
and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56.
Mr. Canright the Baptist inquires:
“How much, then, does it prove in favor of the
Jewish Sabbath to find that it was still called ‘the Sabbath,’ or
that
[129]
it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even by Paul
himself?”—Ibid., p. 278.
We answer, Much every way, chiefly because these
facts clearly reveal that the church of the apostles knew nothing whatsoever of
any change having been made in the Sabbath. They knew nothing of the original
Sabbath having been abolished or of Sunday having taken its place.
But did not the Gentile Christians who lived in the days
of the apostles perhaps make the change? No, for they became Christians through
the labors of these Jewish Christians and were instructed by them.
The Gentiles were never commissioned to take over and
remodel the cause later. The Lord did not give one line of instruction to the
new church through the Jewish Christians and another line through Gentile
converts. All the teaching was the reverse of that. If men accepted Jesus, they
were then members of His family and counted as Christians. They were all to be
governed by one rule, to be of one mind, and to speak the same thing. “As
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:27, 28.
Therefore, if the Christians of Christ's time were
“all one,” and if all the Jewish Christians kept the Scriptural
Sabbath during the first century, the Gentile converts must also have done the
same. The entire Christian church started out as a Sabbath-keeping church, and
there was no thought of changing to Sunday until apostasy set in later on, and
the church began to depart from the plain
[130]
commandments of God and to follow the traditions of men.
In chapter 10 of his book Mr. Canright tries to build up
an argument for Sunday observance on apostolic example, but the admission that
for the first century all Jewish Christians continued to keep the Sabbath
completely demolishes his argument. The apostles were all Jewish Christians,
and if they all continued to keep the Sabbath during the first century, or as
long as they lived, then the apostolic example is all on the Sabbath side. It
is wholly in favor of seventh-day observance.
Not one of the apostles or disciples of Christ ever once
kept Sunday or indicated that he knew anything about a change having been made
in the Sabbath. No mention is made of the first day of the week as having
become a holy day or a day of rest and worship. No command is given for anyone
to keep it. God never rested on it; Christ never kept it; the apostles knew
nothing about it; and for at least a century of the Christian Era the church
members all continued to keep the Scriptural Sabbath.
This Scriptural Sabbath is mentioned fifty-nine times in
the New Testament, as Mr. Canright admits. It is called the Sabbath, and Jesus
declares Himself to be Lord of it. (Mark 2:28.) But Sundaykeeping is not
mentioned at all, and wherever the first day of the week is spoken of, it is
referred to as one of the six working days to which no holiness was
attached.
But we shall permit Mr. Canright as a Seventh-day
Adventist to speak on this point. He has already shown his ability to find
fifty-nine references to the Sabbath in the New Testament, and now we will let
him tell us
[131]
what he knew about Sunday in the New Testament. The
following is from his pen:
“Paul says, ‘Where no law is, there is no
transgression.’ Rom. 4:15. As there is no law of God for keeping the first
day, there can be no sin in working on it; for Paul says again, ‘Sin is
not imputed when there is no law.’ Rom. 5:13. Then why keep Sunday? God
does not leave men to guess at their duty, but He states plainly whatever He
wishes done. Does He wish men to keep the seventh day? How explicitly He has
said so. Ex. 20:8-11. How plainly baptism and the Lord's supper are enjoined.
Mark 16:15, 16; 1 Cor. 11:23-26. So if the Lord wished us to keep the first
day, would He not have plainly said so? Certainly; but He has said no such
thing.
“Let us examine every text in which the first day
of the week is mentioned in the New Testament, and we shall thus learn all the
Lord has said about it. There are but eight texts. Here is the first: ‘In
the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.’ Matt. 28:1.
This is all that Matthew says about it. He relates that the angel opened the
tomb; that the women saw him, ran to tell the apostles, and met Jesus on the
way; but not a hint is given that there is to be any change of the Sabbath, not
a word is said about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection. Think
of this.
“Next, Mark mentions the first day twice. ‘And
very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the
sepulcher at the rising of the sun.’ ‘Now when Jesus was risen early
the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.’ Chap.
16:2, 9. This is all the mention he makes of the day. Here, again, there is a
profound silence as to any change of the Sabbath or any sacredness for the
first day. There is not the slightest intimation of any such thing. Read the
whole chapter and see for yourself.
“Luke mentions the first day only once. ‘Now
upon the
[132]
first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came
unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain
others with them.’ Chap. 24:1. What does this say about the change of the
Sabbath?—Nothing. They had kept the Sabbath according to the commandment
the day before. Chap. 23:56. What intimation is there here that the first day
then became a holy day? The candid reader will admit that there is not the
slightest reference to such a thing. Yet these are the texts always relied upon
by Sunday keepers to sustain their position. Luke does state that two of the
disciples went that day seven and a half miles, on foot, to Emmaus. Verse 13.
What were they going there for? The circumstances indicate that they resided
there, and they were going home. Jesus walked with them and made Himself known
to them. Verses 15-31. Then they went back to Jerusalem to tell the others.
Fifteen miles they walked that day…. Mark 16:12, 13. While they were
eating supper, and doubting and disputing about the resurrection, Jesus came in
and upbraided them for their unbelief…. Luke 24:38-43. Certainly, then,
they were not keeping that day to commemorate an event in which they did not
yet believe!…
“John mentions the first day twice, stating
substantially the same facts as the others. ‘The first day of the week
cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and
seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.’ Chap. 20:1. She ran and
told Peter and John. Then they went to see if it was so. Later, Jesus appeared
to Mary, and sent her to tell the others. Verses 11-18. ‘Then the same day
at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the
disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the
midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.’ Verse 19. This is all that
John says of the first day. Reader, how much do you find here about the change
of the Sabbath? Like the others, John is silent upon this subject. He makes no
reference to it; he simply states the events that occurred at the resurrection
of Jesus. There he leaves it.
“But were not the apostles assembled together when
Jesus met them? Yes, at their own home, eating supper. John 20:10;
[133]
Mark 16:14. (See Acts 1:13.) And where else should they be?
So there is no evidence here of any religious meeting held on that day.
“John mentions the first day twice, but does not
call it the Sabbath, the Lord's day, nor by any other sacred title. He says
nothing about the disciples' keeping it, nor does he record any intimation from
the Lord that they should keep it. There is not even an inference to that
effect in the four Gospels, and the whole argument in favor of it is pure
assumption.
“Another Sunday meeting is claimed from verse 26:
‘And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with
them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,
Peace be unto you.’ This did not occur on Sunday, but as late as Monday
evening. Verse 19. After eight days is not on the eighth day….
“But suppose it had been the first day of the week;
that does not prove that it was the Sabbath, nor that there was any sacredness
to the day. The disciples were not even holding a meeting. They were
‘within,’ that is, at home. Verse 10: ‘Then the disciples went
away again unto their own home.’ This is where they were when the event
occurred which is recorded in verse 26. (See Acts 1:13.) Jesus came because
Thomas was there; but there is not a word, or even a hint, that the day was
sacred.
“The next time Jesus met them was on a fishing day.
John 21:1-6. They all went fishing, and toiled all night, but caught nothing.
In the morning Jesus stood on the shore, and told them where to cast the net to
get a good draught. Was this on Sunday? Then it is a working day.
“If it were not on Sunday, then Jesus met them on
any day, just as it happened. So we see from Acts 1:1-4 that His farewell
meeting with them was on Thursday. It was on the fortieth day after His
resurrection. Verse 3. By a moment's reckoning it will be seen that it fell on
Thursday, as all agree. Thursday is ascension day the world over. So the claim
that Jesus always met with His disciples on the first day of the week is
utterly false. As we have seen, the day of
[134]
His resurrection was one of the greatest confusion among His
disciples; the next time He met them was on Monday evening, the next time was
on a fishing day, and the last was on Thursday. So much for the example of
Christ in favor of Sunday keeping….
“Next, Acts 20:7-11 is supposed to furnish some
little proof for first-day observance. ‘And upon the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And
there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered
together.’ Then a young man fell from a window, and being taken up dead,
was restored to life by Paul. And when he ‘had broken bread, and eaten,
and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.’ We
notice these facts: 1. The first day is not called the Sabbath, Lord's day, or
by any other sacred title. 2. This is the only religious meeting upon the first
day of the week of which we have any record in the New Testament. This is
remarkable, if that were the common day of meeting. But we have a record of
eighty-four Sabbaths which Paul kept, and on which he preached. (See Acts
13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:1-4, 11.) 3. Nothing is said about its being their
custom to meet on that day. 4. There is no record that they ever met on that
day before this occasion or afterward. 5. But what settles the whole matter is
the simple fact that it was only an evening meeting. When they assembled, Paul
began to preach to them, and ‘continued his speech till midnight.’
After breaking bread, he again talked ‘till break of day,’ and then
went on his journey. Evening meetings are frequently held on all days of the
week. No one thinks of calling a day holy for this reason. So in the above
case; this meeting does not furnish the slightest evidence that Sunday was a
holy day. Moreover, this was not an ordinary meeting, but a very uncommon one.
It was Paul's farewell meeting (verse 25); hence it lasted all night. A dead
man was raised. It was for these reasons that it was mentioned, and not because
of any sacredness belonging to the day. Then there is not a particle of
evidence here for Sunday observance.
[135]
“Only one more text mentions the first day; viz., 1
Corinthians 16:2: ‘Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay
by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I
come.’ From this a public meeting for Sabbath worship on the first day is
inferred. But what is said here about keeping that day as the Sabbath, or even
holding meetings on that day? Not an intimation of such a thing is given. Paul
does not say that when they came together for meetings they should bring their
gifts, nor that they should put them into the public collection box, nor
anything of that nature. ‘Let every one of you lay by him in
store,’ is the direction; that is, at home, by himself. The original Greek
term means by himself, at home, as the best critics say on this passage.
“Now, reader, you have before you all the texts in
the New Testament that mention the first day of the week in any manner. You
must see that they do not intimate that the day has any sacredness, or that
there is an example for keeping it, or any commandment that any one should
observe it. The ‘Lord's day’ of Revelation 1:10 is the seventh day,
as may be seen by Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13; Mark 2:28.”—D. M.
Canright, Sunday Not the Sabbath, pp. 1-8.
That is well done, Mr. Canright. Now we will give you an
opportunity to answer another one of your Sabbath objections.
In his book under review Mr. Canright the Baptist
declares:
“That the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) fell on Sunday
has been believed and maintained by Christians in all
ages.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 200.
But just a few years before, he had completely exploded
this theory in a leaflet entitled Sunday Not the Sabbath, from which we
quote the following:
“A desperate endeavor is made to find evidence for
Sunday keeping from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); but there
[136]
is not the remotest hint of it here. ‘And when the day
of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And
suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind.’
Verses 1, 2. Then the Holy Spirit rested upon them. But what has that to do
with Sunday keeping? Sunday observance is not mentioned, nor even referred to.
It is not stated what day of the week it was, as that was a matter of no
importance.
“It was the Pentecost which was to be
signalized, and not the day of the week. The very best scholars, even among
the observers of Sunday, admit that Pentecost fell that year upon the Sabbath,
or Saturday. Professor Hackett says, ‘It is generally supposed that
this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish
Sabbath, or Saturday.’—Comment on original text.
“Olshausen says, ‘The fiftieth fell,
therefore, it appears, upon Saturday.’
“Dean Alford, in his ‘New Testament for
English Readers,’ remarks, ‘It is probable, however, that it was on
the Sabbath, i.e., if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan.’ If the
day of the week on which that Pentecost fell was to be observed, we should at
least expect that we should be informed which day it was. But we are
not.”—Pages 5, 6.
In the last analysis Seventh-day Adventists are not
really concerned at all as to whether Pentecost came on Sabbath, Sunday, or
some other day of the week, for they have never rested their case on so
uncertain and vague a basis as the supposed relationship of the Sabbath to
various ceremonial festivals of the Jews, such as Pentecost. Seventh-day
Adventists build their claim for the sacredness of the Sabbath in the Christian
Era on the firm foundation of a clear-cut “Thus saith the Lord,”
found in the fourth precept of the divinely given Ten Commandments, which
commandments virtually all the Christian world confesses to be the moral code
for all time and
[137]
all ages. It is interesting to note, however, that opponents
such as Mr. Canright attempt to make a last stand on the claim that Pentecost
came on Sunday, but even among Sundaykeeping theologians themselves there is no
agreement that Pentecost came on Sunday. This is a strange plight indeed for
the advocates of Sunday!
In renouncing Seventh-day Adventism, Mr. Canright argues
that Sunday should be kept as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, saying:
“It is the grandest and best-known fact in all the
earth today, that the Christian church has a memorial day, the day of the
Lord's resurrection.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p.
196.
To which argument he himself had formerly replied as
follows:
“Should we not, then, celebrate the resurrection of
Christ? Yes, but the Lord never told us to keep Sunday for that purpose. God
has given us baptism, burial in water, as the fitting memorial of this.
‘Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism.’ Rom. 6:4. We
are buried in the water just as Jesus was in the earth. Then we are raised up
out of the water, ‘also in the likeness of His resurrection.’ Verse
5. Again, ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with
Him.’ Col. 2:12. Baptism, then, is the divinely appointed memorial of the
burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is appropriate. To be buried in the water
and raised out of it, resembles the burial and resurrection of Christ, which it
commemorates.”—Sunday Not the Sabbath, p. 8.
Mr. Canright the Baptist quotes a priest of New York on
the matter of Sunday observance as follows:
[138]
“John Ankatell, A. M., priest of the diocese of New
York, writing in the Outlook, July, 1889, says of Sunday, the Lord's
day: ‘We think it was given by our Lord to the apostles during the
great forty days after His resurrection, but we cannot prove this.’
He states the Catholic doctrine exactly; viz., that the change was made by
Christ and the apostles, but that the Scriptures are not plain enough on this
point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic authority, which says it
was made in New Testament times.”—Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced, p. 214.
It seems to us that this is as clear a case of groping
in the dark as we have ever witnessed. No evidence can be found for Sunday
observance, but that fact does not deter those who are determined to substitute
that day for God's Sabbath. Failing to find a “Thus saith the Lord”
for their doctrine on this point, they find the next best thing—a Catholic
priest of New York, who thinks the Sunday command was given to the
disciples by the Lord during the forty days after His resurrection! Of course,
this priest is honest enough to add that he “cannot prove
this,” but then the very fact that he thought it, was evidence
to Mr. Canright that it must be true.
We wonder now what this priest's supposition is based
upon? Paul says that he shunned not to declare all the counsel of God, and yet
he declared nothing about Christ's having secretly told the disciples about
Sunday's taking the place of the holy Sabbath. Strange, isn't it, that he
should have forgotten so important a matter as that! And one would think that
Luke or John would have thought to mention it, but no, they must have forgotten
also. What a pity that the New Testament should have been marred by this
failure on their part! Surely, if they expected plain, ordinary folk down here
in the twentieth century to
[139]
keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, they should have made it
plainer. As it is, they have left us without any hint or instruction whatsoever
on this point of Sunday sacredness. But then, of course, there is the New York
priest. Yes, there is the priest!
But catch that further admission of Mr. Canright the
Baptist quoted above. He says of this priest:
“He states the Catholic doctrine exactly; viz.,
that the change was made by Christ and the apostles, but that the Scriptures
are not plain enough on this point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon
Catholic authority, which says it was made in New Testament times.”
Now, surely that is an astonishing admission for a
Protestant minister who is a Sunday advocate to make. The Scriptures are not
plain enough on this point (of Sunday sacredness) to prove it. Quite right, Mr.
Canright, they are not. We are glad that you, by citing this quotation as
evidence, admit that truth at last. We are glad it is frankly stated that we
have to rely upon Catholic authority for information on this point. That clears
the atmosphere considerably. We can now see clearly upon what platform you
stand. “The Scriptures are not plain enough on this point to prove
it,” so the thinking of a New York priest of the Roman Church is
substituted!
True, there is no information in “the
Scriptures” about Sunday sacredness; therefore, Sunday advocates do
“have to rely upon Catholic authority,” the same source from
which people get “authority” for purgatory, prayers for the dead,
mediation of the virgin Mary, and other doctrines unknown to the apostles, one
of which was Sunday sacredness.
[140]
Let it be known that there is one thing on which the
Scriptures are clear, all the way from Genesis to Revelation, and that
is that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus
20:10); that this day was sanctified in Eden, set apart for the holy and
religious use of men, as a great memorial of creation; that it is God's holy
day (Isaiah 58:13); that Jesus is Lord of it (Mark 2:28); that Jesus kept
it (Luke 4:16); that the disciples still kept it after the resurrection of our
Lord (Luke 23:56); and that it was “the Lord's day” (Revelation
1:10).
There is no need to find out what the New York Catholic
priest thinks about that. It is written in letters of fire, as it were, and was
dictated by the Holy Ghost. It was spoken from heaven by the omnipotent God; it
was engraved on stone with His finger; it was substantiated by Jesus by both
precept and example; it was accepted without question by all the inspired
writers. In fact, it is so plain that “the wayfaring men, though
fools,” need not err therein. (Isaiah 35:8.)
Shall all this clear, shining testimony be discarded for
the passing thought of a New York Roman Catholic priest?
In an attempt to prove that Sunday is the Lord's day,
Mr. Canright the Baptist says:
“Those who observe Sunday say that they do it in
honor of the resurrection of Christ upon that day, and that this practice was
derived from the apostles and has been continued in the church ever since. Let
us see. ‘The Lord's day’is a term now commonly applied to the first
day of the week, in honor of the Lord's resurrection on that day. Thus:
‘We believe
[141]
the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the
Lord's day.’—‘Baptist Church Directory,’ p.
171.… So every dictionary, lexicon, and cyclopedia applies that term to
the first day.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 186.
Here Mr. Canright begins his great adventure among the
lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias, church Fathers, etc., in a desperate
effort to turn up some semblance of proof for Sunday observance. He can find
nothing whatsoever in the Bible, as he has so frequently and emphatically
stated in the quotations we have cited from his own writings, so in his
desperation he is driven to other sources. He starts in with the Baptist
Church Directory, and then wanders through the annals of medieval
ecclesiastical history, searching for what cannot be found in Scripture. In
this field he fares far better than when he seeks proof in the New
Testament.
Calvin is quoted by him as saying:
“‘The ancients have, not without sufficient
reason, substituted what we call the Lord's day in the room of the
Sabbath.’ ”—Ibid.
But, we inquire, how does this help us in this matter?
Who were these “ancients”? In what generation did they live? Were
they Catholics, pagans, or early Christians? And if they were either, what
authority did they have to tamper with the immutable law of the great God? Who
made these ancients to be our lawgivers? “There is one Lawgiver, who is
able to save and to destroy.” James 4:12. “The Lord is our Judge, the
Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us.” Isaiah
33:22.
Who, then, are these ancients who presume to tamper with
what God has done? Away with them!
[142]
“If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served
that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And
the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to
serve other gods.” Joshua 24:15, 16.
Mr. Canright quotes from statutes of the kings of
England; from Danish and Saxon laws; from Catholic councils; from Emperor
Constantine; and a score of socalled Catholic Fathers, several of whom are
proved impostors and tricksters, in a further effort to bolster up his Lord's
day theory. Now the thing that strikes one as more than passing strange is the
fact that, in an effort to prove which day is the Lord's day, the testimony of
almost everyone else is sought except that of the Lord Himself.
Why not inquire of the Lord as to which is His day?
Perchance He would know more about it than the learned writers of dictionaries,
the pagan emperor Constantine, or Henry IV of England. Why not at least hear
what He has to say about the matter? What harm could it have done for Mr.
Canright to tell us what is written in the Book of books about the Lord's day?
Just this: it would have completely upset his entire theory. For the Lord and
Mr. Canright the Baptist are not in agreement on this matter.
Let us first note a statement in the fourth commandment:
“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Whose Sabbath
is it? The Sabbath of the Lord. It is His day. He claims it. As His voice
rolled through the earth He declared this one day to be His. When, we
[143]
inquire, has His voice been heard again, releasing this
claim? When did the earth shake with the announcement from the throne that
Sunday was now to be substituted for the Sabbath? When? Never! That
change was made by man, not God.
Again the Lord declares: “If thou turn away thy
foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day.”
Isaiah 58:13. Which day is the Lord's day? He definitely claims the Sabbath,
the seventh day, as His. He declares it to be holy, and calls upon His people
not to trample it underfoot and disregard it, as Mr. Canright would so gladly
have them do.
But this is not all. When Jesus was here in the flesh,
He made another pronouncement on this question which leaves absolutely no room
for doubt or quibbling. His words are recorded in Mark 2:27, 28: “He said
unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore
the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”
So the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. That day,
then, must of necessity be the Lord's day. It is the day which He made
for man's rest and benefit.
No such claims were ever made by the Lord regarding
Sunday. Jesus said nothing about a Sunday Lord's day. That is found only in the
dictionaries, and the musty volumes of history written after the papal apostasy
set in. That idea is absolutely foreign to the Bible. Only one Lord's day is
recognized in the Scriptures, and that is the original Sabbath. It was,
therefore, the seventh-day Sabbath of which John spoke when he said, “I
was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.” Revelation 1:10. John was one of
those Christians of the early church whom Mr.
[144]
Canright admits kept the Sabbath during the first century,
hence he speaks of that day just as Jesus had spoken of it. Jesus said He was
Lord of the Sabbath day, and John records that he had a heavenly vision on that
day. How anyone could possibly read Sunday into this text we cannot
understand.
On this point Dr. Summerbell, of the Christian Church,
says:
“Many suppose that they must denominate the first
day of the week the ‘Lord's day;’ but we have no certain scripture
for this. The phrase ‘Lord's day’ occurs but once in the Bible:
‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,’ and there probably refers to
the day of which Christ said: ‘The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath
day,’ as the whole book of Revelation has a strong Jewish
bearing.”—N. Summerbell, D.D. (professor of Moral Philosophy, and
first president of Union Christian College: editor of the Christian Pulpit,
Discussions, Church History), History of the Christian Church, p. 152.
Mr. Canright's chief appeal on his Sunday-Lord's-day
theory is to the Catholic Fathers, and he offers their testimony as a ground of
faith for the Christian church. Regarding the reliability of these sources of
Christian doctrine we wish to quote the following statements from recognized
church leaders and historians:
“The Fathers of the second and third centuries were
not regarded as safe guides even by their Christian contemporaries….
Tertullian, who, in point of learning, vigor, and genius, stands at the head of
the Latin writers of this period, was connected with a party of gloomy
fanatics. Origen, the most voluminous and erudite of the Greek Fathers, was
excommunicated
[145]
as a heretic. If we estimate these authors as they were
appreciated by the early Church of Rome, we must pronounce their writings of
little value. Tertullian, as a Montanist, was under the ban of the Roman
bishop…. Origen was treated by the Roman Church as a man under sentence of
excommunication….
“Nothing can be more unsatisfactory, or rather
childish, than the explanations of Holy Writ sometimes given by these ancient
expositors…. Very few of the Fathers of this period were acquainted with
Hebrew, so that, as a class, they were miserably qualified for the
interpretation of the Scriptures. Even Origen himself must have had a very
imperfect knowledge of the language of the Old Testament. In consequence of
their literary deficiencies, the Fathers of the second and third centuries
occasionally commit the most ridiculous blunders.”—DR. William D.
Killen, The Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 2, chap. 1, pars. 33, 34.
“There are but few of them [the Fathers] whose
pages are not rife with errors,—errors of method, errors of fact, errors
of history, of grammar, and even in doctrine. This is the language of simple
truth, not of slighting disparagement.”—Archbishop F. W. Farrar,
D.D., The History of Interpretation, pp. 162, 163.
“The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers
have unhappily, for the most part, come down to us in a condition very little
worthy of confidence, partly because under the name of these men, so highly
venerated in the church, writings were early forged for the purpose of giving
authority to particular opinions or principles; and partly because their own
writings which were extant, became interpolated in subservience to a Jewish
hierarchical interest, which aimed to crush the free spirit of the
gospel.”—Dr. Augustus Neander, General History of the Christian
Religion and Church, vol. 1, Appendix, Sec. 4. “Notices of the More
Eminent Church Teachers,” p. 657.
[146]
“Books bearing venerable names—Clement,
Dionysius, Isidore—were forged for the purpose of supplying authorities
for opinions that lacked the sanction of antiquity.”—John Emerich
Edward Dalberg-Acton (R.C.), The History of Freedom, p. 513.
“Several works ascribed to these Fathers, are known
to be spurious; others are doubtful; and those which are generally received as
genuine are not free from interpolations.”—Wharey, Sketches of
Church History, First Century, p. 26.
“But of these [the Fathers] we may safely state
that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by
their authority nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church, that may not
challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine, their authority is with
me, nothing. The word of God alone contains my creed.”—Dr. Adam
Clarke, Comment on Proverbs 8.
“When God's word is by the Fathers expounded,
construed, and glossed over, then, in my judgment, it is even as when one
strains milk through a coal sack, which must needs spoil and make the milk
black. God's word of itself is pure, clean, bright, and clear; but through the
doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers, it is darkened, falsified, and
spoiled.”—Martin Luther, Table Talk, p. 281.
This, then, is the ground on which Mr. Canright chose to
stand after he forsook the law of God, and surely he was sinking in the mire.
He had clearly forsaken the commandments of God for the traditions of men. Had
he become a Catholic, we could better understand his appeal to these
questionable Catholic sources; but he claimed still to be a Protestant, and yet
stepped down from the solid Protestant platform of the Bible, and the Bible
only, as the rule of faith and practice, onto the shifting sands of the
Catholic position of the Bible plus tradition, with tradition above the
Bible.
[147]
The Roman Catholic position on this point is clearly set
down in the following terse quotations:
“A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven,
must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the
Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to
believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to
practice…. We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone
cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith, because they cannot, at any
time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves
clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance; and because
they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.”—Cardinal
Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 111.
The following quotations will show what the Catholic
Church teaches as to the authority for its doctrine:
“Question.—Has tradition any connection
with the rule of faith?
“Answer.—Yes; because it is a part of
God's revealed word, properly called the unwritten word, as the
Scripture is called the written word.
“Ques.—What is tradition?
“Ans.—The doctrines which the apostles
taught by word of mouth, and which have descended through every successive
generation even to our times.
“Ques.—Are we obliged to believe what
tradition teaches, equally with what is taught by Scripture?
“Ans.—Yes; we are obliged to believe
the one as firmly as the other.”—Rev. Stephen Keenan, Doctrinal
Catechism, pp. 86, 87.
“Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the
Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of
revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account
of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed
truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and
safe.”—Bruno's Catholic Belief, p. 45.
[148]
How contrary this all is to the clear teachings of
Jesus. In Mark 7:6-9 it is recorded that He said:
“Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as
it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far
from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the
tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like
things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of
God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
It is this leaving of the written and inspired Word of
God to follow the conflicting, confusing traditions of the ancients, that has
repeatedly led the church into error and apostasy. If tradition is as good as
the Bible, if the hearsay of what has been taught in past ages must be
accepted, then there is no fixed standard of truth. The teachings of one church
are as reliable as any other. But think of the confusion to which this leads
us! Surely, it is worse than the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel.
A thousand voices from as many religions and sects shout in our ears,
“This is the way. The fathers believed thus and so.” And yet no two
of them agree!
It may be truly said that the Bible and tradition are
like two rivers, as stated above by Dr. Bruno, but while the Bible is the pure
word of God, tradition is foul with error and sophistry. The Bible flows forth
from the very throne of God, and its sparkling waters, which are clear as
crystal, come down to us as the water of life. Those who drink deeply of it
shall never thirst again. But the river of tradition has become polluted with
the errors and commandments of men; its waters have been contaminated through
the work of God's great archenemy in his
[149]
effort to deceive and destroy the faith of God's children.
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Scripture text above quoted, declares the
commandment of God supreme above all human tradition. God's will, expressed in
the Decalogue, cannot be set aside by any man-made ordinance.
Now it is, of course, known by everybody that Catholics
all observe Sunday, the first day of the week, instead of Saturday, the seventh
day, but their reason for doing this is clearly stated in their official
catechisms. They do not claim to have Scriptural authority for this practice,
but, on the contrary, they frankly and clearly say that there is no such
authority, and that in this matter they are following tradition only.
Note carefully the following quotations bearing directly
upon this point, from one of their recognized works:
“Question.—When Protestants do profane
work on Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture
as their only rule of faith,—do they find this permission clearly laid
down in the Sacred Volume?
“Answer.—On the contrary, they have
only the authority of tradition for this practice. In profaning Saturday, they
violate one of God's commandments, which He has never clearly
abrogated,—‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.’
“Ques.—Is the observance of Sunday, as
the day of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scripture?
“Ans.—It certainly is not; and yet all
Protestants consider the observance of this particular day as essentially
necessary to salvation. To say we observe the Sunday, because Christ rose from
the dead on that day is to say we act without warrant of Scripture; and we
might as well say that we should rest on Thursday because Christ ascended to
heaven
[150]
on that day, and rested in reality from the work of
redemption.”—Rev. Stephen Keenan, Doctrinal Catechism, p.
352.
“Ques.—What do you conclude from all
this?
“Ans.—That Protestants have no
Scripture for the measure of their day of rest; that they abolish the
observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture; that they substitute
Sunday in its place without Scriptural authority; consequently, that for all
this, they have only traditional authority…. Hence we must conclude, that
the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly, does not contain all
necessary truths, and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of
faith.”—Ibid., pp. 354, 355.
So there we have it. That clearly states the Catholic
position. Tradition is safer than the Bible. And it was on this platform that
Mr. Canright took his stand in trying to prove Sunday sacredness. He found it
only in tradition. And every individual must take his choice. Either his faith
must be planted on the solid rock of Scriptural truth, the word that liveth and
abideth forever, or on the quagmire of tradition. In the one are found the Ten
Commandments, the Sabbath, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to enable us
to keep them. In the other are apostasy, uncertainty, and shipwreck of faith.
“Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” “Howbeit in vain do
they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying
aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” Mark 7:7,
8.
We present herewith a reprint of a tract published in
1885 by D. M. Canright in which he argues convincingly for the keeping of the
seventh day as the Bible Sabbath.
[151]
“Why keep the Sabbath day? What is the object of
the Sabbath? Who made it? When was it made, and for whom? Which day is the true
Sabbath? Many keep the first day of the week, or Sunday. What Bible authority
have they for this? Some keep the seventh day, or Saturday. What Scripture have
they for that? Here are the facts about both days, as plainly stated in the
Word of God:
“1. After working the first six days of the week in
creating this earth, the great God rested on the seventh day. Genesis
2:1-3.
“2. This stamped that day as God's rest day, or
Sabbath day, as Sabbath day means rest day. To illustrate: When a person is
born on a certain day, that day thus becomes his birthday. So when God
rested upon the seventh day, that day became His rest, or Sabbath day.
“3. Therefore the seventh day must always be God's
Sabbath day. Can you change your birthday from the day on which you were born,
to one on which you were not born? No. Neither can you change God's rest day to
a day on which He did not rest. Hence the seventh day is still God's Sabbath
day.
“4. The Creator blessed the seventh day. Genesis
2:3.
“5. He sanctified the seventh day. Exodus
20:11.
“6. He made it the Sabbath day in the garden of
Eden. Genesis 2:1-3.
“7. It was made before the fall; hence it is not a
type; for types were not introduced till after the fall.
“8. Jesus says it was made for man (Mark
2:27); that is, for the race, as the word man is here unlimited; hence, for the
Gentile as well as for the Jews.
“9. It is a memorial of creation. Exodus 20:11;
31:17. Every time we rest upon the seventh day, as God did at creation, we
commemorate that grand event.
“10. It was given to Adam, the head of the human
race. Mark 2:27; Genesis 2:1-3.
[152]
“11. Hence through him, as our representative, to
all nations. Acts 17:26.
“12. It is not a Jewish institution; for it was
made 2,300 years before ever there was a Jew.
“13. The Bible never calls it the Jewish Sabbath;
but always, ‘the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.’ Men should be cautious
how they stigmatize God's holy rest day.
“14. Evident reference is made to the Sabbath all
through the patriarchal age. Genesis 2:1-3; 8:10, 12; 29:27, 28, etc.
“15. It was a part of God's law before Sinai.
Exodus 16:4, 27-29.
“16. Then God placed it in the heart of His moral
law. Exodus 20:1-17. Why did He place it there if it was not like the other
nine precepts, which all admit to be immutable?
“17. The seventh-day Sabbath was commanded by the
voice of the living God. Deuteronomy 4:12, 13.
“18. Then He wrote the commandment with His own
finger. Exodus 31:18.
“19. He engraved it in the enduring stone,
indicating its imperishable nature. Deuteronomy 5:22.
“20. It was sacredly preserved in the ark in the
holy of holies. Deuteronomy 10:1-5.
“21. God forbade work upon the Sabbath, even in the
most hurrying times. Exodus 34:21.
“22. God destroyed the Israelites in the wilderness
because they profaned the Sabbath. Ezekiel 20:12, 13.
“23. It is the sign of the true God, by which we
are to know Him from false gods. Ezekiel 20:20.
“24. God promised that Jerusalem should stand
forever if the Jews would keep the Sabbath. Jeremiah 17:24, 25.
“25. He sent them into Babylonish captivity for
breaking it. Nehemiah 13:18.
“26. He destroyed Jerusalem for its violation.
Jeremiah 17:27.
“27. God has pronounced a special blessing on all
the Gentiles who will keep it. Isaiah 56:6, 7.
“28. This is in the prophecy which refers wholly to
the Christian dispensation. See Isaiah 56.
[153]
“29. God has promised to bless any man who will
keep the Sabbath. Isaiah 56:2.
“30. The Lord requires us to call it
‘honorable.’ Isaiah 58:13. Beware, ye who take delight in
calling it the ‘old Jewish Sabbath,’ ‘a yoke of bondage,’
etc.
“31. After the holy Sabbath has been trodden down
‘many generations,’ it is to be restored in the last days. Isaiah
58:12, 13.
“32. All the holy prophets kept the seventh
day.
“33. When the Son of God came, He kept the seventh
day all His life. Luke 4:16; John 15:10. Thus He followed His Father's example
at creation. Shall we not be safe in following the example of both the Father
and the Son?
“34. The seventh day is the Lord's day. See
Revelation 1:10; Mark 2:28; Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 20:10.
“35. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28);
that is, to love and protect it, as the husband is the lord of the wife, to
love and cherish her. 1 Peter 3:6.
“36. He vindicated the Sabbath as a merciful
institution designed for man's good. Mark 2:23-28.
“37. Instead of abolishing the Sabbath, He
carefully taught how it should be observed. Matthew 12:1-13.
“38. He taught His disciples that they should do
nothing upon the Sabbath day but what was ‘lawful.’ Matthew
12:12.
“39. He instructed His apostles that the Sabbath
should be prayerfully regarded 40 years after His resurrection. Matthew
24:20.
“40. The pious women who had been with Jesus
carefully kept the seventh day after His death. Luke 23:56.
“41. Thirty years after Christ's resurrection, the
Holy Spirit expressly calls it ‘the Sabbath day.’ Acts
13:14.
“42. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, called it
‘the Sabbath day’ in A. D. 45. Acts 13:27. Did not Paul know? Or
shall we believe modern teachers, who affirm that it ceased to be the Sabbath
at the resurrection of Christ?
“43. Luke, the inspired Christian historian,
writing as late as A. D. 62, calls it ‘the Sabbath day.’ Acts
13:44.
[154]
“44. The Gentile converts called it the Sabbath.
Acts 13:42.
“45. In the great Christian council, A. D. 52, in
the presence of the apostles and thousands of disciples, James calls it the
“Sabbath day.” Acts 15:21.
“46. It was customary to hold prayer meetings upon
that day. Acts 16:13.
“47. Paul read the Scriptures in public meetings on
that day. Acts 17:2, 3.
“48. It was his custom to preach upon that day.
Acts 17:2.
“49. The book of Acts alone gives a record of his
holding eighty-four meetings upon that day. See Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2;
18:4, 11.
“50. There was never any dispute between the
Christians and the Jews about the Sabbath day. This is proof that the
Christians still observed the same day that the Jews did.
“51. In all their accusations against Paul, they
never charged him with disregarding the Sabbath day. Why did they not, if he
did not keep it?
“52. But Paul himself expressly declared that he
had kept the law. ‘Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against
the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.’
Acts 25:8. How could this be true if he had not kept the Sabbath?
“53. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament
59 times, and always with respect, bearing the same title it had in the Old
Testament, ‘the Sabbath day.’
“54. Not a word is said anywhere in the New
Testament about the Sabbath's being abolished, done way, changed, or anything
of the kind.
“55. God has never given permission to any man to
work upon it. Reader, by what authority do you use the seventh day for common
labor?
“56. No Christian of the New Testament, either
before or after the resurrection ever did ordinary work upon the seventh day.
Find one case of that kind, and we will yield the question. Why should modern
Christians do differently from Bible Christians?
[155]
“57. There is no record that God has ever removed
His blessing or sanctification from the seventh day.
“58. As the Sabbath was kept in Eden before the
fall, so it will be observed eternally in the new earth after the restitution.
Isaiah 66:22, 23.
“59. The seventh-day Sabbath was an important part
of the law of God, as it came from His own mouth, and was written by His own
finger upon stone at Sinai. See Exodus 20. When Jesus began His work, He
expressly declared that He had not come to destroy the law. “Think not
that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.” Matthew 5:17.
“60. Jesus severely condemned the Pharisees as
hypocrites for pretending to love God, while at the same time they made void
one of the Ten Commandments by their tradition. The keeping of Sunday is only a
tradition of men.
“We have now presented 60 plain Bible facts
concerning the seventh day. What will you do with them?
“1. The very first thing recorded in the Bible is
work done on Sunday, the first day of the week. Genesis 1:1-5. This was done by
the Creator Himself. If God made the earth on Sunday, can it be wicked for us
to work on Sunday?
“2. God commands men to work upon the first day of
the week. Exodus 20:8-11. Is it wrong to obey God?
“3. None of the patriarchs ever kept it.
“4. None of the holy prophets ever kept it.
“5. By the express command of God, His holy people
used the first day of the week as a common working day for 4,000 years, at
least.
“6. God Himself calls it a ‘working’ day.
Ezekiel 46:1.
“7. God did not rest upon it.
“8. He never blessed it.
“9. Christ did not rest upon it.
“10. Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3), and worked
at His trade until He was 30 years old. He kept the Sabbath and
[156]
worked six days in the week, as all admit. Hence He did many
a hard day's work on Sunday.
“11. The apostles worked upon it during the same
time.
“12. The apostles never rested upon it.
“13. Christ never blessed it.
“14. It has never been blessed by any divine
authority.
“15. It has never been sanctified.
“16. No law was ever given to enforce the keeping
of it, hence it is no transgression to work upon it. ‘For where no law is,
there is no transgression.’ Romans 4:15; (1 John 3:4.)
“17. The New Testament nowhere forbids work to be
done on it.
“18. No penalty is provided for its violation.
“19. No blessing is promised for its
observance.
“20. No regulation is given as to how it ought to
be observed. Would this be so if the Lord wished us to keep it?
“21. It is never called the Christian Sabbath.
“22. It is never called the Sabbath day at all.
“23. It is never called the Lord's day.
“24. It is never called even a rest day.
“25. No sacred title whatever is applied to it.
Then why should we call it holy?
“26. It is simply called the ‘first day of the
week.’
“27. Jesus never mentioned it in any way, never
took its name upon His lips, so far as the record shows.
“28. The word Sunday never occurs in the Bible at
all.
“29. Neither God, Christ, nor inspired men, ever
said one word in favor of Sunday as a holy day.
“30. The first day of the week is mentioned only
eight times in all the New Testament. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1;
John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2.
“31. Six of these texts refer to the same first day
of the week.
“32. Paul directed the saints to look over their
secular affairs on that day. 1 Corinthians 16:2.
“33. In all the New Testament we have a record of
only one religious meeting held upon that day, and even this was a night
meeting. Acts 20:5-12.
[157]
“34. There is not an intimation that they ever held
a meeting upon it before or after that.
“35. It was not their custom to meet on that
day.
“36. There was no requirement to break bread on
that day.
“37. We have an account of only one instance in
which it was done. Acts 20:7.
“38. That was done in the night—after
midnight. Verses 7-11. Jesus celebrated it on Thursday evening (Luke 22), and
the disciples sometimes did it every day. Acts 2:42-46.
“39. The Bible nowhere says that the first day of
the week commemorates the resurrection of Christ. This is a tradition of men,
which makes void the law of God. Matthew 15:1-9. Baptism commemorates the
burial and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:3-5.
“40. Finally, the New Testament is totally silent
with regard to any change of the Sabbath day or any sacredness for the first
day.
“Here are 100 plain Bible facts upon this question,
showing conclusively that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord in both
the Old and New Testament.”