Adventists are continually crying, “Sunday is the pope’s day.” They tell the people that it was the pope who started the observance of the first day of the week; that the Sabbath was observed by all Christians until the pope’s time; and that it was he who changed the keeping of days from the seventh to the first. Almost all Sabbatarians are ignorantly led into this belief, and they are constantly heard to affirm that those who observe the Lord’s Day are keeping the pope’s day—“a heathen day, the venerable day of the sun,” etc. Such talk betrays great ignorance to the enlightened and informed. We have but to attend to the evidences in the case to prove that this is all assumption. The united testimony of the early Christian church, centuries before there was a pope elected, proves that the first day of the week was regularly observed as a memorial and sacred day. I do not quote those early church writers to prove a doctrine (I go to the Bible for that); but I simply quote them to prove a historical fact; namely, that the early Christians did keep Sunday as a sacred day.
A. D. 30—THE RESURRECTION DAY
“And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed” (Luke 24:33, 34). This was the first day of the week, the day on which Christ arose (see John 20:19). “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (Luke 24:36).
ONE WEEK LATER, OR THE NEXT SUNDAY
“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” (John 20:26).
PENTECOST—ACTS 2
The feast of Pentecost was on the “morrow after the seventh sabbath” (Lev. 23:15, 16). That would be the first day of the week. “And when the Day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place” (Acts 2:1). “The number of names together were about an hundred and twenty” (Acts 1:15).
A. D. 59—ACTS 20:6, 7
“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.”
1 COR. 16:1, 2
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 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.”
A. D. 96—REV. 1:10
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.”
A. D. 107—PLINY’S LETTER
Pliny wrote to Trajan concerning the Christians: “They were wont to meet together, on a stated day before it was light, and sang among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as God.”—Home’s Introduction (vol. 1, chap. 3, sec. 2, p. 84). Early in the morning the Christians assemblèd—“before it was light.” These meetings were on a “certain stated day.” On what day were the early morning meetings held? Eusebius the historian answers: “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. 125). The day on which Christ rose was the “stated day” on which the Christians met for worship. Pliny was governor of Bithynia, Asia Minor, A. D. 106-108. This was the very place where the apostles labored, and the time only eleven years after John died.
(Much of the following in this chapter is compiled from various works, principally from Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, by Canright.)
A. D. 120—BARNABAS
This epistle was highly prized in the earliest churches, and is found in the oldest manuscript of the Scriptures; namely, the Sinaitic.
Elder Andrews, a Seventh-day Adventist, admits that the Epistle of Barnabas “was in existence as early as the middle of the second century, and, like the ‘Apostolic Constitutions,’ is of value to us in that it gives some clue to the opinions which prevailed in the region where the writer lived.” —Testimony of the Fathers (p. 21).
“The epistle is believed to have been written early in the second century.”—Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
“This work is unanimously ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul, by early Christian writers.…But the great majority of critics assign it to the reign of Hadrian sometime between 119 and 126 A. D.” —Encyclopedia Brittanica.
“The epistle was probably written in Alexandria at the beginning of the second century and by a Gentile Christian.” —Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.
It “is supposed by Hefele to have been written between 107-120 A. D.” —Johnson’s New Universal Cyclopedia.
This is a summary of the best modern criticism as to the date, character, and authority of the Epistle of Barnabas. Read and reverenced in the church as early as A. D. 120, or within twenty-four years of the death of 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” (chap. 2).
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” (chap. 15). Will the Adventists say that there was a pope in A. D. 120? Hardly. Yet the Christians kept the resurrection day with joyfulness.
A. D. 125—THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES
“But every Lord’s Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving” (chap. 14). Notice how this harmonizes with Acts 20:6, 7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.”
A. D. 140—JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr wrote about forty-four years after John died. He held his “Dialog with Trypho” at Ephesus, Asia Minor, in the church where St. John lived and died.
His first defense of the Christian religion is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Verus. In the introduction to his writings in the “Ante-Nicene Library” the writer says, “The first class embraces those which are unquestionably genuine; viz., the two Apologies, and the Dialog with Trypho.”
In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, which is the first historical work written after the close of the inspired record is found a statement of the books of Justin that had come down to Eusebius’ time. Says the historian (Book 4, chap. 18), “Another work comprising a defense of our faith, which he addressed to the emperor of the same name, Antoninus Verus.” Here the genuineness of this work of Justin’s is established beyond the shadow of a doubt. “Before his conversion to God he studied in the schools of philosophy.” “The writings of Justin Martyr are among the most important that have come down to us from the second century.’ —Ante-Nicene Library.
He speaks to us from the first half of the second century. We quote from his first defense or apology, which we have seen is acknowledged by Eusebius’ Ancient History. The head of this article is—“Chapter 67. The weekly worship of the Christians. “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.
“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 Savior 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.” You perceive that Justin describes the weekly worship of the early church just as Paul directed, on Sunday, or the first day of the week, in 1 Corinthians 16.
Our next quotation is from his Dialog with Trypho. Of the genuineness of this work we have the most positive historical evidence. Eusebius, (Book 4, chap. 18), says, “He [Justin] also wrote a dialog against the Jews which he held at Ephesus with Trypho, the most distinguished among the Hebrews of the day.” In such a disputation would very naturally be brought out the very points at issue between Jews and Christians then, and between Christians and all who now occupy common ground with the Jews. In other words, if the early Christians kept the old law, or any part of it, that would be urged by them as a means of procuring respect for, and confidence in, the Christian system from Jewish quarters. On the other hand, if the primitive Christians utterly discarded the whole Sinaitic law and the seventh-day Sabbath, then we might expect Jewish prejudices arising therefrom, and the Christians put to the necessity of giving their reasons for abandoning that ancient law and Sabbath. Hence this discussion between Justin, an eminent Christian and philosopher, and Trypho, a learned Jew, is of important service to us, on all points of difference between Christians and Jews. And we shall find that it contains in abundance the very matter we have anticipated. We quote from—
“Chapter 10. Trypho blames the Christians for this alone—the nonobservance of the law.
“And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus: ‘Is there any other matter, my friend, in which we are blamed than this, that we live not after the law, and we are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe Sabbaths as ye do?’” To this Trypho replied as follows: “I am aware that your precepts in the so-called gospel are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God while you do not obey his commandments.”
Trypho had read the precepts of the gospel. He was not quite so law-blinded as modern law-teachers. He could see precepts in the gospel. He saw that Christ had given a new law, and it impressed his mind as “wonderful and great”; that is, very high and pure—”so great that I suspect no man can keep it.” He saw the truth but knew not that “grace and truth” came together. Observe, also, that Trypho viewed the law Sabbath in the light in which the Bible places it; namely, as the badge of separation from all other nations. And since the Christians rejected the Sabbath, he accused them of not being separate from other nations. He accused Justin just as the Adventists now accuse Christians: i. e., of disobeying God’s commandments.
The next reply is headed as follows:
“Chapter 11. The law abrogated; the new testament promised and given by God.
“‘There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing,’…‘but he who made and disposed all this universe.…But we do not trust through Moses, or through the law, for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now—(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one [Is not this just what the Word says—“Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all them that believe”?]; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ—has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says? “Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people; and ye kings, give ear unto me: for a law shall go forth from me, and my judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and my salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in mine arm.” And by Jeremiah concerning this same new covenant, he thus speaks: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”) If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for the light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that he is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations) are we who have been led to God through the crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.’
“Chapter 12. The Jews violate the eternal law, and interpret ill that of Moses.
“I also adduced another passage in which Isaiah exclaims: ‘Hear my words, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.…” This same law you have despised, and this holy covenant you have slighted; and now you neither receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds. ‘For your ears are closed, your eyes are blinded, and the heart is hardened,’ Jeremiah has cried; yet not even then do you listen. The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see him; to the poor the gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbath of God. If anyone has impure hands, let him wash and be pure.”
We next quote from—
“Chapter 18. Christians would observe the law, if they did not know why it was instituted.
“‘For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision and the sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined on you,—namely on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to anyone, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it Trypho, that we should not observe those rites which do not harm us,—I speak of fleshly circumcision, and sabbaths, and feasts?’
“Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God.”
“And you were commanded to keep sabbaths that you might retain the memorial of God.”
The next chapter from which we quote is headed as follows:
“Chapter 21. Sabbaths were instituted on account of the people’s sins, and not for a work of righteousness.
“‘Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers’ …‘Wherefore I gave them also statutes which were not good, and judgments whereby they shall not live.’
The next quotation is from—
“Chapter 23. The opinion of the Jews regarding the law does an injury to God.
“‘But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God had not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions: to admit which seems to be ridiculous and absurd. Therefore we must confess that he, who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men.’”
Dear reader, consider these things. The law-teachers of our day tell us that the immutability of God requires that the law given on Sinai must be the unchangeable standard of righteousness. But Justin reminds us that God counted the patriarchs righteous before the law was given on Sinai; and, therefore, if he afterward measured righteousness by the Sinaitic law, this would prove God changeable. So to make the Sinaitic code a standard of righteousness, slanders the character of God. But just as the New Testament teaches,—that righteousness is not by the law (Gal. 3:21); that Abraham, who lived before the law, is set before us as the example for our faith and righteousness; that he is indeed the father of the faithful; that all who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Rom. 4:3-22; Gal. 3:29); and that all who seek to be righteous by the law fail to attain unto righteousness (Rom. 9:31; 10:3)—we say, just as the New Testament rules out the law written on stone as a means to or standard of righteousness, so does Justin. As the apostles teach us that the law was not given for righteous men, but for the ungodly, and because of transgressions; so Justin proves the unchangeableness of God by showing that his law of righteousness was substantially the same in holy men before Moses and in the gospel dispensation since the Mosaic system has passed away, and that the law was simply a temporary code for the restraint of the wicked. Under the head, “The law was given by Moses on account of the hardness of their hearts,” Justin says, “Until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God accommodated himself to that nation”; that is, in giving them the law that he did. Thus, we see the immutability of God vindicated both by the Scriptures and by the early writers of the church of God, by leaving the law code out of the question, and basing righteousness before and after it upon the same general principles. Even though Abraham was circumcised, the apostle is very particular to inform us that his righteousness, which is the same as ours, was that ascribed to him before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:9-11).
But let us continue to hear Justin. “Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselyte, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle and keep no sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For If there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or the observance of sabbaths, or feasts and sacrifices before Moses, no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God, has been born without sin, of a virgin springing from the stock of Abraham.”
Observe that Justin always associates the Sabbath of the Jews with feasts, sacrifices, etc., the shadows or ceremonies of the law. Just so does Paul in Col. 2:14, 16, 17, where the apostle classifies it with meats and drinks, and tells us that persons converted from the Jews to Christ are as much at liberty to disregard the Sabbath of the abrogated code as its discrimination in meats. It is almost always mentioned in the Old Testament with that class of precepts, such as reverencing the sanctuary (Lev. 19:30), the celebration of national feasts, “her feast-days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts” (Hosea 2:11). In Ezek. 45:17 it is associated with “burnt offerings, and meat-offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths.”
Observe again, Justin shows that the Sabbath of the law was out of harmony with the laws of nature, hence one of the “statutes he had given them that was not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezek. 20:25). The elements keep no Sabbath. To remain inactive a whole day was contrary to nature; and yet to labor was death.
Observe, too, that Justin speaks of the sabbath of the gospel as a “sweet” and “perpetual sabbath.” By this he shows that it is not the observance of any day, but a spiritual rest of the soul. This spiritual rest he further says is the “true sabbath of God.” To this we say amen. The Lord’s Day is not a sabbath, but a memorial day. It is, by the leading of the Spirit, a day of great activity in the vineyard of the Lord.
The next chapter from Justin is—
“Chapter 24. The Christians’ circumcision far more excellent.
“‘Now, sirs,’ I said, ‘it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion.’ “
Our next quotation is from—
“Chapter 43. He concludes that the law had an end in Christ.
“‘As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s hearts, so it was necessary in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin.’
A question (chap. 47), “And Trypho again inquired, ‘But if someone, knowing that this is so, after he recognizes that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions of the law], will he be saved?’
“I said, ‘In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men…to observe the same things as himself.’
Here again we see the very sentiment of the Apostle. “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth,” etc. “He that is weak eateth herbs.” Just so, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (Rom. 14:5, 6).
How very different this sounds from the old Sabbath law! It imperatively commands abstinence from all labor on the seventh day, under penalty of death; while the apostle gives liberty to “esteem every day alike,” and allows everyone to be “fully persuaded in his own mind,” whether to regard one day more specially unto the Lord than another. Both he that does so and he that does not are recognized as pleasing the Lord and being accepted of him. Can anyone imagine that the old “ministration of death” and “yoke of bondage,” and this new-testament “law of liberty,” can both blend into one system, and be in force at the same time? The old would be a cold, grating discord in the government of this dispensation.
But let us return and read Justin’s answer to this question a little further. He says: “But if some, through weakmindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, for which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.”
Here Justin ascribes the disposition of persons to hold on to the old law and to observe the Sabbath after professing faith in Christ, to ignorance. He also teaches that “eternal and natural” law of righteousness of which the apostle speaks in Romans, originally written in man’s conscience, and perfectly covered by the law of Christ; whereas the law containing the Sabbath is no part of that natural internal law of our moral being, but a temporary restraint against sin, occasioned by hardness of heart.
Again, we observe that Justin expressed the very sentiments of the inspired Apostle when he said that such might be saved, and should be received by the church, as through ignorance, still held to the law, and kept that Sabbath, provided they also evinced the humble spirit of Christ and did not seek to propagate their notions. “If he does not strive in every way to persuade other men” under the yoke of the law. The Adventists do the very thing he says they must not do, and indeed, the very thing that brings them under the apostolic curse (Gal. 1:8, 9).
Here we leave Justin, having heard enough in his discussion with Trypho to corroborate strongly all that is said in the New Testament about the end of the old law and its Sabbath, and the fact that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day.
A. D. 170—DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF CORINTH
IN GREECE
This elder was not from Rome, but from Greece. He says, “We passed this holy Lord’s Day, in which we read your letter,” etc.—Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, (Book IV, chap. 23).
A. D. 194—CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT
“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, chap. 12).
It will be seen that these early writers all refer to the resurrection day as the Lord’s Day.
A. D. 200—TERTULLIAN OF AFRICA
“Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed…teach us that for the past time righteous men kept the Sabbath.” “God originated Adam uncircumcised and in observant of the Sabbath.”—Answer to the Jews (chap. 2). “The observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary” (chap. 4).
“We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath.”—Tertullian’s Apology (chap. 16).
At this early date Saturday was utterly disregarded, while Sunday was observed.
A. D. 225—ORIGEN
Origen’s home was in Egypt, and he traveled all over the East, and died in Tyre. Hear him: “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.”— Origen against Celsus (Book VIII, chap. 22).
A. D. 250—THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS
“And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s Day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God.” “Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection” (sec. 7, par. 59).
“On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s Day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God.” “On which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection of the Lord’s Day” (Book VII, sec. 2, par. 30).
This testimony at this early date is conclusive. It utterly refutes the Adventist absurdity that Sunday observance started with the pope.
A. D. 270—ANATOLIUS, BISHOP OF LAODICEA, ASIA
He was a Greek. Hear him: “The solemn festival of the resurrection of the Lord can be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day” (Tenth Canon).
“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” (Sixteenth Canon).
Again the resurrection day is called “the Lord’s Day.”
A. D. 300—VICTORINUS, BISHOP OF PETAU
“On the Lord’s Day we 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 Sabbath, says by his prophets that his soul hateth, which Sabbath he in his body abolished.”—Creation of the World (sec. 4).
A. D. 306—PETER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
“But the Lord’s Day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it he rose again” (Canon 15).
A. D. 324—EUSEBIUS
Eusebius bears the title of “Father of Church History.” He 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. He studied at Antioch, where Paul labored for years. He traveled to Egypt and over Asia Minor. He was one of the most noted men of his age. Adventists say that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday at the Council of Laodicea. But Eusebius, who wrote fifty years before this council was held, says, speaking of the patriarchs, “They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we…because such things as these do not belong to Christians.”—Ecclesiastical History (Book 1, chap. 4). This is decisive. A. D. 324 Christians did not keep the Sabbath.
“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.” He further says that “all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, after an interval of six days, assemble on this day.”—Sabbath Manual (pages 126, 127).
This strong array of historical evidence has been cited in order to prove beyond question that the early Christian church from the very day Christ rose from the dead assembled together and held that day as a sacred memorial day. Mark the fact that all the foregoing historical testimony was written before there was a pope in power. These witnesses were not simply from Rome, but from all parts of the world—from Africa, Asia, and Europe. Their united testimony proves beyond doubt that the early Christians in all the world did keep Sunday, the Lord’s Day, as a sacred day, and utterly disregarded the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. That Sunday observance began with the pope of Rome is a falsehood.
Following is additional testimony from high authorities.
“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.”—Historij of the Christian Church, by Dr. Schaff (vol. 1, p. 478).
“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 apostles we find the observance of the first day of the week, under the name of the Lord’s Day, established as a universal custom of the church.…It was regarded, not as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath [which was denounced together with circumcision and other Jewish and anti-Christian practices], but rather as a substitute for it, naturally its observance was based on the resurrection of Christ rather than on the creation restday. or the Sabbath of the Decalog.”—Johnson’s New Universal Cyclopedia (Art. Sabbath).
“In the second century its [Sunday] observance was universal.…The Jewish Christian ceased to observe the Sabbath after the destruction of Jerusalem.”—Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (Art. “Sunday”).
“The results of our examination of the principal writers of the two centuries after the death of 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. It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it…It was not an institution of severe Sabbatical character, but a day of joy and cheerfulness, rather encouraging than forbidding relaxation. Religiously regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the holy eucharist, for united prayer, for instruction, for almsgiving: and though being an institution under the law of liberty, work does not appear to have been formally interdicted, or rest formally enjoined. Tertullian seems to indicate that the character of the day was opposed to worldly business. Finally, whatever analogy may be supposed to exist between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath, in no passage that has come down to us is the fourth commandment appealed to as the ground of the obligation to observe the Lord’s Day.”—Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (Art. “Lord’s Day”).
These eminent authorities, who have carefully investigated this point, unite in testifying that the early Christian church universally held the resurrection day—termed the “Lord’s Day”—as a sacred day, on which they held their meetings. All this testimony proves that the Adventist talk about Sunday being the pope’s day is only a scarecrow, and is as baseless as the shadow of a dream. The testimony of history that the Christian church universally held Sunday as a sacred day before the pope’s time is so overwhelming that even Adventist writers are compelled to admit it. Hear their admissions:
Concerning the writings of Barnabas, from which I have quoted in the preceding pages, Andrews (Seventh-day Adventist) admits that it “was in existence as early as the middle of the second century, and, like the ‘Apostolic Constitutions,’ is of value to us in that it gives some clue to the opinions which prevailed in the region where the writer lived.”—Testimony of the Fathers (page 21). Of the writings of Barnabas he admits that “he presently asserts the abolition of the Sabbath of the Lord.”—Testimonies (page 22).
“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.”—History of the Sabbath, by Andrews (page 308). Andrews is acknowledged to be the ablest historian of the Seventh-day Adventists. Look at his admission: “The early Fathers” “in the first centuries” neglected “the observance of the Sabbath.” This was hundreds of years before the pope was elected.
All chapters from The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.
The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. By H. M. Riggle, 1922. Life Assurance Ministries, Inc.
- The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day - October 2, 2021
- 27. Sunday-Keeping is Not the Mark of the Beast - July 8, 2020
- 26. The Pope and the Sabbath - July 2, 2020