Most
Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship.
The Roman catholic church protests that it transferred Christian worship
from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue
that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of
Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on
the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.
A
number of years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles
discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The
articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of
the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should
observe Saturday. This is a reprint of those articles.
February
24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh day Adventists adopted certain
resolutions appealing to the government and people of the United States
from the decision of the Supreme Court declaring this to be a Christian
nation, and from the action of Congress in legislating upon the subject of
religion, and the remonstrating against the principle and all the
consequences of the same. In March, 1893, the International Religious
Liberty Association printed these resolutions in a tract entitled Appeal
and Remonstrance. On receipt of one of these, the editor of the Catholic
Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of four editorials,
which appeared in that paper September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893. The Catholic
Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and the Papacy in
the United States. These articles, therefore, although not written by the
Cardinal's own hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the
expression of the Papacy on this subject, are the open challenge of the
Papacy to Protestantism, and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants
shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of
how they keep it.
The
following matter (excepting the footnotes, the editor's note in brackets
beginning on page 25 and ending on page 27, and the two Appendixes) is a
verbatim reprint of these editorials, including the title on page 2.
Our
attention has been called to the above subject in the past week by the
receipt of a brochure of twenty-one pages published by the International
Religious Liberty Association entitled, "Appeal and
Remonstrance." embodying resolutions adopted by the General
Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists (Feb. 24, 1893). The resolutions
criticize and censure, with much acerbity, the action of the United States
Congress, and of the Supreme Court, for invading the rights of the people
by closing the World's Fair on Sunday.
The
Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their
teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of day from
the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation, "Seventh-day
Adventists". Their cardinal principle consists in setting apart
Saturday for the exclusive worship of God, in conformity with the positive
command of God Himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred books of the
Old and New Testaments, literally obeyed by the children of Israel for
thousands of years to this day and endorsed by the teaching and practice
of the Son of God whilst on earth.
Per
contra, the Protestants of the world, the Adventists excepted, with the
same Bible as their cherished and sole infallible teacher, by their
practice, since their appearance in the sixteenth century, with the time
honored practice of the Jewish people before their eyes have rejected the
day named for His worship by God and assumed in apparent contradiction of
His command, a day for His worship never once referred to for that
purpose, in the pages of that Sacred Volume.
What
Protestant pulpit does not ring almost every Sunday with loud and
impassioned invectives against Sabbath violation? Who can forget the
fanatical clamor of the Protestant ministers throughout the length and
breadth of the land against opening the gates of the World's Fair on
Sunday? The thousands of petitions, signed by millions, to save the Lord's
Day from desecration? Surely, such general and widespread excitement and
noisy remonstrance could not have existed without the strongest grounds
for such animated protests.
And
when quarters were assigned at the World's Fair to the various sects of
Protestantism for the exhibition of articles, who can forget the emphatic
expression of virtuous and conscientious indignation exhibited by our
Presbyterian brethren, as soon as they learned of the decision of the
Supreme Court not to interfere in the Sunday opening? The newspapers
informed us that they flatly refused to utilize the space accorded them,
or open their boxes, demanding the right to withdraw the articles, in
rigid adherence to their principles, and thus decline all contact with the
sacrilegious and Sabbath-breaking Exhibition.
Doubtless,
our Calvinistic brethren deserved and shared the sympathy of all the other
sects, who, however, lost the opportunity of posing as martyrs in
vindication of the Sabbath observance.
They
thus became "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men,"
although their Protestant brethren, who failed to share the monopoly, were
uncharitably and enviously disposed to attribute their steadfast adherence
to religious principle, to Pharisaical pride and dogged obstinacy.
Our
purpose in throwing off this article, is to shed such light on this all
important question (for were the Sabbath question to be removed from the
Protestant pulpit, the sects would feel lost, and the preachers be
deprived of their "Cheshire cheese".) that our readers may be
able to comprehend the question in all its bearings, and thus reach a
clear conviction.
The
Christian world is, morally speaking, united on the question and practice
of worshipping God on the first day of the week.
The
Israelites, scattered all over the earth, keep the last day of the week
sacred to the worship of the Deity. In this particular, the Seventh-day
Adventists (a sect of Christians numerically few) have also selected the
same day.
Israelites
and Adventists both appeal to the Bible for the divine command,
persistently obliging the strict observance of Saturday.
The
Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but the
Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same
ground as the Old: viz..an inspired record also. He finds that the Bible,
his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer, during His
mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday. The gospels plainly
evince to him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles,
the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, not the vestige of an act canceling the
Saturday arrangement can be found.
The
Adventists, therefore, in common with the Israelites, derive their belief
from the Old Testament, which position is confirmed by the New Testament,
endorsing fully by the life and practice of the Redeemer and His apostles
the teaching of the Sacred Word for nearly a century of the Christian era.
Numerically
considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an insignificant portion of
the Protestant population of the earth, but, as the question is not one of
numbers, but of truth, fact, and right, a strict sense of justice forbids
the condemnation of this little sect without a calm and unbiased
investigation: this is none of our funeral.
The
Protestant world has been, from its infancy, in the sixteenth century, in
thorough accord with the Catholic Church, in keeping "holy," not
Saturday, but Sunday. The discussion of the grounds that led to this
unanimity of sentiment and practice for over 300 years must help toward
placing Protestantism on a solid basis in this particular, should the
arguments in favor of its position overcome those furnished by the
Israelites and Adventists, the Bible, the sole recognized teacher of both
litigants, being the umpire and witness. If, however, on the other hand,
the latter furnish arguments, incontrovertible by the great mass of
Protestants, both classes of litigants, appealing to their common teacher,
the Bible, the great body of Protestants so far from clamoring, as they do
with vigorous pertinacity for the strict keeping of Sunday, have no other
recourse left than the admission that they have been teaching and
practicing what is Scripturally false for over three centuries, by
adopting the teaching and practice of the what they have always pretended
to believe an apostate church, contrary to every warrant and teaching of
sacred Scripture. To add to the intensity of this Scriptural and
unpardonable blunder, it involves one of the most positive and emphatic
commands of God to His servant, man: "Remember the Sabbath day, to
keep it holy."
No
Protestant living today has ever yet obeyed that command preferring to
follow the apostate church referred to than his teacher, the Bible which
from Genesis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine, should the
Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists be correct. Both sides appeal to the
Bible as their "infallible" teacher. Let the Bible decide
whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two
bodies must be wrong, and , whereas a false position on this all-important
question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God Himself, against
the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall enter on
the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both sides.
Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the capacity of
ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves
itself into a few plain questions easy of solution:
1st.
Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd.
Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original
3rd.
Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God
To
the above three questions, we pledge ourselves to furnish as many
intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold
the deformity of error.
"But
faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast To some dear falsehood, hugs it to
the last"
Conformably
to our promise in our last issue, we proceed to unmask one of the most
flagrant errors and most unpardonable inconsistencies of the Biblical rule
of faith. Lest, however, we be misunderstood, we deem it necessary to
premise that Protestantism recognizes no rule of faith, no teacher, save
the "infallible Bible." As the Catholic yields his judgment in
spiritual matters implicitly, and with unreserved confidence, to the voice
of his church, so, too, the Protestant recognizes no teacher but the
Bible. All his spirituality is derived from its teachings. It is to him
the voice of God addressing him through his sole inspired teacher. It
embodies his religion, his faith, and his practice. The language of
Chillingworth, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the
Bible, is the religion of Protestants," is only one form of the same
idea multifariously convertible into other forms, such as "the book
of God," "the Charter of Our Salvation," "the Oracle
of Our Christian Faith," "God's Text-Book to the race of
Mankind," etc.,etc. It is, then, an incontrovertible fact that the
Bible alone is the teacher of Protestant Christianity Assuming this fact,
we will now proceed to discuss the merits of the question involved in our
last issue.
Recognizing
what is undeniable, the fact of a direct contradiction between the
teaching and practice of Protestant Christianity --the Seventh-day
Adventists excepted--on the one hand, and that of the Jewish people on the
other, both observing different days of the week for the worship of God,
we will proceed to take the testimony of the only available witness in the
premises: viz., the testimony of the teacher common to both claimants, the
Bible. The first expression with which we come in contact in the Sacred
Word, is found in Genesis 2:2: "And on the seventh day He [God]
rested from all His work which He had made." The next reference to
this matter is to be found in Exodus 20, where God commanded the seventh
day to be kept, because He had Himself rested from the work of creation on
that day: and the sacred text informs us that for that reason He desired
it kept, in the following words: "Wherefore, the Lord blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it." Again, we read in chapter 31, verse
15: "Six days you shall do work: in the seventh day is the Sabbath,
the rest holy to the Lord:" sixteenth verse: "It is an
everlasting covenant," "and a perpetual sign," "for in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh He ceased from
work."
In
the Old Testament, reference is made on hundred and twenty-six times to
the Sabbath, and all these texts conspire harmoniously in voicing the will
of God commanding the seventh day to be kept, because God Himself first
kept it, making it obligatory on all as "a perpetual covenant."
Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of
Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel
have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the law, A.M. 2514 to AD
1893, a period of 3383 years. with the example of the Israelites before
our eyes today, there is no historical fact better established than that
referred to: viz., that the chosen people of God, the guardians of the Old
Testament, the living representatives of the only divine religion
hitherto, had for a period of 1490 years anterior to Christianity,
preserved by weekly practice the living tradition of the correct
interpretation of the special day of the week, Saturday, to be kept
"holy to the Lord," which tradition they have extended by their
practice to an additional period of 1893 years more, thus covering the
full extent of the Christian dispensation. We deem it necessary to be
perfectly clear on this point, for reasons that will appear more fully
hereafter. The Bible--Old Testament--confirmed by the living tradition of
a weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of God, teaches
then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself, named the day to be
"kept holy to Him,"--that the day was Saturday, and that any
violation of that command was punishable with death. "Keep you My
Sabbath, for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it shall be put to
death: he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish in the midst
of his people." Ex.31:14.
It
is impossible to realize a more severe penalty than that so solemnly
uttered by God Himself in the above text, on all who violate a command
referred to no less than one hundred and twenty-six times in the old law.
The ten commandments of the Old Testament are formally impressed on the
memory of the child of the Biblical Christian as soon as possible, but
there is not one of the ten made more emphatically familiar, both in
Sunday school and pulpit, than that of keeping "holy" the
Sabbath day.
Having
secured with absolute certainty the will of God as regards the day to be
kept holy, from His Sacred word, because he rested on that day, which day
is confirmed to us by the practice of His chosen people for thousands of
years, we are naturally induced to inquire when and where God changed the
day for His worship; for it is patent to the world that a change of day
has taken place, and inasmuch as no indication of such change can be found
within the pages of the Old Testament, nor in the practice of the Jewish
people who continue for nearly nineteen centuries of Christianity obeying
the written command, we must look to the exponent of the Christian
dispensation: viz., the New Testament, for the command of God canceling
the old Sabbath, Saturday.
We
now approach a period covering little short of nineteen centuries, and
proceed to investigate whether the supplemental divine teacher--the New
Testament--contains a decree canceling the mandate of the old law, and, at
the same time, substituting a day for the divinely instituted Sabbath of
the old law. Viz. Saturday; for, inasmuch as Saturday was the day kept and
ordered to be kept by God. Divine authority alone, under the form of a
canceling decree, could abolish the Saturday covenant, and another divine
mandate, appointing by name another day to be kept "holy," other
than Saturday, is equally necessary to satisfy the conscience of the
Christian believer. The Bible being the only teacher recognized by the
Biblical Christian, the Old Testament failing to point out a change of day
and yet another day than Saturday being kept "holy" by the
Biblical world, it is surely incumbent on the reformed Christian to point
out in the pages of the New Testament, the new divine decree repealing
that of Saturday and substituting that of Sunday, kept by Biblicals since
the dawn of the Reformation.
Examining
the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath
referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably
selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work
miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one
times.
In
one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the
Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, but during the whole
record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day
(Saturday). He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles
and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous
observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in the
tomb, Luke (23:56) informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices
and ointments and rested on the Sabbath day according to the
commandment." "But on the first day of the week, very early in
the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared Good Friday
evening, because the Sabbath drew near." Verse 54. This action on the
part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction
that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday and regarded
the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more
conclusive than that the apostles and the holy women never knew any
Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?
We
now approach the investigation of this interesting question for the next
thirty years, as narrated by the evangelist, St. Luke, in his Acts of the
Apostles. Surely some vestige of the canceling act can be discovered in
the practice of the apostles during that protracted period.
But
alas! We are once more doomed to disappointment. Nine times do we find the
Sabbath referred to in the Acts, but it is the Saturday (the Old Sabbath).
Should our readers desire the proof, we refer them to chapter and verse in
each instance. Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44. Once more, Acts 15: 21; again, Acts
16: 13; 17:2; 18:4. "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every
Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Thus the Sabbath
(Saturday) from Genesis to Revelation!!! Thus, it is impossible to find in
the New Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour or His
apostles with the original Sabbath, but on the contrary, an entire
acquiescence in the original arrangement; nay, a plenary endorsement by
Him, whilst living: and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping
of that day and no other by the apostles for thirty years after His death,
as the Acts of the Apostles has abundantly testified to us.
Hence
the conclusion is inevitable: viz,. that of those who follow the Bible as
their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive
weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a
word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday. More
anon.
[From
the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 16, 1893.]
When
his satanic majesty, who was "a murderer from the beginning."
"and the father of lies," undertook to open the eyes of our
first mother, Eve, by stimulating her ambition, "You shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil" his action was but the first of many
plausible and successful efforts employed later, in the seduction of
millions of her children. Like Eve, they learn too late. Alas! the value
of the inducements held out to allure her weak children from allegiance to
God. Nor does the subject matter of this discussion form an exception to
the usual tactics of his sable majesty.
Over
three centuries since, he plausibly represented to a large number of
discontented and ambitious Christians the bright prospect of the
successful inauguration of a "new departure," by the abandonment
of the Church instituted by the Son of God, as their teacher, and the
assumption of a new teacher--the Bible alone--as their newly fledged
oracle.
The
sagacity of the evil one foresaw but the brilliant success of this
maneuver. Nor did the result fall short of his most sanguine expectations.
A
bold and adventurous spirit was alone needed to head the expedition. Him
his satanic majesty soon found in the apostate monk, Luther, who himself
repeatedly testifies to the close familiarity that existed between his
master and himself, in his "Table Talk," and other works
published in 1558, at Wittenberg, under the inspection of Melancthon. His
colloquies with Satan on various occasions, are testified to by Luther
himself--a witness worthy of all credibility. What the agency of the
serpent tended so effectually to achieve in the garden, the agency of
Luther achieved in the Christian world.
As
the end proposed to himself by the evil one in his raid on the church of
Christ was the destruction of Christianity, we are now engaged in sifting
the means adopted by him to insure his success therein. So far, they have
been found to be misleading, self-contradictory, and fallacious. We will
now proceed with the further investigation of this imposture.
Having
proved to a demonstration that the Redeemer, in no instance, had, during
the period of His life, deviated from the faithful observance of the
Sabbath (Saturday), referred to by the four evangelists fifty-one times,
although He had designated Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," He
never having once, by command or practice hinted at a desire on His part
to change the day by the substitution of another and having called special
attention to the conduct of the apostles and the holy women, the very
evening of His death, securing beforehand spices and ointments to e used
in embalming His body the morning after the Sabbath (Saturday) as St. Luke
so clearly informs us (Luke 24:1), thereby placing beyond peradventure,
the divine action and will of the son of God during life by keeping the
Sabbath steadfastly; and having called attention to the action of His
living representatives after His death, as proved by St. Luke, having also
placed before our readers the indisputable fact that the apostles for the
following thirty years (Acts) never deviated from the practice of their
divine Master in this particular, as St. Luke , Acts 18:1) assures us:
"And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath (Saturday,
and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." The Gentile converts were, as
we see from the text, equally instructed with the Jews, to keep the
Saturday, having been converted to Christianity on that day, "the
Jews and the Greeks" collectively.
Having
also called attention to the texts of the Acts bearing on the exclusive
use of the Sabbath by the Jews and Christians for thirty years after the
death of the Saviour as the only day of the week observed by Christ and
His apostles, which period exhausts the inspired record, we now proceed to
supplement our proofs that the Sabbath (Saturday) enjoyed this exclusive
privilege, by calling attention to every instance wherein the sacred
record refers to the first day of the week.
The
first reference to Sunday after the resurrection of Christ is to be found
in St. Luke's gospel, chapter 24, verses 33-40, and St. John 20:19.
The
above texts themselves refer to the sole motive of this gathering on the
part of the apostles. It took place on the day of the resurrection (Easter
Sunday), not for the purpose of inaugurating "the new departure"
from the old Sabbath (Saturday) by keeping "holy" the new day,
for there is not a hint given of prayer, exhortation, or the reading of
the Scriptures, but it indicates the utter demoralization of the apostles
by informing mankind that they were huddled together in that room in
Jerusalem "for fear of the Jews", as St. John, quoted above,
plainly informs us.
The
second reference to Sunday is to be found in St. John's Gospel, 20th
chapter, 26th to 29th verses: "And after eight days, the disciples
were again within, and Thomas with them." The resurrected Redeemer
availed Himself of this meeting of all the apostles to confound the
incredulity of Thomas, who had been absent from the gathering on Easter
Sunday evening. This would have furnished a golden opportunity to the
Redeemer to change the day in the presence of all His apostles, but we
state the simple fact that, on this occasion, as on Easter day, not q word
is said of prayer, praise, or reading of the Scriptures.
The
third instance on record, wherein the apostles were assembled on Sunday,
is to be found in Acts 2:1; "The apostles were all of one accord in
one place." (Feast of Pentecost--Sunday) Now, will this text afford
to our Biblical Christian brethren a vestige of hope that Sunday
substitutes, at length, Saturday? For when we inform them that the Jews
had been keeping this Sunday for 1500 years and have been keeping it for
eighteen centuries after the establishment of Christianity, at the same
time keeping the weekly Sabbath, there is not to be found either
consolation or comfort in this text. Pentecost is the fiftieth day after
the Passover, which was called the Sabbath of weeks consisting of seven
times seven days and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly
Sabbath day, was the chief day of the entire festival, necessarily Sunday.
What Israelite would not pity the cause that would seek to discover the
origin of the keeping of the first day of the week in his festival of
Pentecost, that has been kept by him yearly for over 3,000 years? Who but
the Biblical Christians, driven to the wall for a pretext to excuse his
sacrilegious desecration of the Sabbath, always kept by Christ and His
apostles would have resorted to the Jewish festival of Pentecost for his
act of rebellion against his God and his teacher, the Bible.
Once
more, the Biblical apologists for the change of day call our attention to
the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7; "And upon the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread." etc. To all
appearances the above text should furnish some consolation to our
disgruntled Biblical friends, but being a Marplot, we cannot allow them
even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat nimis,
probat nihil"--"What proves too much, proves nothing." Let
us call attention to the same, Acts 2:46; "And they, continuing daily
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does
not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive
prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air--an ignis fatuus--when
placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What the
Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same
authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week;
"and they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from
house to house."
One
text more presents itself, apparently leaning toward a substitution of
Sunday for Saturday. It is taken from St. Paul, I Cor. 16:1,2; "Now
concerning the collection for the saints." "On the first day of
the week, let every one of you lay by him in store," etc. Presuming
that the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call
attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour's life
and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us.
The
followers of the Master met "every Sabbath" to hear the word of
God; the scriptures were read "every Sabbath day." "And
Paul, as his manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath,
interposing the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. Acts 18:4. What more
absurd conclusion than to infer that reading of the Scriptures, prayer,
exhortation and preaching, which formed the routine duties of every
Saturday, as has been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a request to
take up a collection on another day of the week?
In
order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under consideration,
it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles and holy women on
Good Friday before sundown. They bought the spices and ointments after He
was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath
"holy to the Lord" had pass, and then took steps on Sunday
morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred body of Jesus.
Why,
may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the work of embalming on
Saturday?--Because they knew well that the embalming of the sacred body of
their Master would interfere with the strict observance of the Sabbath,
the keeping of which was paramount; and until it can be shown that the
Sabbath day immediately preceding the Sunday of our text had not been kept
(which would be false, inasmuch as every Sabbath had been kept), the
request of St. Paul to make the collection on Sunday remains to be
classified with the work of the embalming of Christ's body, which could
not be effected on the Sabbath, and was consequently deferred to the next
convenient day: viz. Sunday, or the first day of the week.
Having
disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament referring to the
Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week (Sunday); and having
shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far, not a shadow of pretext
can be found in the Sacred Volume for the Biblical substitution of Sunday
for Saturday; it only remains for us to investigate the meaning of the
expressions "Lord's Day," and "day of the Lord," to be
found in the New Testament, which we propose to do in our next article,
and conclude with apposite remarks on the incongruities of a system of
religion which we shall have proved to be indefensible,
self-contradictory, and suicidal.
*******************
[From
the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 23, 1893.]
In
the present article we propose to investigate carefully a new (and the
last) class of proof assumed to convince the biblical Christian that God
had substituted Sunday for Saturday for His worship in the new law, and
that the divine will is to be found recorded by the Holy Ghost in
apostolic writings.
We
are informed that this radical change has found expression, over and over
again, in a series of texts in which the expression, "the day of the
Lord," or "the Lord's day," is to be found.
The
class of texts in the New Testament, under the title "Sabbath,"
numbering sixty-one in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; and the second
class, in which "the first day of the week," or Sunday, having
been critically examined (the latter class numbering nine [eight]); and
having been found not to afford the slightest clue to a change of will on
the part of God as to His day of worship by man, we now proceed to examine
the third and last class of texts relied on to save the Biblical system
from the arraignment of seeking to palm off on the world, in the name of
God a decree for which there is not the slightest warrant or authority
from their teacher, the Bible.
The
first text of this class is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles 2:20:
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before that great and notable day of the Lord shall come." How many
Sundays have rolled by since that prophecy was spoken? So much for that
effort to pervert the meaning of the sacred text from the judgment day to
Sunday!
The
second text of this class is to be found in I Cor. 1:8; "Who shall
also confirm you unto the end. That you may be blameless in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ." What simpleton does not see that the apostle here
plainly indicates the day of judgment? The next text of this class that
presents itself is to be found in the same Epistle, chapter 5:5; "To
deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The incestuous
Corinthian was, of course, saved on the Sunday next following!! How
pitiable such a makeshift as this! The fourth text, 2 Cor. 1:13,14;
"And I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end, even as ye also
are ours in the day of our Lord Jesus."
Sunday,
or the day of judgment, which? The fifth text is from St. Paul to the
Philippians, chapter 1, verse 6: "Being confident of this very thing,
that He who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it until the day
of Jesus Christ." The good people of Philippi, in attaining
perfection on the following Sunday, could afford to laugh at our modern
rapid transit!
We
beg leave to submit our sixth of the class; viz. Philippians, first
chapter, tenth verse: "That he may be sincere without offense unto
the day of Christ." That day was next Sunday, forsooth! not so long
to wait after all. The seventh text, 2 Peter 3:10; "But the day of
the Lord will come as a thief in the night." The application of this
text to Sunday passes the bounds of absurdity.
The
eighth text, 2 Peter 3:12; "Waiting for and hastening unto the coming
of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be
dissolved." etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the
previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next would have
left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night.
We
have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to bolster
up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the
"Lord's day" for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes
prima facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly,
absolutely, and unequivocally.
The
ninth text wherein we meet the expression "the Lord's day," is
the last to be found in the apostolic writings. The Apocalypse, or
Revelation, chapter 1:10, furnishes it in the following words of St. John:
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but it will afford no
more comfort to our Biblical friends than its predecessors of the same
series. Has St. John used the expression previously in his Gospel or
Epistles?--Emphatically, No. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday
hitherto?--Yes, twice. How did he designate Sunday on these occasions?
Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1) "The first day of the
week."
Again,
chapter twenty, nineteenth verse: "Now when it was late that same
day, being the first day of the week." Evidently, although inspired,
both in his gospel and Epistles, he called Sunday "the first day of
the week." On what grounds then, can it be assumed that he dropped
that designation? Was he more inspired when he wrote the apocalypse, or
did he adopt a new title for Sunday because it was now in vogue?
A
reply to these questions would be supererogatory especially to the latter,
seeing that the same expression had been used eight times already by St.
Luke, St. Paul, and St. Peter, all under divine inspiration and surely the
Holy spirit would not inspire St. John to call Sunday the Lord's day
whilst He inspired St. Luke, Paul, and Peter, collectively, to entitle the
day of judgment "the Lord's day." Dialecticians reckon amongst
the infallible motives of certitude, the moral motive of analogy or
induction, by which we are enabled to conclude with certainty from the
known to the unknown being absolutely certain of the meaning of an
expression uttered eight times, we conclude that the same expression can
have only the same meaning when uttered the ninth time, especially when we
know that on the nine occasions the expressions were inspired by the Holy
Spirit.
Nor
are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that this like its
sister texts, contains the same meaning, St. John (Rev. 1:10) says:
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but he furnishes us the
key to this expression, chapter four, first and second verses; "After
this I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven." A voice said
to him; "Come up hither, and I will show you the things which must be
hereafter," Let us ascend in spirit with John. Whither?--through that
"door in heaven," to heaven. a And what shall we see?--"The
things that must be hereafter," Chapter four, first verse. He
ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his vision
of what is to take place antecedent to and concomitantly with, "the
Lord's day," or the day of judgment; the expression "Lords
day" being confined in Scripture to the day of judgment, exclusively.
We
have studiously and accurately collected from the New Testament every
available proof that could be adduced in favor of a law canceling the
Sabbath day of the old law, or one substituting another day for the
Christian dispensation. We have been careful to make the above
distinction, lest it might be advanced that the third (in the Catholic
enumeration the Sabbath commandment is the third of the commandments)
commandment was abrogated under the new law. Any such plea has been
overruled by the action of the Methodist Episcopal bishops in their
pastoral 1874, and quoted by the New Your Herald of the same date, of the
following tenor; "The Sabbath instituted in the beginning and
confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets, has never been
abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a part or tittle of its sanctity
has been taken away." The above official pronunciamento has committed
that large body of Biblical Christians to the permanence of the third
commandment under the new law.
We
again beg leave to call the special attention of our readers to the
twentieth of "the thirty-nine articles of religion" of the Book
of Common Prayer: "It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything
that is contrary to God's written word"
We
have in this series of articles, taken much pains fro the instruction of
our readers to prepare them by presenting a number of undeniable facts
found in the word of God to arrive at a conclusion absolutely
irrefragable. When the Biblical system put in an appearance in the
sixteenth century, it not only seized on the temporal possessions of the
Church, but in its vandalic crusade stripped Christianity, as far as it
could, of all the sacraments instituted by its Founder, of the holy
sacrifice, etc., etc., retaining nothing but the Bible, which its
exponents pronounced their sole teacher in Christian doctrine and morals.
Chief
amongst their articles of belief was, and is today, the permanent
necessity of keeping the Sabbath holy. In fact, it has been for the past
300 years the only article of the Christian belief in which there has been
a plenary consensus of Biblical representatives. The keeping of the
Sabbath constitutes the sum and substance of the Biblical theory. The
pulpits resound weekly with incessant tirades against the lax manner of
keeping the Sabbath in Catholic countries as contrasted with the proper,
Christian, self-satisfied mode of keeping the day in Biblical countries.
Who can ever forget the virtuous indignation manifested by the Biblical
preachers throughout the length and breadth of our country, from every
Protestant pulpit as long as the question of opening the World's Fair on
Sunday was yet undecided; and who does not know today, that one sect, to
mark its holy indignation at the decision, has never yet opened the boxes
that contained its articles at the World's Fair?
These
superlatively good and unctuous Christians, by conning over their bible
carefully, can find their counterpart in a certain class of unco-good
people in the days of the Redeemer, who haunted Him night and day,
distressed beyond measure, and scandalized beyond forbearance, because He
did not keep the Sabbath in as straight -laced manner as themselves.
They
hated Him for using common sense in reference to the day, and He found no
epithets expressive enough of His supreme contempt for their Pharisaical
pride. And it is very probable that the divine mind has not modified its
views today anent the blatant outcry of their followers and sympathizers
at the close of this nineteenth century. But when we add to all this the
fact that whilst the Pharisees of old kept the true Sabbath, our modern
Pharisees, counting on the credulity and simplicity of their dupes, have
never once in their lives kept the true Sabbath which their divine Master
kept to His dying day and which His apostles kept, after His example, for
thirty years afterward according to the Sacred Record, the most glaring
contradiction involving a deliberate sacrilegious rejection of a most
positive precept is presented to us today in the action of the Biblical
Christian world. The Bible and the Sabbath constitute the watchword of
Protestantism: but we have demonstrated that it is the Bible against their
Sabbath. We have shown that no greater contradiction ever existed than
their theory and practice. We have proved that neither their biblical
ancestors nor themselves have ever kept one Sabbath day in their lives.
The
Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly
desecration of the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst they have
ignored and condemned their teacher, the bible, they have adopted a day
kept by the Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these
articles, with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God
enjoining Saturday to be kept which command his teacher, the Bible, from
Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God?
The
history of the world cannot present a more stupid, self-stultifying
specimen of dereliction of principle than this. The teacher demands
emphatically in every page that the law of the Sabbath be observed every
week, by all recognizing it as "the only infallible teacher,"
whilst the disciples of that teacher have not once for over three hundred
years observed the divine precept! That immense concourse of Biblical
Christians, the Methodists, have declared that the Sabbath has never been
abrogated, whilst the followers of the Church of England, together with
her daughter, the Episcopal Church of the United States, are committed by
the twentieth article of religion, already quoted, to the ordinance that
the Church cannot lawfully ordain anything "contrary to God's written
word." god's written word enjoins His worship to be observed on
Saturday absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most
positive threat of death to him who disobeys. All the Biblical sects
occupy the same self-stultifying position which no explanation can modify,
much less justify.
How
truly do the words of the Holy Spirit apply to this deplorable situation!
"Iniquitas mentita est sibi"- "Iniquity hath lied to
itself." Proposing to follow the Bible only as a teacher, yet before
the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust aside, and the
teaching and practice of the Catholic Church - "the mother of
abominations," when it suits their purpose so to designate her -
adopted, despite the most terrible threats pronounced by God Himself
against those who disobey the command, "Remember to keep holy the
Sabbath."
Before
closing this series of articles, we beg to call the attention of our
readers once more to our caption, introductory of each; vis., 1. The
Christian Sabbath, the genuine offspring of the union of the Holy Spirit
with the Catholic Church His spouse. 2. The claim of Protestantism to any
part therein proved to be groundless, self-contradictory and suicidal.
The
first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one
thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her
divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue
of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the
Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "He that
heareth you, heareth me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear
her, under penalty of being placed with the "heathen and
publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She
holds her charter as the teacher from him- a charter as infallible as
perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath
too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore
placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus
implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred
years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the
acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the holy Ghost
without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world.
Let
us now, however, take a glance at our second proposition, with the Bible
alone as the teacher most emphatically forbids any change in the day for
paramount reasons. The command calls for a "perpetual covenant."
The day commanded to be kept by the teacher has never once been kept.
Thereby developing an apostasy from an assumedly fixed principle, as
self-contradictory, self-stultifying, and consequently as suicidal as it
is within the power of language to express.
Nor
are the limits of demoralization yet reached. Far from it. Their pretense
for leaving the bosom if the Catholic Church was for apostasy from the
truth as taught in the written word. They adopted the written word as
their sole teacher, which they had no sooner done than they abandoned it
promptly, as these articles have abundantly proved; and by a perversity as
willful as erroneous, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in
direct opposition to the plain, unvaried, and constant teaching of their
sole teacher in the most essential doctrine of their religion, thereby
emphasizing the situation in what may be aptly designated "a mockery,
a delusion, and a snare."
[Editor's
note--It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by
the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated
that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in
the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the
Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their
constant watchwords; and "The Scripture as in the written word the
sole standard of appeal." This was the proclaimed platform of the
Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition."
"The bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the
unanimous consent of the fathers." This was the position and claim of
the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent,
which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised
and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first
question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the
question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the
Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and
adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was
so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates
actually wrote to him that there was "as strong tendency to set aside
tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of
appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward
justifying the claim of the Protestants. By this crisis there was
developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of
convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the
only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could
be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not.
The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly
brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental
strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially
the following argument to the party who held for scripture alone:
"The
Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to
hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their
revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word
and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim, that they stand upon
the written word only is not true. Their profession of holding the
Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written
word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath.
They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold
the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh
day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject
the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have
adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only
the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of "Scripture
alone as the standard.' fails; and the doctrine of "Scripture and
tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants
themselves being judges."
There
was no getting around this, for the Protestants own statement of
faith--the Augsburg Confession 1530--had clearly admitted that "the
observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the
Church" only.
The
argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the party for
"Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once
unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an
unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic
Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546 "to the promulgation of two
decrees, the first of which enacts, under anathema, that Scripture and
tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical
{the apocryphal} books are part of the cannon of Scripture. The second
decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole authentic and standard Latin
version, and gives it such authority as to supersede the original tests;
forbids the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the sense received by
the Church, "or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers," etc.
Thus
it was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the Protestant
profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought and anxiously
desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the whole
Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion against
church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the chiefest and
culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was in the
rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined in the
Scriptures and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as enjoined by
the Catholic Church.
And
this is today the position of the respective parties to this controversy.
Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon which the
Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she condemns the
course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible,
self-contradictory, and suicidal," What will these Protestants, what
will this Protestantism, do?]
Should
any of the reverend parsons, who are habituated to howl so vociferously
over every real or assumed desecration of that pious fraud, the Bible
Sabbath, think well of entering a protest against our logical and
Scriptural dissection of their mongrel pet, we can promise them that any
reasonable attempt on their part to gather up the disjectamembra of the
hybrid, and to restore to it a galvanized existence, will be met with
genuine cordiality and respectful consideration on our part.
But
we can assure our readers that we know these reverend howlers too well to
expect a solitary bark from them in this instance. And they know us too
well to subject themselves to the mortification which a further dissection
of this antiscriptural question would necessarily entail. Their policy now
is to "lay low" and they are sure to adopt it.
***********************
These
articles are reprinted, and this leaflet is sent forth by the publishers,
because it gives from and undeniable source and in no uncertain tone, the
latest phase of the Sunday-observance controversy, which is now, and which
indeed for some time has been, not only a national question, with leading
nations, but also an international question. Not that we are glad to have
it so; we would that it were far otherwise. We would that Protestants
everywhere were so thoroughly consistent in profession and practice that
there could be no possible room for the relations between them and Rome
ever to take the shape which they have no taken.
But
the situation in this matter is now as it is herein set forth. There is no
escaping this fact. It therefore becomes the duty of the International
religious Liberty Association to make known as widely as possible the true
phase of this great question as it now stands. Not because we are pleased
to have it so, but because it is so, whatever we or anybody else would or
would not be pleased to have.
It
is true that we have been looking for years for this question to assume
precisely that attitude which it has now assumed, and which it so plainly
set forth in this leaflet. We have told the people repeatedly, and
Protestants especially, and yet more especially have we told those who
were advocating Sunday laws and the recognition and legal establishment of
Sunday by the United States, that in the course that was being pursued
they were playing directly into the hands of Rome, and that as certainly
as they succeeded, they would inevitably be called upon by Rome and Rome
in possession of power too, to render to her an account as to why Sunday
should be kept. This, we have told the people for years, would surely
come. And now that it has come, it is only our duty to make it
known as widely as it lies in our power to do.
It
may be asked, Why did not Rome come out as boldly as this before? Why did
she wait so long? It was not for her interest to do so before. When she
should move, she desired to move with power, and power as yet she did not
have. But in their strenuous efforts for the national governmental
recognition and establishment of Sunday, the Protestants of the United
States were doing more for her than she could possibly do for herself in
the way of getting governmental power in her hands. This she well knew,
and therefore only waited. And now that the Protestants, in alliance with
her, have accomplished this awful thing, she at once rises up in all her
native arrogance and old-time spirit, and calls upon the Protestants to
answer to her for their observance of Sunday. This, too, she does because
she is secure in the power which the Protestants have so blindly placed in
her hands. In other words, the power which the Protestants have thus put
into her hands she will now use to their destruction. Is any other
evidence needed to show that the Catholic Mirror (Which means the
Cardinal and the Catholic Church in America) has been waiting for this,
than that furnished on page 21 of this leaflet? Please turn pack and look
at that page and see the quotation clipped from the New York Herald in
1874, and which is now brought forth thus. Does not this show plainly that
that statement of the Methodist bishops, just such a time as this? And
more than this, the Protestants will find more such things which have been
so laid up, and which will yet be used in a way that will both surprise
and confound them.
This
at present is a controversy between the Catholic Church and Protestants.
As such only do we reproduce these editorials of the Catholic Mirror. The
points controverted are points which are claimed by Protestants as in
their favor. The argument is made by the Catholic Church; the answer
devolves upon those Protestants who observe Sunday, not upon us. We can
truly say, " This is none of our funeral."
If
they do not answer, she will make their silence their confession that is
right, and she will use that against them accordingly. If they do answer
she will use against them their own words, and as occasion may demand, the
power which they have put into her hands. So that, so far as she is
concerned, whether the Protestants answer or not, it is all the same. And
how she looks upon them, and the spirit in which she proposes to deal with
them henceforth is clearly manifested in the challenge made in the last
paragraph of the reprint articles.
There
is just one refuge left for the Protestants. That is to take their stand
squarely and fully upon "the written word only," "the Bible
and the Bible alone," and thus upon the Sabbath of the Lord. Thus
acknowledging no authority but God's, wearing no sigh but His (Eze. 20:
12, 20), obeying His command, and shielded by His power, they shall have
the victory over Rome and all her alliances, and stand upon the sea of
glass, bearing the harps of God , with which their triumph shall be
forever celebrated. (Revelation 18, and 15:2-4)
It
is not yet too late for Protestants to redeem themselves. Will they do it?
Will they stand consistently upon the Protestant profession? Or will they
still continue to occupy the "indefensible, self-contradictory, and
suicidal position of professing to be Protestants, yet standing on
Catholic ground, receiving Catholic insult, and bearing Catholic
condemnation? Will they indeed take the written word only, the Scripture
alone, as their sole authority and their sole standard? Or will they still
hold the "indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal
"doctrine and practice of following the authority of the Catholic
Church and of wearing the sign of her authority? Will they keep the
Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, according to Scripture? or will they
keep the Sunday according to the tradition of the Catholic Church?
Dear
reader, which will you do?
******************************************
Since
the first edition of this publication was printed, the following appeared
in an editorial in the Catholic Mirror in Dec. 23, 1893:
"The
avidity with which these editorials have been sought, and the appearance
of a reprint of them by the International Religious Liberty Association,
published in Chicago, entitled, 'Rome's Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep
Sunday?' and offered for sale in Chicago, New York, California, Tennessee,
London, Australia, Cape Town, Africa, and Ontario, Canada, together with
the continuous demand, have prompted the Mirror to give permanent
form to them, and thus comply with the demand.
"The
pages of this brochure unfold to the reader one of the most glaringly
conceivable contradictions existing between the practice and theory of the
Protestant world, and unsusceptible of any rational solution, the theory
claiming the Bible alone as the teacher, which unequivocally and most
positively commands Saturday to be kept 'holy,' whilst their practice
proves that they utterly ignore the unequivocal requirements of their
teacher, the Bible, and occupying Catholic ground for three centuries and
a half, by abandonment of their theory, they stand before the world today
the representatives of a system the most indefensible, self-contradictory,
and suicidal that can be imagined.
"We
felt that we cannot interest our readers more than to produce the
'Appendix' which the International Religious Liberty Association, an
ultra-Protestant organization, has added to the reprint of our articles.
The perusal of the Appendix will confirm the fact that our argument is
unanswerable, and that to retire from Catholic territory where they have
is either to retire from Catholic territory where they have been squatting
for three centuries and a half, and accepting their own teacher, the
Bible, in good faith, as so clearly suggested by the writer of the
'Appendix,' commence forthwith to keep the Saturday, the day enjoined by
the Bible from Genesis to Revelation; or, abandoning the Bible as their
sole teacher, cease to be squatters, and a living contradiction of their
own principles, and taking out letters of adoption as citizens of the
kingdom of Christ on earth - His Church - be no longer victims of
self-delusive and necessary self-contradiction.
"The
arguments contained in this pamphlet are firmly grounded on the word of
God, and having been closely studied with the Bible in hand, leave no
escape for the conscientious Protestant except the abandonment of Sunday
worship and the return to Saturday, commanded by their teacher, the Bible,
or, unwilling to abandon the tradition of the Catholic Church, which
enjoins the keeping of Sunday, and which they have accepted in direct
opposition to their teacher, the Bible, consistently accept her in all her
teachings. Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the
other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of
Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping of Sunday. Compromise is
impossible."
© website: Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved