Catholic Church Changed The Sabbath Day

Taken From FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY BY CARLYLE B. HAYNES, 1928

Substituting a Pagan Day for God’s Day

Changed The Sabbath

This substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath is not a thing which the Catholic Church either denies or attempts to conceal. On the contrary, it frankly admits it, and indeed points to it with pride as evidence of its power to change even a commandment of God.

Read these extracts from Catholic catechisms:

The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, the work of the Reverend Peter Geiermann, C.S.R., received on January 25, 1910, the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X. On this subject of the change of the Sabbath, this catechism says:

“Ques.-Which is the Sabbath day?

“Ans.-Saturday is the Sabbath day.

“Ques,-Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

“Ans.-We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”-Second edition, p. 50.

A Doctrinal Catechism, by the Reverend Stephen Keenan, was approved by the Most Reverend John Hughes, DD., Archbishop of New York. It has these remarks on the question of the change of the Sabbath:

“Ques.-Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

“Ans.-Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” -Page 174.

An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, by the Reverend Henry Tuberville, D.D., of Douay College, France, contains these questions and answers:

“Ques.-How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

“Ans.-By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

“Ques.-How prove you that?

“Ans.-Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feast days) by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.” Page 58.

Not a Single Bible Line for Sunday Observance

Cardinal Gibbons, in The Faith of Our Fathers, says this: ‘You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” – Edition of 1893, P. 111.

“The Catholic Church Changed the Day”

The Catholic Press of Sydney, Australia, is emphatic that Sunday observance is solely of Catholic origin.

“Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles…. From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” – August 25, 1900.

In his book Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, Monsignor Segur says:

“It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.” Edition of 1868, Part 3, sec. 14, p. 225.

In the year 1893 the Catholic Mirror, of Baltimore, Maryland, was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons. In its issue of September 23 of that year it published this striking statement:

“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.” “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.”-Reprinted by the Catholic Mirror as a pamphlet, The Christian Sabbath, pp. 29, 31.

Sunday Observance Without Divine Authority Burns and Oates, of London, are publishers of Roman Catholic books, one of which they are pleased to call The Library of Christian Doctrine, A part of this is called “Why Don’t You Keep the Sabbath Day?” and sets forth the following argument of a Catholic with a Protestant:

“You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,’ who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer.

“You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.”-Pages 3, 4.

After a careful examination of the Bible, of history, both civil and ecclesiastical, of theological writings, commentaries, church manuals, catechisms, and the candid admissions of Sunday observers, we are compelled to conclude that there is no authority in the Holy Scriptures for the observance of Sunday, no authority given to man to make such a change from the seventh to the first day, no divine sanction given the change now that man has made it; that this substitution of a false Sabbath for the true Sabbath of the Lord was entirely the work of an anti-Christian movement which adopted the observance of a purely pagan day and presumptuously established it in the Christian church; and that this observance has no binding obligation upon Christian believers. but should be instantly discarded as a matter of practice, and the true Sabbath of God restored to its rightful place, both in the hearts of His people and in the practice of His church.

From The Catholic Record,

“SABBATH OBSERVANCE”

A short time ago this staid city of London experienced a tempest in a teapot over Sabbath observance. It was proposed to allow the children to use the municipal swimming pool during the sweltering weather we were then having. Immediately there was a ministerial chorus of protest. One reverend Boanerges valiantly declared that they would not rest until they had routed “the hosts of hell.” Presumably he saw in apocalyptic vision the infernal armies lined up behind His Worship the Mayor and others in their impious assault on the sanctity of “the Sabbath.”

Imagine the consternation in the ministerial association and the jubilation amongst the hosts of hell when they read in the London Free Press of this dastardly flank attack on their citadel of sabbatarianism:

“That Sabbath observance in the strict sense of the law of Israel, whether on the traditional or any seventh day, is no concern of the Christian, was the assertion of Rev. J. Marion Smith, of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Toronto, in his evening sermon yesterday at the Talbot Street Baptist Church.”

And this under a two-column heading: “Sabbath Observance Not Any Part of Man’s Duty as a Christian!” True, Mr. Smith was speaking to the “interogative subject,” “Can a Saved Man Be Lost?” That is quite a big subject in itself; but we shall take first his pronouncement on the Sabbath, which evidently struck the reporter and the city editor as the more sensational if not the more important part of the sermon. The report of the Free Press Continues:

“Quoting St. Paul, he declares that making any point of the old Mosaic law a test of righteousness is to accept the full burden of the rules, rituals and customs enjoined by Moses.

” ‘In Toronto, for instance’, he said, ‘there are many who make a great point of Sabbath observance. I do not consider it any part of my duty as a Christian to observe the Sabbath. When Christ came the old law was fulfilled and done away with. Christ was the only being, as a human, who could and did observe the whole law. Of course, as a Christian I observe certain rules of conduct and habit. But that is the matter of personal purity.’ “

It will be noted that the last paragraph purports to quote the very words of the preacher.

To the Toronto Star the Rev. Mr. Smith gave an explanatory interview which, though it may tend to allay Sabbatarian indignation, does not claim that he was misreported; indeed he further emphasizes the fact that the Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sunday are quite distinct and separate institutions.

We quote from The Star:

“The Jewish Sabbath is not Sunday, the Lord’s Day. Christians are all wrong in speaking of the Sabbath as Sunday.” said Mr. Smith. “The Sabbath is not binding upon a Christian as a means of justification from sin,” he went on. “The keeping of Sunday, the Lord’s day, is quite a different matter, and springs not from any obligation to the Jewish Law, but is the ready response from the heart of the Christian who observes Sunday as a day set aside for worship and rest. This observance is one of the highest privileges of mankind, and it is only reasonable that one-seventh of a man’s time should be devoted to special worship and spiritual refreshment.”

And further to mollify the critics he added in conclusion:

“One of the greatest blessings of Canada had been due to the strict observance of the Lord’s Day. To throw Sunday wide open would be to paralyze much good that is now accomplished and to throw unlimited temptation before the young life of our boys and girls.”

The ministers of London who criticize Mr. Smith’s sermon left the real crux of the question untouched. And that is not surprising, for on Protestant principles there is no possible explanation of the substitution of the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath; for this plain abrogation of the express commandment of God as recorded in the Bible.

Protestants reject Divine Tradition, the Unwritten Word, which Catholics accept as of equal authority with the Written Word, the Bible. The Divine authority given by Christ to the Church to teach in His name, to bind and loose, Protestants deny. For them – and it is their boast – the Bible and the Bible alone has Divine authority.

Now in the matter of Sabbath observance the Protestant rule of Faith is utterly unable to explain the substitution of the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Saturday. It has been changed. The Bible still teaches that the Sabbath or Saturday should be kept holy. There is no authority in the New Testament for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday. Surely it is an important matter. It stands there in the Bible as one of the Ten Commandments of God. There is no authority in the Bible for abrogating this Commandment, or for transferring its observance to another day of the week.

For Catholics it is not the slightest difficulty. “All power is given Me in heaven and on earth; as the Father sent Me so I also send you,” said our Divine Lord in giving His tremendous commission to His Apostles. “He that heareth you heareth Me.” We have in the authoritative voice of the Church the voice of Christ Himself. The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday is proof positive of that fact. Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third – Protestant Fourth – Commandment of God. As the Rev. Mr. Smith rightly points out: “The Jewish Sabbath is not Sunday, the Lord’s Day. Christians are all wrong in speaking of the Sabbath as Sunday.” The Christians who so speak are “Bible Christians,” those who make the Bible the sole rule of Faith; and the Bible is silent on Sunday observance, it speaks only of Sabbath observance. The Lord’s Day – Dies Dominica – is the term used always in the Missal and the Breviary. It occurs in the Bible once (Apoc. 1.10;) in Acts xx. 7 and 1 Cor. xvi., 2 there is a reference to “the first day of the week;” but in none of these is there the remotest intimation that henceforth the first day is to take the place of the seventh. That is the crux of the whole question, what authority does the Bible give for the change? And that difficulty Mr. Smith and his critics, though pious and effusive and vaguely eloquent about many things, have each and all sedulously evaded.

If affects very materially and very intimately the question of the proper observance of the Lord’s Day.

In the first centuries the obligation of rest from work remained somewhat indefinite. The Council of Laodicea, held at the end of the fourth century, was content to prescribe that on the Lord’s Day the faithful were to abstain from work as far as possible. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Cesarius and others showed an inclination – very familiar to us – to apply the law of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday. But the Council of Orleans in 538 reprobated this tendency as Jewish and non-Christian.

Thus by the same Divine authority, in virtue of which she did away with the Jewish Sabbath and substituted therefor the Christian Sunday, the Catholic Church legislated as to how the Lord’s Day should be observed.

Due to the exaggerated importance given the Bible after the Reformation and to the influence of Puritanism, the Lord’s Day in England and still more in Scotland began to take on all the rigorism of the Jewish Sabbath. That heritage, though somewhat softened, we still have with us. A game of ball where participants and spectators enjoy health-giving rest and recreation in the open air is “desecration of the Sabbath.” The swimming pool controversy is another good example.

We would not be misunderstood. With much of the activity of the Sabbatarians we are in sympathy. Their insistence on a day of rest being given all workers is admirable. But their muddle-headed confusion of the Lord’s Day with the Jewish Sabbath – against which the Rev. Mr. Smith so vigorously protests – finds no sympathy amongst the Catholics who receive the Lord’s Day itself as well as its mode of observance from the Church and not from the Bible.

It might serve a good purpose if the Sabbatarians would meditate on Mark ii, 23-28.

“And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the cornfields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward and pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to Him: Behold why do they on the sabbath-day that which is not lawful?

“And He said to them: Have you never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry himself and they that were with them? How he went into the house of God under Abiathar the high-priest and did eat the loaves of proposition which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?

“And He said unto them: The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”

That is the great principle that is forgotten under the damnosa hereditas of Puritanical sabbatarianism.

Our Divine Lord observed the Sabbath; but by word and deed he set Himself against the absurd rigorism that made man the slave of the day.

The train of thought and discussion set in motion by the Rev. Mr. Smith if followed up to its logical conclusion should serve a very good and very practical purpose.

The above article was published in the Saturday, September 1st, 1923 edition of The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Canada, Volume XLV, and appeared on page 4. As the author of the article was not indicated, it is assumed to have been written by one of the editors. The boldfacing of the one sentence above was my own emphasis, and not that of the author. The following information appeared on the same page as the article:

In a personal letter to a practicing Catholic…

The Catholic Church Acknowledges Sabbath Change

NOTE: Mr. James L. Day, while a member of the Catholic church, wrote to Pope Pius XI. The Papacy sent Mr. Day’s letter to Mr. Tramer, who was the editor of the “Question Box” section of The Catholic Extension Magazine. Mr. Day’s letter and Mr. Tramer’s reply are below. Mr. Tramer’s original letter is stored in the SDA  vaults in Washington, D.C.

Pope Pius XI Rome, Italy

Dear Sir:

   Is the accusation true, that Protestants accuse you of? They say you changed the Seventh Day Sabbath to the, so called, Christian Sunday: Identical with the First Day of the Week. If so, when did you make the change and by what authority?

                                          Yours very truly,

                                          (signed) J.L. Day

THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE

The Largest Catholic Magazine Published in the USA
180 Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
(Under the Blessing of Pope Pius XI)

Dear Sir:

Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

(1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

(2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ, to teach and guide men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to the Sunday. We frankly say, “Yes the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages, and a thousand other laws.”

(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventists are the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches, in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in the Bible.

With best wishes, (signed) Peter R. Tramer, editor

WHY DON’T YOU KEEP HOLY THE
SABBATH-DAY!

The following is a reprint of an undated tract
originally authored, printed and distributed
by the Catholic Church which asks the Protestant:

[pg. 3]

I am going to propose a very plain and serious question, to which I would entreat all who profess to follow “the Bible and the Bible only” to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath-day?

The command of Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do any work” (Exod. xx. 8,9) And again, “Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire through out your habitations upon the Sabbath day” (Exod. xxxv. 2, 3). How strict and precise is

[pg. 4]

God’s commandment upon this head! No work whatever was to be done on the day which He had chosen to set apart for Himself and to make holy; He required of His people that they should not even light a fire upon that day. And accordingly, when the children of Israel “found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath-day,” “the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp” (Numbers xv. 35). Such being God’s command then, I ask you again, Why do you not obey it? Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath-day?

You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep holy the Sabbath day; for that you abstain from all the worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home, every Sunday of your lives.

But Sunday is not the Sabbath-day. Sunday is the first day of the week; the Sabbath-day was the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly, “Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day;” and he assigned

[pg. 5]

a reason for choosing this day rather than any other – a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, “For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.” Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation. He did not finish it; it was on Saturday that He “ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made; and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” (Gen. ii. 2, 3) Nothing can more plain and easy to understand than all this; and there is nobody who attempts to deny it; it is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday, and not Saturday?

You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish

[pg. 6]

Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer.

You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered, or at least from which you may confidently

[pg. 7]

infer that it was the will of God that Christians should make that change in its observance which you have made. Let us see whether any such passages can be found. I will look for them in the writings of your own champions,

Rome’s Challenge

Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?

The editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Md., 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, appear under his official sanction, and are 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 CHRISTIAN SABBATH

The Genuine Offspring Of The Union Of The Holy
Spirit And The Catholic Church His Spouse.
The Claims Of Protestantism To Any Part
Therein Proved To Be Groundless,
Self-Contradictory, And Suicidal

[From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 2, 1893]

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 where 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 the particular, the Seventh-day Adventists have also selected the same day.

The 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; vis., 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 [at the time of this writing] 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 if 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 the 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 resource 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 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 on 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 the 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:

1^st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?

2^nd. Had the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?

3^rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping “holy” the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?

To the above three questions we pledge ourselves to furnish as many answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold the deformity of error.

[From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 9, 1893.]

“But faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last.”
–Moore

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 recognized 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; vis., the testimony of the teacher common to both claimants, the Bible. The fist expression 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.” [Of course the scriptures quoted throughout this work are from the Douay, or Catholic Version] Again, we read in chapter 31, verse 15 “Six day 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 one 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 A.D. 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; vix., 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 – the 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 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.” Exodus 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 that 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; vis., 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 preceed 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, vis., 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, Luke, and Mark, 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 Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than that the apostles and the holy women never knew Sabbath but Saturday, up to the very 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. Eight 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 the chapter and verse in each instance. Acts 13:14,27,42,44 ; Acts 15:21; Acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 1:4. “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.

Hense the conclusion is inevitable; vis., 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 has 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 Melanchthon. 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.

[Of course we have not the least sympathy with what is said here about Luther. Only the Lutherans think that Luther had all the truth, but his was nevertheless a grand work. He was a Christian hero. Had his work only been continued as it began, papists would not now be taunting “Protestants” with the inconsistency of professing to accept the Bible alone and then following the traditions of the Catholic Church – Ed.]

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 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 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 be used in embalming His body the morning after the Sabbath (Saturday), as Luke so clearly informs us (Luke 24:1), thereby placing beyond peradventure, the divine action and the 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 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 the divine Master in this particular, as Luke (Acts 18:4) 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 Luke’s Gospel, chapter 24, verses33-40, and 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, 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 John, quoted above, plainly informs us.

The second reference to Sunday is to be found in John’s Gospel, 20^th chapter, 26^th and 29^th verses “And after eight days, the disciples were again within, and Thomas with them.” [1] 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 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 a 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” Now, will this text afford to our Biblical Christian brethren a vestige of hope that Sunday {1] It is a “Protestant” claim that this passage refers to Sunday. The Mirror not only notices it, but admits the correctness of the claim. But how anybody can find in this text a reference to Sunday or the first day of the week, is a mystery. The previous meeting was on the first day of the week; the word says so. From this to the next first day of the week would be just one week. Now in one week there are just seven days and no more. But the Sacred Word says that this meeting was after EIGHT days. How anybody can get more than eight days into a week is a mystery of numbers and of the calendar, to say nothing of its confusion of the Sacred Word, that is bewildering to plain minds. However, this mystery is no greater nor any more bewildering than that by which Sunday has been substituted for the Sabbath of the Lord – Ed.} 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 Christian, 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 Acts 20:6,7 “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 to 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 hose,” 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 46^th verse of the same chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, 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 Paul, 1: 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 a store,” etc. Presuming that the request of 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 brought the spices and ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath “holy to the Lord” had passed, 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 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; vis., 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 for 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.]

“Halting on crutches of unequal size,
One leg by true supported, one by lies,
Thus sidle to the goal with awkward pace,
Secure of nothing but to lose the race.“

In the present article we propose to investigate carefully a new (and 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 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 1 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 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 Philipi, 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; vis., 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 nextwould 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 furnished 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 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 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 Luke, Paul, and Peter, all under divine inspiration, and surely the Holy Spirit would not inspire John to call Sunday the Lord’s day, whilst He inspired 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. 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. And what shall we see? – “The things that must be hereafter,” chapter 4, 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 “Lord’s 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 version the 4^th commandment is the 3^rd of the ten] 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 York 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 proinciamento 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.”

Conclusion

We have in this series of articles, taken much pains for 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 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. 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 Far 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 that boxes that contained its articles at the World’ Fair?

These superlatively good and unctuous Christians, by conning over their Bibles 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 probably that the divine has no 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 watch word 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 teacher, yet before the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust aside, and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church – “the mother of abomination,” 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 hold her charter as teacher from Him – 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 and guide in faith and morals. This 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 of 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 be 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.”

[Note From The Original; POSTER.] – 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 there 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 “a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and make Scripture the sole standard of appeal.” But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis was devolved upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that “Scripture and tradition” was 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 intense mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture along:

“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 Protestants’ 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 canon 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 texts; 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, which 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 ambition 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 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? -Ed.]

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 it to a galvanized existence, will be met with a 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 anti-scriptural question would necessarily entail. Their policy now is to “lay low”, and they are sure to adopt it.