The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists


by William H. Branson


MR. CANRIGHT the Baptist makes a strong effort to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath was not carried over into New Testament times. We wish to call attention here to some of the very extravagant statements made by him on this point. Let the reader note carefully the following quotations from his book.

Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned in the whole New Testament.' Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 267.

On all other points the New Testament is clear and full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, and book after book packed full of instruction on every Christian duty in every possible phase of it. The duty or the sin covered by each of the other nine commandments is directly named many times over in the New Testament. But the duty to keep the seventh day is not once mentioned. . . . 'Another remarkable fact is that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no Christian was ever commanded to observe it.' Ibid., pp. 265, 266.

This looks pretty bad for the Sabbath, doesn't it? With all these references to the other nine commandments of the moral law, and not even one mention of the Sabbath, or the fourth, commandment. Not even one reference to it in the whole New Testament!

The strange thing is that after making this very positive statement that there is no mention made in the New Testament of our duty to keep the Sabbath, he devotes an entire chapter of his Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (chapter l2) to an effort to refute the New Testament scriptures in which the seventh-day Sabbath is mentioned, and finally admits, on page 273, that it is mentioned fifty nine times by New Testament writers! On page 267 he asserts with great emphasis that there is not one such mention of it; on page 273 he finds that there are fifty-nine such references. Here is a discrepancy that is certainly difficult to understand.

But let us permit Mr. Canright as a Seventh-day Adventist to reply to Canright as a Baptist on this point also. Before he renounced the moral law and became a no-law advocate, he wrote:

It is claimed that nine are referred to while the fourth is, not; but this is false. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament oftener than any other of the Ten Commandments, being not less than fifty-nine times in all. It is worthy of notice that in all these numerous references not one word is spoken derogatory to the honor and sacredness which it had always possessed. - The Two Laws, p. 120.

The New Testament was written by Christians, in the Christian dispensation, for Christians. It was written by Inspiration; hence it uses Christian language, and tells us what Christians did. Every word of it was written years after the resurrection of Christ. Now let us see what these Christian Scriptures say upon the Sabbath question. [Let the reader keep in mind his later statement that it is not once mentioned.]

The Son of God Himself lived upon our earth over thirty years. He worked with His father as a carpenter. He labored six days in a week, and rested upon the Sabbath. 'And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.' Luke 4:16. Returning to the place of His nativity, it is particularly mentioned that He still observed the Sabbath according to His former custom. We have, then, the example of God's own Son for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath.

'When questioned on this subject of the Sabbath, He said, 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark 2:27. And the book of Genesis tells us just when and how God made the Sabbath for man. If it was made for man, it is because man needed it. Next, Christ says of Himself, 'Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' Verse 28. Which day is this? - The seventh, as all know. This, then, is the Lord's day-the day of which He is Lord.

In Matthew 12:1-12, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because He disregarded their silly regulations concerning it. He simply taught His disciples to eat upon the Sabbath when they were hungry. Jesus defended what He had done by referring to the example of David and the priests as recorded in the Old Testament, and concluded by saying, 'Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.' Verse 12. Thus He recognizes not only the Sabbath, but the law of the Sabbath, in the New Testament. 'When predicting the overthrow of Jerusalem, which occurred thirty-nine years after His resurrection, He said to His disciples, 'But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.' Matt. 24:20. Here He points them forward thirty-nine years into the gospel age. He, tells them that they will have to flee for their lives, but commands them to pray the Lord that they may not be compelled to flee either in the winter or on the Sabbath day. If they should go in winter, they might perish. But why not flee upon the Sabbath day? If it was not a sacred day, they could flee on 'that day as well as on any other. This text, then, plainly shows that not only was the Sabbath to exist so many years after the resurrection of Christ, but that it was still to be regarded as a holy day. If not, there would be no ' reason in this command. Here, then, we find a New Testament command from the lips of Jesus Himself for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.


Sunday keepers assert that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath, or the Sabbath of the New Testament. Seventh-day Adventists maintain that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the New Testament. Go into a church on the first day of the week, and you hear the minister call it the Sabbath. Go among the seventh day people on Saturday, and they call that the Sabbath. Now, who is right? We appeal to the New Testament.

'In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene,' etc. Matt. 28:1. Notice particularly; here are two days. One is the Sabbath day. 'In the end of the Sabbath.' Very well, there is one day, then, that is the Sabbath. Now which day is this? Sunday keepers say it is the first day of the week, and we say that it is the seventh day. Read further. 'In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.' Reader, which is the Sabbath day? It cannot be the first day, because the one which is called the Sabbath is the day before the first day. The Sabbath is ended before the first day comes. Remember this is not the testimony of the Old Testament. It is from the Gospel that we are reading, the Christian Scriptures, the New Testament; and hence, if you please, the Sabbath here mentioned is the 'Christian Sabbath.'

Here is another text: 'When the Sabbath was past. . . . very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher.' Mark 16:1,2. Notice carefully; here are two days spoken of again. One of them is the Sabbath. Which day is it? Is it the first day? Surely not, because ,the Sabbath is past before the first day comes. 'When the 'Sabbath was past. . . . the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher.' Remember this is New Testament, not Old - gospel, not law, - Christian, not Jewish, testimony. To this we appeal. Which day is the Christian Sabbath? This was written a long time after the resurrection, written by a Christian, and for Christians. Reader, which is the Christian Sabbath? Once more: 'And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' Luke 23:56. Thus did the holy women who had followed Christ all His life and were acquainted with all His teaching. This was written thirty years after the resurrection. It is in the Christian Scriptures. What does it say? They kept the Sabbath day. What Sabbath day? 'The Sabbath day according to the commandment.' Then it is the right Sabbath, the one the law requires. Now what day was this? The next verse will settle it. 'Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.' Notice, the next day after the day they had kept, was the first day of the week. Thus, reader, the first day of the week cannot be the Sabbath day according to the commandment, because the Christians had kept the Sabbath day, the day before the first day of the week. Do not think we are reading from the Old Testament. No, indeed; this is New Testament Scripture.


We turn to Acts, which was written some thirty-three years this side the commencement of the gospel age, and written by a Christian. It shows us the language of the apostolic Christians touching the ancient Sabbath, and how they used it. We find them always calling it 'the Sabbath,' just as it had been called in the old dispensation, and using it for religious worship as of old. Of Paul and Barnabas it says: 'They came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.' Acts 13:14. This was the seventh day, the day on which the Jews worshipped. Inspiration here calls it the Sabbath day, not a Sabbath day, nor the old Sabbath day, nor the Jewish Sabbath day, nor the day that used to be the Sabbath, but 'the Sabbath day.' . . . 'Paul, in his sermon referring to that day, says that the prophets 'are read every Sabbath day.' Verse 27. Here the apostle calls it definitely 'the Sabbath day.' When he had finished his discourse, 'the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.' Verse 42. Here even the Gentiles called it the Sabbath. Once more: 'And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together.' Verse 44. Luke, the historian, here calls it the Sabbath, and records the meetings they held upon it. James, in Acts 15:21, says the Scriptures are 'read in the synagogues, every Sabbath day.' Thus, James still designates that as the Sabbath day.

Once more: 'And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made.' Acts 16:13. On what day? The Sabbath. Who will contradict the Scriptures, and say that it was not the Sabbath? Every one holds that the day here referred to was the seventh day; and this record is in the New Testament. This day, then,, is the 'Christian Sabbath.'

Again: Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.' Acts 17:2. It was Paul's custom to observe the Sabbath, as we here see. On what days did he preach there? On the Sabbath days. But this was on the seventh day, not on the first. Which, then, is the Sabbath day, according to Paul? Thus we find that the seventh day is always and invariably termed 'the Sabbath' in the New Testament, while the first day is never so called. . . .  

Here we think we have plainly found the 'Christian Sabbath;' that is, the Sabbath day which the Christian Scriptures plainly teach. We ask, then, By what authority do you apply the term 'Sabbath' to the first day of the week? God has never changed it, and why should you?

In conclusion we ask, Where did the Lord ever give you permission to work on His holy day? Who gave you liberty to use it for secular work? When was the blessing or sanctification removed from it? Where do you find in the New Testament that a Christian ever worked on the seventh day? We pray you to consider these things in the light of the judgment. D.M. CANRIGHT, The Christian Sabbath, pp. 2-7.


Mr. Canright the Baptist makes another admission in his book which is fatal to his Sabbath-abolition argument, when he says:

All church historians agree that the Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day, even for some time after the fall of Jerusalem, as we have seen.

Philip Schaff, the greatest of living authors, in his 'History of the Apostolical. Church,' page 118, says: 'So far as we know, the Jewish Christians of the first generation, at least in Palestine, Scripturally observed the Sabbath.' Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 277.

This is very important. The Jewish Christians all continued to observe the Sabbath for the first generation of the Christian Era, even for some time after the fall of Jerusalem. That, then, took in Paul, Peter, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, and John the revelator. It included the New Testament writers, with the exception of Luke, who was probably a Greek. These persons were observers of the seventh-day Sabbath throughout the first generation, that is to say, as long as they lived, for they died before the first century of the Christian Era was passed. They kept the Sabbath till they died. They spoke of no change when they wrote their Gospels or Epistles, whether writing to Jews or Gentiles, and they made no change in their practice; they Scripturally observed the Sabbath. That is, they recognized that the Scriptural injunctions to keep the Sabbath are still binding in the Christian Era, and they kept it according to the Scriptures. To this agree the words of Luke, the Greek, as he speaks of Christ's followers in connection with His death and burial: They returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Luke 23:56.

Mr. Canright the Baptist inquires:

How much, then, does it prove in favor of the Jewish Sabbath to find that it was still called 'the Sabbath, or that it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even by Paul himself? Ibid., p. 278.

We answer, Much every way, chiefly because these facts clearly reveal that the church of the apostles knew nothing whatsoever of any change having been made in the Sabbath. They knew nothing of the original Sabbath having been abolished or of Sunday having taken its place. But did not the Gentile Christians who lived in the days of the apostles perhaps make the change? No, for they became Christians through the labors of these Jewish Christians and were instructed by them. The Gentiles were never commissioned to take over and remodel the cause later. The Lord did not give one line of instruction to the new church through the Jewish Christians and 'another line through Gentile converts. All the teaching was the reverse of that. If men accepted Jesus, they were then members of His family and counted as Christians. They were all to be governed by one rule, to be of one mind, and to speak the same thing. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27, 28.

Therefore, if the Christians of Christ's time were all one, and if all the Jewish Christians kept the Scriptural 'Sabbath during the first century, the Gentile converts must also have done the same. The entire Christian church started out as a Sabbath keeping church, and there was no thought of changing to Sunday until apostasy set in later on, and the church began to depart from the plain commandments of God and to follow the traditions of men.

In chapter 10 of his book Mr. Canright tries to build up an argument for Sunday observance on apostolic example, but the admission that for the first century all Jewish Christians continued to keep the Sabbath completely demolishes his argument. The apostles were all Jewish Christians, and if they all continued to keep the Sabbath during the first century, or as long as they lived, then the apostolic example is all on the Sabbath side. It is wholly in favor of seventh-day observance. Not one of the apostles or disciples of Christ ever once kept Sunday or indicated that he knew anything about a change having been made in the Sabbath. No mention is made of the first day of the week as having become a holy day or a day of rest and worship. No command is given for anyone to keep it. God never rested on it; Christ never kept it; the apostles knew nothing about it; and for at least a century of the Christian Era the church members all continued to keep the Scriptural Sabbath. This Scriptural Sabbath is mentioned fifty-nine times in the New Testament, as Mr. Canright admits. 'It is called the Sabbath, and Jesus declares Himself to be Lord of it. (Mark 2:28.) But Sunday keeping is not mentioned at all, and wherever the first day of the week is spoken of, it is referred to as one of the six working days to which no holiness was attached.

But we shall permit Mr. Canright as a Seventh-day Adventist to speak on this point. He has already shown his ability to find fifty-nine references to the Sabbath in the New Testament, and now we will let him tell us what he knew about Sunday in the New Testament. The following is from his pen:

'Paul says, 'Where no law is, there is no transgression.' Rom. 4:15. As there is no law of God for keeping the first day, there can be no sin in working on it; for Paul says again, 'Sin is not imputed when there is no law.' Rom. 5:13. Then why keep Sunday? God does not leave men to guess at their duty, but He states plainly whatever He wishes done. Does He wish men to keep the seventh day? How explicitly He has said so. Ex. 20:8-11. How plainly baptism and the Lord's supper are enjoined. Mark 16:15, 16; 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

So if the Lord wished us to keep the first day, would He not have plainly said so? Certainly; but He has said no such thing.


Let us examine every text in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament, and we shall thus learn all the Lord has said about it. There are but eight texts. Here is the first: 'In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.' Matt. 28:1. This is all that Matthew says about it. He relates that the angel opened the tomb; that the women saw him, ran to tell the apostles, and met Jesus on the way; but not a hint is given 'that there is to be any change of the Sabbath, not a word is said about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection. Think of this.

Next, Mark mentions the first day twice. 'And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.' 'Now when Jesus was risen ,early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.' Chap. 16:2,9. This is all the mention he makes of the day. Here, again, there is a profound silence as to any change of the Sabbath or any sacredness for the first day. There is not the slightest intimation of any such thing. Read the whole chapter and see for yourself.

Luke mentions the first day only once. 'Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, 'they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.' Chap. 24:1. What does this say about the change of the Sabbath? Nothing. They had kept the Sabbath according to the commandment the day before. Chap. 23:56. What intimation is there here that the first day then became a holy day? The candid reader will admit that there is not the slightest reference to such a thing. Yet these are the texts always relied upon by Sunday keepers to sustain their position. Luke does state that two of the disciples went that day seven and a half miles, on foot, to Emmaus. Verse 13. What were they going there for? The circumstances indicate that they resided there, and they were going home. Jesus walked with them and made Himself known to them. Verses 15-31. Then they went back to Jerusalem to tell the others. Fifteen miles they walked that day. . . . Mark 16:12, 13. While they were eating supper, and doubting and disputing about the resurrection, Jesus came in and upbraided them for their unbelief. . . . Luke 24:38-43. Certainly, then, they were not keeping that day to commemorate an event in which they did not yet believe! . . .

John mentions the first day twice, stating substantially the same facts as the others. 'The first day of the week comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and sees the stone taken away from the sepulcher.' Chap. 20: 1. She ran and told Peter and John. Then they went to see if it was so. Later, Jesus appeared to Mary, and sent her to tell the others. Verses 11-18. 'Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, *came Jesus and stood in the midst, and says unto them, Peace be unto you.' Verse 19. This is all that John says of the first day. Reader, how much do you find here about the change of the Sabbath? Like the others, John is silent upon this subject. He makes no reference to it; he simply states the events that occurred at the resurrection of Jesus. There he leaves it.

But were not the apostles assembled together when Jesus met them? Yes, at their own home, eating supper. John 20:10; Mark 16:14. (See Acts 1:13) And, where else should they be? So there is no evidence here of any religious meeting held on that day.

John mentions the first day twice, but does not call it the Sabbath, the Lord's day, nor by any other stated title. He says nothing about the disciples' keeping it, nor does he record any intimation from the Lord that they should keep it. There is not even an inference to that effect in the four Gospels, and the whole argument in favor of it is pure assumption.

Another Sunday meeting is claimed from verse 26: 'And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.' This did not occur on Sunday, but as late as Monday evening. Verse 19. After eight days is not on the eighth day. . . .

But suppose it had been the first day of the week; that does not prove that it was the Sabbath, nor that there was any sacredness to the day. The disciples were not even holding a meeting. They were 'within,' that is, at home. Verse 10, 'Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.' This is where they were when the event occurred which is 'recorded in verse 26. (See Acts 1:13.) Jesus came because Thomas was there; but there is not a word, or even a hint, that the day was sacred.

The next time Jesus met them was on a fishing day. John 21:16. They all went fishing, and toiled all night, but caught nothing. In the morning Jesus stood on the shore, and told them where to cast the net to get a good draught. Was this on Sunday? Then it is a working day.

If it were not on Sunday, then Jesus met them on any day, just as it happened. So we see from Acts 1:1-4 that His farewell meeting with them was on Thursday. It was on the fortieth day after His resurrection. Verse 3. By a moment's reckoning it will be seen that it fell on Thursday, as all agree. Thursday is ascension day the world over. So the aim that Jesus always met with His disciples on the first day of the week is utterly false. As we have seen, the day of His resurrection was one of the greatest confusion among His disciples; the next time He met them was on Monday evening, the next time was on a fishing day, and the last was on Thursday. So much for the example of Christ in favor of Sunday keeping. . . .

Next, Acts 20:7-11 is supposed to furnish some little proof for first-day observance. 'And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.' Then a young man fell from a window, and being taken up dead, was restored to life by Paul. And when he 'had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.' We notice these facts: 1. The first day is not called the Sabbath, Lord's day, or by any other sacred title. 2. This is the only religious meeting upon the first day of the week of which we have any record in the New Testament. This is remarkable, if that were the common day of meeting. But we have a record of eighty-four Sabbaths which Paul kept, and on which he preached. (See Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:14, ll.) 3. Nothing is said about its being their custom to meet on that day. 4. There is no record that they ever met on that day before this occasion or afterward. 5. But what settles the whole matter is the simple fact that it was only an evening meeting. When they assembled, Paul began to preach to them, and 'continued his speech till midnight.' After breaking bread, he again talked till break of day,' and then went on his journey. Evening meetings are frequently held, on all days of the week. No one thinks of calling a day holy for this reason. So in the above case this meeting does not furnish the slightest evidence that Sunday was a holy day. Moreover, this was not an ordinary meeting, but a very uncommon one. It was Paul's farewell meeting (verse 25); hence it lasted all night. A dead man was raised. It was for these reasons that it was mentioned, and not because of any sacredness belonging to the day. Then there is not an article of evidence here for Sunday observance.'

Only one more text mentions the first day; viz., 1 Corinthians 16:2: 'Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God bath prospered him, that there he no gatherings when I come.' From this a public meeting for Sabbath worship on the first day is inferred. But what is said here about keeping that day as the Sabbath, or even holding meetings on that day? Not an intimation of such a thing is given. Paul does not say that when they came together for meetings they should bring their gifts, nor that they should put them into the public collection box, nor anything of that nature. 'Let every one of you lay by him in store,' is the direction; that is, at home, by himself. The original Greek term means by himself, at home, as the best critics say on this passage.

Now, reader, you have before you all the texts in the New Testament that mention the first day of the week in any manner. You must see that they do not intimate that the ay has any sacredness, or that there is an example for keeping , or any commandment that any one should observe it. The Lord's day' of Revelation 1:10 is the seventh day, as may be seen by Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13; Mark 2:28.-1) D. M. CANRIGHT, Sunday Not the Sabbath, pp. 1-8.

That is well done, Mr. Canright. Now we will give you an opportunity to answer another one of your Sabbath objections. In his book under review Mr. Canright the Baptist declares:

That the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) fell on Sunday has been believed and maintained by Christians in all ages. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 200.

But just a few years before, he had completely exploded this theory in a leaflet entitled Sunday Not the Sabbath, from which we quote the following:

A desperate endeavor is made to find evidence for Sunday keeping from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14) ; but there is not the remotest hint of it here. 'And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind.' Verses 1, 2. Then the Holy Spirit rested upon them. But what has that to do with Sunday keeping? Sunday observance is not mentioned, nor even referred to. It is not stated what day of the week it was, as that was a matter of no importance.

It was the Pentecost which was to be signalized, and not the day of the week. The very best scholars, even among the observers of Sunday, admit that Pentecost fell that year upon the Sabbath, or Saturday. Professor Hackett says, 'It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday.' Comment on original text.

Shausen says, 'The fiftieth fell; therefore, it appears, upon Saturday.'

Dean Alford, in his 'New Testament for English Readers,' remarks, 'It is probable, however, that it was on the Sabbath, i.e., if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan.' If the day of the week on which that Pentecost fell was to be observed, we should at least expect that we should be informed which day it was. But we are not. Pages 5, 6.

In the last analysis Seventh-day Adventists are not really concerned at all as to whether Pentecost came on Sabbath, Sunday, or some other day of the week, for they have never rested their case on so uncertain and vague a basis as the supposed relationship of the Sabbath to various ceremonial festivals of the Jews, such as Pentecost. Seventh-day Adventists build their claim for the sacredness of the Sabbath in the Christian Era on the firm foundation of a clear-cut. Thus says the Lord, found in the fourth precept of the divinely given Ten Commandments, which commandments virtually all the Christian world confesses to be the moral code for all time and all ages. It is interesting to note, however, that opponents such as Mr. Canright attempt to make a, last stand on the claim that Pentecost came on Sunday, but even among Sunday keeping theologians themselves there is no agreement that Pentecost came on Sunday. This is a strange plight indeed for the advocates of Sunday!

In renouncing Seventh-day Adventism, Mr. Canright argues that Sunday should be kept as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, saying:

It is the grandest and best-known fact in all the earth today, that the Christian church has a memorial day, the day of the Lord's resurrection. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 196.

To which argument he himself had formerly replied as follows:

Should we not, then, celebrate the resurrection of Christ? Yes, but the Lord never told us to keep Sunday for that, purpose. God has given us baptism, burial in water, as the fitting memorial of this. 'Therefore we are buried with Him ,by baptism.' Rom. 6:4. We are buried in the water just as 'Jesus was in the earth. Then we are raised up out of the Water, also in the likeness of His resurrection.' Verse 5. Again, Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with Him.' Col. 2:12. Baptism, then, is the divinely pointed memorial of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is appropriate. To be buried in the water and raised out of it, resembles the burial and resurrection of Christ, which commemorates. Sunday Not the Sabbath, p. 8.


Mr. Canright the Baptist quotes a priest of New York in the matter of Sunday observance as follows:

John Ankatell, A. M., priest of the diocese of New York, writing in the Outlook, July, 1889, says of Sunday, the Lord's day: 'We think it was given by our Lord to the apostles during the great forty days after His resurrection, but we cannot prove this.' He states the Catholic doctrine exactly; viz., that the change was made by Christ and the apostles, but that the Scriptures are not plain enough on this point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic authority, which says it was made in New Testament times. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 214.

It seems to us that this is as clear a case of groping in the dark as we have ever witnessed. No evidence can be found for Sunday observance, but that fact does not deter those who are determined to substitute that day for God's Sabbath. Failing to find a Thus says the Lord for their doctrine on this point, they find the next best thing - a Catholic priest of New York, who thinks the Sunday command was given to the disciples by the Lord during the forty days after His resurrection! Of course, this priest is honest enough to add that he cannot prove this, but then the very fact that he thought it, was evidence to Mr. Canright that it must be true.

We wonder now what this priest's supposition is based upon? Paul says that he shunned not to declare all the counsel of God, and yet he declared nothing: about Christ's having secretly told the disciples about Sunday's taking the place of the holy Sabbath. Strange, isn't it, that he should have forgotten so important a matter as that! And one would think that Luke or John would have thought to mention it, but no, they must have forgotten also. What a pity that the New Testament should have been marred by this failure on their part! Surely, if they expected plain, ordinary folk down here in the twentieth century to know!

Let it be known that there is one thing on which the Scriptures are clear, all the way from Genesis to Revelation, and that is that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God (Exodus 20:10). That this day was sanctified in Eden, set apart for the holy and religious use of men, as a great memorial of creation; that it is God's holy day (Isaiah 58:13); that Jesus is Lord of it (Mark 2:28); that Jesus kept it (Luke 4:16); that the disciples, still kept it after the resurrection of our Lord (Luke 23:56) ; and that it was the Lord's day (Revelation 1:10).

There is no need to find out what the New York Catholic priest thinks about that. It is written in letters of fire, as it were, and was dictated by the Holy Ghost. It was spoken from heaven by the omnipotent God. It was engraved on stone with His finger; it was substantiated by Jesus by both precept and example; it was accepted without question by all the inspired writers. In fact, it is so plain that the wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein. (Isaiah 35.8)

Shall all this clear, shining testimony be discarded for the passing thought of a New York Roman Catholic priest ?


In an attempt to prove that Sunday is the Lord's day, Mr. Canright the Baptist says:  

Those who observe Sunday say that they do it in honor of the resurrection of Christ upon that day, and that this practice was derived from the apostles and has been continued in the church ever since. Let us see. 'The Lord's day' is a term now commonly applied to the first day of the week, in honor of the Lord's resurrection on that day. Thus: 'We believe the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the Lord's day.' - Baptist Church Directory,' p. 171. . . . So every dictionary, lexicon, and cyclopedia applies that term to the first day. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 186.

Here Mr. Canright begins his great adventure among the lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias, church Fathers, etc., in a desperate effort to turn up some semblance of proof for Sunday observance. He can find nothing whatsoever in the Bible, as he has so frequently and emphatically stated in the quotations we have cited from his own writings, so in his desperation he is driven to other, sources. He starts in with the Baptist Church Directory, and then wanders through the annals of medieval ecclesiastical history, searching for what cannot be found in Scripture. In this field he fares far better than when he, Seeks proof in the New Testament. Calvin is quoted by him as saying:

'The ancients have, not without sufficient reason, substituted what we call the Lord's day in the room of the Sabbath.' Ibid.

But, we inquire, how does this help us in this matter? Who were these ancients? In what generation did they live? Were they Catholics, pagans, or early Christians? And if they were either, what authority did they have to tamper with the immutable law of the great God? 'Who made these ancients to be our lawgivers? There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. James 4:12. The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us. Isaiah 33:22.

Who, then, are these ancients who presume to tamper with what God has done? Away with them! If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose You this day whom you will serve. Whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods. Joshua 24:15, 16.


Mr. Canright quotes from statutes of the kings of England; from Danish and Saxon laws; from Catholic councils; from Emperor Constantine; and a score of so called Catholic Fathers, several of whom are proved impostors and tricksters, in a further effort to bolster up his Lord's day theory. Now the thing that strikes one as more than passing strange is the fact that, in an effort to prove which day is the Lord's day, the testimony of almost everyone else is sought except that of the Lord Himself.

Why not inquire of the Lord as to which is His day? Perchance He would know more about it than the learned writers of dictionaries, the pagan emperor Constantine, or Henry IV of England. Why not at least hear what He has to say about the matter? What harm could it have done for Mr. Canright to tell us what is written in the Book of books about the Lord's day? Just this: it would have completely upset his entire theory. For the Lord and Mr. Canright the Baptist are not in agreement on this matter.

Let us first note a statement in the fourth commandment: The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Whose Sabbath is it? The Sabbath of the Lord. It is His day. He claims it. As His voice rolled through the earth He declared this one day to be His. When, we inquire, has His voice been heard again, releasing this claim? When did the earth shake with the announcement from the throne that Sunday was now to be substituted for the Sabbath? When? Never! That change was made by man, not God.

Again the Lord declares: If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My 'holy day. Isaiah 58:13. Which day is the Lord's day? He definitely claims the Sabbath, the seventh day, as His. He declares it to be holy, and calls upon His people not to trample it underfoot and disregard it, as Mr. Canright would so gladly have them do.

But this is not all. When Jesus was here in the flesh, He made another pronouncement on this question which 'leaves absolutely no room for doubt or quibbling. His words are recorded in Mark 2:27, 28: He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of he Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. That day, then, must of necessity be the Lord's day. It is the day which He made for man's rest and benefit.

No such claims were ever made by the Lord regarding Sunday. Jesus said nothing about a Sunday Lord's day. That is found only in the dictionaries, and the musty volumes of history written after the papal apostasy set in. That idea is absolutely foreign to the Bible. Only one Lord's day is recognized in the Scriptures, and that is the original Sabbath. It was, therefore, the seventh-day Sabbath of which John spoke when he said, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Revelation 1:10. John was one of those Christians of the early church whom Mr. Canright admits kept the Sabbath during the first century, hence he speaks of that day just as Jesus had spoken of it. Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath day, and John records that he had a heavenly vision on that day. How anyone could possibly read Sunday into this text we cannot understand.

On this point Dr. Summerbell, of the Christian Church, says:

Many suppose that they must denominate the first day of the week the 'Lord's day; but we have no certain scripture for this. The phrase 'Lord's day' occurs but once in the Bible: 'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,' and there probably refers to the day of which Christ said: 'The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day,' as the whole book of Revelation has a strong Jewish bearing. N. SUMMERBELL, D.D. (professor of Moral Philosophy, and first president of Union Christian College: editor of the Christian Pulpit, Discussions, Church History), History of the Christian Church, p. 152.


Mr. Canright's chief appeal on his Sunday-Lord's day theory is to the Catholic Fathers, and he offers their testimony as a ground of faith for the Christian church. Regarding the reliability of these sources of Christian doctrine we wish to quote the following statements from recognized church leaders and, historians:

The Fathers of the second and third centuries were not regarded as safe guides even by their Christian contemporaries. . . . Tertullian, who, in point of learning, vigor, and genius, stands at the head of the Latin writers of this period, was connected with a party of gloomy fanatics. Origen, the most voluminous and erudite of the Greek Fathers, was excommunicated as a heretic. If we estimate these authors as they were appreciated by the early Church of Rome, we must pronounce their writings of little value. Tertullian, as a Montanist, was under the ban of the Roman bishop. . . . Origen was treated by the Roman Church as a man under sentence of excommunication....

Nothing can be more unsatisfactory, or rather childish, than the explanations of Holy Writ sometimes given by these ancient expositors. . . . Very few of the Fathers of this period were acquainted with Hebrew, so that, as a class, they were miserably qualified for the interpretation of the Scriptures. Even Origen himself must have had a very imperfect knowledge of the language of the Old Testament. In consequence of their literary deficiencies, the Fathers of the second and third centuries occasionally commit the most ridiculous blunders. DR. WILL1AM D. KILLEN, The Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 2, chap. 1, pars. 33, 34.

There are but few of them [the Fathers] whose pages are not rife with errors, errors of method, errors of fact, errors of history, of grammar, and even in doctrine. This is the language of simple truth, not of slighting disparagement. ARCHBISHOP F. W. FARRAR, D.D., The History of Interpretation, pp. 162, 163.

The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers have unhappily, for the most part, come down to us in a condition very little worthy of confidence, partly because under the name of these men, so highly venerated in the church, writings were early forged for the purpose of giving authority to particular opinions or principles. And partly because their own writings which were extant, became interpolated in subservience to a Jewish hierarchical interest, which aimed to crush the free spirit of the gospel. DR. AUGUSTUS NEANDER, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 1, Appendix, Sec. 4. Notices of the More Eminent Church Teachers, p. 657.

Books bearing venerable names-Clement, Dionysius, Isidore-were forged for the purpose of supplying authorities for opinions that lacked the sanction of antiquity. - JOHN EMFRICH EDWARD DALBERGACTON (R.C.), The History of Freedom, p. 513.

Several works ascribed to these Fathers, are known to be spurious; others are doubtful; and those which are generally received as genuine are not free from interpolations. WHAREY, Sketches of Church History, First Century, p. 26.

But of these [the Fathers] we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine, their authority is with me, nothing. The word of God alone contains my creed. - DR. ADAM CLARKE, Comment on Proverbs 8.

'When God's word is by the Fathers expounded, construed, and glossed over, then, in my judgment, it is even as when one strains milk through a coal sack, which must needs spoil and make the milk black. God's word of itself is pure, clean, bright, and clear; but through the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers, it is darkened, falsified, and spoiled. -MARTIN LUTHER, Table Talk, P. 281.


This, then, is the ground on which Mr. Canright chose to stand after he forsook the law of God, and surely he was sinking in the mire. He had clearly forsaken the commandments of God for the traditions of men. Had he become a Catholic, we could better understand his appeal to these questionable Catholic sources. But he claimed still to be a Protestant, and yet stepped down from the solid Protestant platform of the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and practice, onto the shifting sands of the Catholic position of the Bible plus tradition, with tradition above the Bible. The Roman Catholic position on this point is clearly set down in the following terse quotations:

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. . . . We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith, because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance. And because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation. CARDINAL GIBBONS, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 111.

The following quotations will show what the Catholic Church teaches as to the authority for its doctrine:

-Question. Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?

Answer. Yes; because it is a part of God's revealed word, properly called the unwritten word, as the Scripture is called the written word.

Question. What is tradition?

Answer. The doctrines which the apostles taught by word of mouth, and which have descended through every successive generation even to our times.

Question. Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is taught by Scripture?  

Answer. Yes; we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other. REV. STEPHEN KEENAN, Doctrinal Catechism, .pp. 86, 87.

Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe. - BRUNO'S Catholic Belief, p. 45.

How contrary this all is to the clear teachings of Jesus. In Mark 7:6-9 it is recorded that He said:

Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do. And He said unto them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

It is this leaving of the written and inspired Word of God to follow the conflicting, confusing traditions of the ancients, that has repeatedly led the church into error and apostasy. If tradition is as good as the Bible, if the hearsay of what has been taught in past ages must be accepted, then there is no fixed standard of truth. The teachings of one church are as reliable as any other. But think of the confusion to which this leads us! Surely, it is worse than the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel. A thousand voices from as many religions and sects shout in our ears, This is the way. The fathers believed thus and so. And yet no two of them agree!

It may be truly said that the Bible and tradition are like two rivers, as stated above by Dr. Bruno, but while the Bible is the pure word of God, tradition is foul with error and sophistry. The Bible flows forth from the very throne of God, and its sparkling waters, which are clear as crystal, come down to us as the water of life. Those who drink deeply of it shall never thirst again. But the river of tradition has become polluted with the errors and commandments of men; its waters have been contaminated through the work of God's great archenemy in his effort to deceive and destroy the faith of God's children. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Scripture text above quoted, declares the commandment of God supreme above all human tradition. God's will, expressed in the Ten Commandments, cannot be set aside by any man-made ordinance.

Now it is of course, known by everybody that Catholics all observe Sunday, the first day of the week, instead of Saturday, the seventh day, but their reason for doing this is clearly stated in their official catechisms. They do not 'claim to have Scriptural authority for this practice, but, on the contrary, they frankly and clearly say that there is no such authority, and that in this matter they are following tradition only. Note carefully the following quotations bearing directly upon this point, from one of their recognized works:

Question. When Protestants do profane work on Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith, do they find this permission clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume?

Answer. On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for this practice. In profaning Saturday, they violate one of God's commandments, which He has never clearly abrogated- 'Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'

Question. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day of rest, a matter dearly laid down in Scripture?

Answer. It certainly is not; and yet all Protestants consider the observance of this particular day as essentially necessary to salvation. To say we observe the Sunday, because Christ rose from the dead on that day is to say we act without warrant of Scripture; and we might as well say that we should rest on Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven on that day, and rested in reality from the work of redemption. - REV. STEPHEN KEENAN, Doctrinal Catechism, p. 352.

Question. What do you conclude from all this?

Answer. That Protestants have no Scripture for the measure of their day of rest; that they abolish the observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture; that they substitute Sunday in its place without Scriptural authority; consequently, that for all this, they have only traditional authority. . . . Hence we must conclude, that the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly, does not contain all necessary truths, and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of faith. Ibid., pp. 354, 355.

So there we have it. That clearly states the Catholic position. Tradition is safer than the Bible. And it was on this platform that Mr. Canright took his stand in trying to prove Sunday sacredness. He found it only in tradition. And every individual must take his choice. Either his faith must be planted on the solid rock of Scriptural truth, the word that lives and abides forever, or on the quagmire of tradition. In the one are found the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to enable us to keep them. In the other are apostasy, uncertainty, and shipwreck of faith. Choose you this day whom you will serve.

Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. Mark 7:7, 8.


We present herewith a reprint of a tract published in 1885 by D. M. Canright in which he argues convincingly for the keeping of the seventh day as the Bible Sabbath.

Why keep the Sabbath day? What is the object of the Sabbath? Who made it? When was it made, and for whom? Which day is the true Sabbath? Many keep the first day of the week, or Sunday. What Bible authority have they for this ? Some keep the seventh day, or Saturday. What Scripture have they for that?

Here are the facts about both days, as plainly stated in the Word of God:

Sixty Bible Facts Concerning the Seventh Day

1. After working the first six days of the week in creating this earth, the great God rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2:1-3.

2. This stamped that day as God's rest day, or Sabbath day, as Sabbath day means rest day. To illustrate: When a person is born on a certain day, that day thus becomes his birthday. So when God rested upon the seventh day, that day became His rest, or Sabbath day.

3. Therefore the seventh day must always be God's Sabbath day. Can you change your birthday from the day on which you were born, to one on which you were not born? No. Neither can you change God's rest day to a day on which He did not rest. Hence the seventh day is still God's Sabbath day.

4. The Creator blessed the seventh day. Genesis 2:3.

5. He sanctified the seventh day. Exodus 20:11.

6. He made it the Sabbath day in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:1-3.

7. It was made before the fall; hence it is not a type; for types were not introduced till after the fall.

8. Jesus says it was made for man (Mark 2:27) ; that is, for the race, as the word man is here unlimited; hence, for the Gentile as well as for the Jews.

9. It is a memorial of creation. Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Every time we rest upon the seventh day, as God did at creation, we commemorate that grand event.

10. It was given to Adam, the head of the human race. Mark 2:27; Genesis 2:1-3.

11. Hence through him, as our representative, to all nations. Acts 17:26.

12. It is not a Jewish institution; for it was made 2,300 years before ever there ' was a Jew.

13. The Bible never calls it the Jewish Sabbath; but always, 'the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Men should be cautious how they stigmatize God's holy rest day.

14. Evident reference is made to the Sabbath all through the patriarchal age. Genesis 2:1-3; 8:10, 12; 29:27, 28, etc.

15. It was a part of God's law before Sinai. Exodus 16:4, 27-29.

16. Then God placed it in the heart of His moral law. Exodus 20:117. Why did He place it there if it was not like the other nine precepts, which all admit to be immutable?

17. The seventh-day Sabbath was commanded by the voice of the living God. Deuteronomy 4:12, 13.

18. Then He wrote the commandment with His own finger. Exodus 31:18.

19. He engraved it in the enduring stone, indicating its imperishable nature. Deuteronomy 5:22.

20. It was sacredly preserved in the ark in the holy of holies. Deuteronomy 10:1-5.

21. God forbade work upon the, Sabbath, even in the most hurrying times. Exodus 34:21.

22. God destroyed the Israelites in the wilderness because they profaned the Sabbath. Ezekiel 20:12, 13.

23. It is the sign of the true God, by which we are to know Him from false gods. Ezekiel 20:20.

24. God promised that Jerusalem should stand forever if the Jews would keep the Sabbath. Jeremiah 17:24, 25.

25. He sent them into Babylonish captivity for breaking it. Nehemiah 13:18.

26. He destroyed Jerusalem for its violation. Jeremiah 17:27.

27. God has pronounced a special blessing on all the Gentiles who will keep it. Isaiah 56:6, 7.

28. This is in the prophecy which refers wholly to the Christian dispensation. See Isaiah 56.

29. God has promised to bless any man who will keep the Sabbath. Isaiah 56:2.

30. The Lord requires us to call it 'honorable.' Isaiah 58:13. Beware, you who take delight in calling it the 'old Jewish Sabbath,' 'a yoke of bondage,' etc.

31. After the holy Sabbath has been trodden down 'many generations,' it is to be restored in the last days. Isaiah 58:12, 13.

32. All the holy prophets kept the seventh day.

33. When the Son of God came, He kept the seventh day all His life. Luke 4:16; John 15:10. Thus He followed His Father's example at creation. Shall we not be safe in following the example of both the Father and the Son?

34. The seventh day is the Lord's day. See Revelation 1:10; Mark 2:28; Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 20:10.

35. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) ; that is, to love and protect it, as the husband is the lord of the Wife, to love and cherish her. 1 Peter 3:6.

36. He vindicated the Sabbath as a merciful institution designed for man's good. Mark 2:23-28.

37. Instead of abolishing the Sabbath, He carefully taught how it should be observed. Matthew 12:1-13.

38. He taught His disciples that they should do nothing upon the Sabbath day but what was 'lawful.' Matthew 12:12.

39. He instructed His apostles that the Sabbath should be prayerfully regarded 40 years after His resurrection. Matthew 24:20.

40. The pious women who had been with Jesus carefully kept the seventh day after His death. Luke 23:56.

41. Thirty years after Christ's resurrection, the Holy Spirit expressly calls it 'the Sabbath day.' Acts 13:14.

42. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, called it 'the Sabbath day' in A. D. 45. Acts 13:27. Did not Paul know? Or shall we believe modern teachers, who affirm that it eased to be the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ?

43. Luke, the inspired Christian historian, writing as ate as A. D. 62, calls it 'the Sabbath day.' Acts 13:44.

44. The Gentile converts called it the Sabbath. Acts 13:42.

45. In the great Christian council, A. D. 52, in the presence of the apostles and thousands of disciples, James calls it the Sabbath day. Acts 15:21.

46. It was customary to hold prayer meetings upon that day. Acts 16:13.

47. Paul read the Scriptures in public meetings on that day. Acts 17:2, 3.

48. It was his custom to preach upon that day. Acts 17:2.

49. The book of Acts alone gives a record of his holding eighty-four meetings upon that day. See Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:1, 11.

50. There was never any dispute between the Christians and the Jews about the Sabbath day. This is proof that the Christians still observed the same day that the Jews did.

51. In all their accusations against Paul, they never charged him with disregarding the Sabbath day. Why did they not, if he did not keep it?

52. But Paul himself expressly declared that he had kept the law. 'Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.' Acts 25:8. How could this be true if he had not kept the Sabbath?

53. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament 59 times, and always with respect, bearing the same title it had in the Old Testament, 'the Sabbath day.'

54. Not a word is said anywhere in the New Testament about the Sabbath's being abolished, done way, changed, or anything of the kind.

55. God has never given permission to any man to work upon it. Reader, by what authority do you use the seventh day for common labor?

56. No Christian of the New Testament, either before or after the resurrection ever did ordinary work upon the seventh day. Find one case of that kind, and we will yield the question. Why should modern Christians do differently from Bible Christians?

57. There is no record that God has ever removed His blessing or sanctification from the seventh day.

58. As the Sabbath was kept in Eden before the fall, so it will be observed eternally in the new earth after the restitution. Isaiah 66:22, 23.

59. The seventh-day Sabbath was an important part of the law of God, as it came from His own mouth, and was written by His own finger upon stone at Sinai. See Exodus 20. When Jesus began His work, He expressly declared that He had not come to destroy the law. Think not that I am come to destroy the law,' or the prophets. Matthew 5:17.

60. Jesus severely condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites for pretending to love God, while at the same time they made void one of the Ten Commandments by their tradition. The keeping of Sunday is only a tradition of men.

We have now presented 60 plain Bible facts concerning the seventh day. What will you do with them?

Forty Bible Facts Concerning the First Day of the Week

1. The very first thing recorded in the Bible is work done on Sunday, the first day of the week. Genesis 1:13. This was done by the Creator Himself. If God made the earth on Sunday, can it be wicked for us to work on Sunday?

2. God commands men to work upon the first day of the week. Exodus 20:8-11. Is it wrong to obey God?

3. None of the patriarchs ever kept if'

4. None of the holy prophets ever kept it.

5. By the express command of God, His holy people used, the first day of the week as a common working day for 4,000 years, at least.

6. God Himself calls it a 'working' day. Ezekiel 46:1.

7. God did not rest upon it.

8. He never blessed it.

9. Christ did not rest upon it.

10. Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3), and worked at His trade until He was 30 years old. He kept the Sabbath and worked six days in the week, as all admit. Hence He did many a hard day's work on Sunday.

11. The apostles worked upon it during the same time.

12. The apostles never rested upon it.

13. Christ never blessed it.

14. It has never been blessed by any divine authority.

15. It has never been sanctified.

16. No law was ever given to enforce the keeping of it, hence it is no transgression to work upon it. 'For where no law is, there is no transgression.' Romans 4:15; (1 John 3:4.)

17. The New Testament nowhere forbids work to be done on it.

18. No penalty is provided for its violation.

19. No blessing is promised for its observance.

20. No regulation is given as to how it ought to be observed. Would this be so if the Lord wished us to keep it?

21. It is never called the Christian Sabbath.

22. It is never called the Sabbath day at all.

23. It is never called the Lord's day.

24. It is never called even a rest day.

25. No sacred title whatever is applied to it. Then why should we call it holy?

26. It is simply called the 'first day of the week.'

27. Jesus never mentioned it in any way, never took its name upon His lips, so far as the record shows.

28. The word Sunday never occurs in the Bible at all.

29. Neither God, Christ, nor inspired men, ever said one word in favor of Sunday as a holy day.

30. The first day of the week is mentioned only eight times in all the New Testament. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2.

31. Six of these texts refer to the same first day of the week.

32. Paul directed the saints to look over their secular affairs on that day. 1 Corinthians 16:2.

33. In all the New Testament we have a record of only one religious meeting held upon that day, and even this was a night meeting. Acts 20:5-12.

34. There is not an intimation that they ever held a meeting upon it before or after that.

35. It was not their custom to meet on that day.

36. There was no requirement to break bread on that day.

37. We have an account of only one instance in which it was done. Acts 20:7.

38. That was done in the night after midnight. Verses 7-11. Jesus celebrated it on Thursday evening (Luke 22), and the disciples sometimes did it every day. Acts 2:42-46.

39. The Bible nowhere says that the first day of the week commemorates the resurrection of Christ. This is a tradition of men, which makes void the law of God. Matthew 15:1-9. Baptism commemorates the burial and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:3-5.

40. Finally, the New Testament is totally silent with regard to any change of the Sabbath day or any sacredness for the first day.

Here are 100 plain Bible facts upon this question, showing conclusively that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord in both the Old and New Testament.