Saturday, March 31, 2007
Europe to Take Out Iran for Jerusalem
God Save Us From Islam and Europe!
Ehud Olmert Playing with German Fire
Death to the American, British & Jewish Peoples?
EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews
It looks increasingly probable that Kosovo will gain its independence from Serbia, an outcome that should be of serious concern to Israel and its supporters. Ariel Sharon, to his credit, heard the alarm bells during the American bombing of Serbia in 1999, when he warned American Jewish leaders: "If Israel supports the type of action that's going on in Kosovo, it risks becoming the next victim. Brutal intervention must not be legitimized as a way to try to impose a solution in regional conflicts." And, it is no coincidence, as journalist Julia Gorin reminds us, that during the bombing of Serbia on behalf of Moslem Albanians in 1999 Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Sultan, commander of the allied Saudi troops during the first Gulf War, called on the US to do the same against Israel on behalf of Palestinians.
The fate of Jews and Serbs, which has intersected in the past, is doing so again. The jihadist effort to expunge Jews from Palestine mirrors the Moslem goal of incorporating Kosovo into a “greater Moslem Albania” while expelling Christian Serbs.
When Serbia became independent of Byzantine rule in the 12th century, its economic, cultural, social and religious institutions were among the most advanced in Europe. Serbia functioned as a bridge between Greco-Byzantine civilization and the developing Western Renaissance. The center of the Serbian Orthodox Church was in Kosovo where churches, monasteries and monastic communities were established. A form of census in 1330, the “Decani Charter,” detailed the list of chartered villages and households, of which only two percent were Albanian.
The Ottomans invaded Serbia in 1389 and consolidated their rule in 1459, propelling major parts of the Balkan peninsula and adjacent southeast Europe into a Koran-dictated Dark Ages. While a significant proportion of Serbian and Croatian nobility converted to Islam to escape the harsh conditions imposed on non-Moslems, most Serbian peasants clung to their Christian faith. Historian G. Richard Jansen reports: “Serbs and Jews became dhimmis subject to the dhimma or protection offered to Christians and Jews in newly Islamized lands in exchange for their lives.
Similarly Bat Ye’or, in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide writes: “For the Orthodox Serbs… this same period [the centuries of Moslem rule] is considered one of massacre, pillage, slavery, deportation, and the exile of Christian populations. In their eyes it was a regime which found its justification in the usurpation of their land and denial of their rights....In their wars of emancipation-and, later, of liberation—the Orthodox Serbs found that their bitterest adversaries were their Muslim compatriots attached to their religious privileges and their domination over the humiliated Christians.”
In spite of forced migrations and oppression, like their Jewish counterparts, and unlike other Balkan nations, Serbs maintained their cultural and religious ties to their faith and shrines in Kosovo which, reinforcing the parallel, they called their Jerusalem. It was the Serbs who first mounted, in 1804 and 1813, insurgencies which spread through the region, culminating in the 1912 Balkan War which essentially eliminated the Ottomans from the Balkans.
Early in the twentieth century Serbian Christians were roughly two-thirds of the population of Kosovo, Moslem Albanians one-third. During World War I (triggered by the assassination in Serbia of the Austrian arch-duke) Serbs held off the Austrians for more than a year, before they were overwhelmed. Almost 800,000 Serbs perished, a fourth of the population. With full Serb support, the peace treaties of 1919-1920 established a state with the name "The Kingdom of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs." The awkward name was shortly changed to Yugoslavia with Kosovo an integral part of Serbia. At roughly the same time, the Balfour Declaration promised the Jews a restored homeland in Palestine which included what became the present day kingdom of Jordan.
From then on Kosovo’s population underwent sharp population shifts. During World War II, when Yugoslav Serbs refused to join a Nazi “community of nations,” an angry Hitler ordered the destruction of Yugoslavia. Following the Yugoslav army’s capitulation in 1941, Serbia was divided by the Nazis between the Italians and the Bulgarians, who encouraged armed gangs of pro-Nazi ethnic Albanians to attack the Serbs and to torch, destroy and desecrate ancient churches and shrines. The Moslem Albanians, who surprised their mentors with their barbarity and zeal for atrocities, were rewarded when parts of Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia were annexed to “Greater Albania.”
In 1943 the Nazis formed the 21st SS "Skanderbeg" division of Moslem Albanian volunteers to perform an “ethnic cleansing” (of Jews and Serbs) in Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of Serbs were sent to a Croatian death camp and as noted by Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) Skanderbeg played a major role in the Holocaust, rounding up Jews who were subsequently sent to Bergen-Belsen and various death camps. A Kosovar Moslem, Bedri Pejani, was appointed by the Nazis to rule occupied Kosovo. He promptly announced a plan to create a Great Islamic State in the region with the blessings of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini. The Grand Mufti, who had led a jihad in Palestine, escaped capture by fleeing to German-occupied Europe where, from Sarajevo he urged the Nazis not to flag in their destruction of the Jews. Needless to say the Serbian Christian population dwindled under this onslaught and the proportion of Albanian Moslems surged. By the end of World War II, Yugoslav deaths totaled more than a million, roughly half of them Serbs.
Although the province was restored to Yugoslavia after the war, the population balance in Kosovo did not shift in favor of Serbia. Tito, aiming for leadership of a wider Balkan alliance, did not allow Serbs who fled from their homes during the war to return. He did not enforce border controls and many thousands of Albanians infiltrated through the porous borders. (Like the Moslems in areas adjacent to Palestine in the interwar years, they were attracted by the superior economic conditions.) Seeking to pacify the restive Moslems, in 1974 Tito offered the province political, cultural, economic and juridical “autonomy,” along with large subsidies for agricultural and other projects, which merely had the effect of prompting a further influx of Moslems from across the border. For example, a new university was established in Pristina, with faculty from the University of Belgrade commuting by air.
All this did not pacify the restive Moslems who as early as 1960 demanded independence for Kosovo. There were intermittent riots which escalated and an emergent Kosovo Liberation Army gave as its stated goal “an ethnic greater Albania” to include portions of Macedonia and Montenegro, parts of southern Serbia and an “ethnically pure” (read Moslem-only) Kosovo.
In 1979 Menachem Begin, hectored by Jimmy Carter whose predilection for the Arab cause is well known, also offered the rioting Arabs of Judea and Samaria “autonomy” with the same disastrous results. As Henry Kissinger has noted, “autonomy” is a euphemism for independence.
Initially, the media reported the situation in Kosovo fairly. For example, in July 1982 The New York Times noted: "Serbs have been harassed by Albanians and have packed up and left the region. The Albanian nationalists have a two-point platform, first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then to merge with Albania for a greater Albania. Some 57,000 Serbs have left Kosovo in the last decade.” Five years later, in 1987, the Times was still reporting the persecution of Serbs within Kosovo. "Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, wells poisoned, crops burned, Slavic boys knifed. Young Albanians have been told to rape Serbian girls…. Officials in Belgrade view the ethnic Albanian challenge as imperiling the foundations of the multinational experiment called federal Yugoslavia….Ethnic Albanians already control almost every phase of life in the autonomous province of Kosovo, including the police, judiciary, civil service, schools, and factories."
Milosevic rose to power with the promise of reversing this intolerable situation, restoring peace and Yugoslav control in Kosovo. But now international perception of the crisis turned against Serbia as Milosevic abolished the “autonomy” of Kosovo in 1989. There were arrests and house searches of Kosovar Albanians. And then the media went into a frenzy of accusations against the Serbs, much as it has against Israel and with similar distortions. The media depicted the armed, violent and jihadist Moslem Albanians as “unarmed civilians” despite the fact they called themselves an army and perpetrated assaults, bombings, murder of civilians and targeted assassinations of Albanians loyal to Serbia. President Clinton outrageously referred to a “holocaust” perpetrated by Serbia and compared the Moslems of Kosovo to the Jews—this, even though the Serbs had behaved well toward the Jews during the real Holocaust and Clinton himself was pressing Israel’s Jews to accept the “peace partnership” of Arafat, a brutal terrorist far worse than Milosevic, admittedly a dictator and a Communist thug.
The right was as vehement as the left in demanding action. In September 1998 such luminaries of the right as John Bolton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz joined such far leftists as Morton Halperin in a petition to President Clinton demanding that he not only stop “the carnage in Kosovo” but use “massive Western pressure” to obtain “a new political status for Kosovo.”
In March of 1999, the United States drew up a document, the “Rambouillet Agreement” which was, as Madeleine Albright boasted later, an absolute ultimatum to Serbia. It was a demand for Serbia to withdraw from Kosovo in favor of a NATO occupying force, something that no sovereign nation could or should accept. Incredibly, as The New York Times of April 8, 1999 reported, Milosevic accepted the entire package with the exception of NATO occupation of Yugoslavia itself. He wanted the troops to be under UN command. Dan Goure, then Deputy Director of the Center for Security and International Studies and a Pentagon official under the first President Bush said, "Rambouillet was not a negotiation, it was a setup, a lynch party." All this was in direct contravention of previously stated U.S. policy which declared that no national minority had the right to form a new state on other state territories…a policy which still guides the U.S. government in respect to recognizing Taiwan’s independence.
An interesting provision of the so-called “negotiations” demanded that the Serb army and police forces withdraw and a new Kosovar police force be formed to include members of the Kosovo Liberation Party, which was supposed to disarm. Sound familiar?
What happened subsequently is better known. In 1999 in concert with NATO, the Clinton administration commenced a 78 day bombing of Serbia. This action met with almost no objection in the West, hailed not only by liberal politicians and the media but by Margaret Thatcher, The Wall Street Journal and assorted conservative pundits and politicians.
To sum up: the demand for Kosovo's independence led to KLA terrorism which led to repression and expulsion of Albanians by Serbian military and police, which led to the assault by the United States and NATO. While the brutality of the Milosevic regime was indeed a complicating factor, he is long gone, but the KLA continues its assault on Serbs, on their churches, priests, homes, even on civilians sitting in cafes, this under the nose of the U.S. and UN troops which have now occupied Kosovo for eight years. Never mind that the State Department in 1998 listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating (as Interpol’s assistant director for Criminal Intelligence Ralph Mutschke reminded Congress in December 2000) “that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden.”
Media and politicians alike, vastly indignant over Milosevic’s behavior, turn a blind eye. Speaking of Kosovo’s major city Pristina, where 40,000 Serbs lived before the UN took over (and where only 100 live now) Senator Joseph Biden, presidential aspirant and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared proudly that Kosovo was a “victory for Moslem democracy” and “Pristina is one of the rare Moslem cities in the world where the U.S. is not only respected but adored.” (Indeed there is a street named for Madeleine Albright, who played an especially scurvy role in ramping up pressure against the Serbs). Similarly the media takes notice of Kosovo only to berate the Serbs for failing to acquiesce speedily and gracefully to the loss of their “Jerusalem.”
Western leaders are blind to the danger to themselves in the principle they are establishing, namely that recent illegal immigrants from another state have the right to declare independence over territory long recognized as part of a different sovereign state whose inhabitants they have ruthlessly forced to flee.
The United States, the EU and the vast majority of UN member states, now pushing strongly to establish Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, are also establishing a terrible precedent in flouting the very international law under which the UN’s occupation of Kosovo rests. UN Security Council Resolution 1244, drafted to end the NATO bombing, specifically reaffirmed that Kosovo belongs to Serbia. Detaching Kosovo from Serbia against Serbia’s will is to violate the UN Charter. Serbian President Vojislav Kostunica reports that “when we mention the need for legality, some of these officials [UN, EU, U.S.] become exasperated, even agitated. They respond with various comments to the effect that we should not be bound by ’mere’ legality.” (The UN’s ambassador to the “negotiations” with President Kostunica is former Finnish president Martii Ahtisaari, a close associate of George Soros and the openly pro-Albanian Soros-funded International Crisis Group.)
Finally, there is an additional peril for the West here. The “two state solution” which aims to strip Israel of its ancient Jewish heartland, and the demand for Serbia to surrender Kosovo, the locus of its Serbian Orthodox faith, both advance the cause of resurgent Islam and worldwide jihad. To quote Bat Ye’or again: “In 1991, before the conflict erupted, the English edition of [Moslem Bosnian President] Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration (1970) specifically stated: ‘There can be neither peace nor coexistence between Arabia, the cradle of Islam and non-Islamic social and political institutions.’" And he concluded: “The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one.”
In Congressional testimony, our intelligence agencies have now disclosed that there are 16 terror training camps and arms depots in Kosovo. Julia Gorin warns: “Even conservatives, who support the war on terror and the war in Iraq, have a blind spot and an apathy when it comes to the Balkans, as well as to the fact that a lot of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere are connected to the Balkans.” Gorin notes wryly that when America needs to burnish its credentials among Moslems, it gloats about intervention on behalf of Moslems in Bosnia and Kosovo – and, of course, demands a solution to the “Palestine” problem. While Israel is not threatened with bombing by US/NATO forces, economic sanctions and threats will be enough to squeeze Israel into surrender.
Statesmen, commentators and pundits who urge solutions and negotiations both in Serbia and "Palestine" brush all historical claims off the table. They simply ignore the geographical facts of the Palestine Mandate where the Hashemites obtained over 82% of the land assigned as the Jewish National Home. They ignore the ancient and religious ties of the Jewish people to Palestine. They ignore the migrations of Arabs to Jewish towns in what Mark Twain called "The Wasteland". They ignore the strategic danger of a jihadist state in Palestine. With respect to Serbia, the “solution groupies” show the same disregard for historical and religious ties and sovereignty; the same indifference to the enforced migrations and immigrations which created an ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo; and the same blindness to the dangers of a jihadist “greater Albania” anxious to incorporate Kosovo into a Balkan caliphate.
And so Kosovo may become independent. Welcome to a new Moslem jihadist state, which will no doubt eagerly await the exchange of ambassadors with a jihadist Moslem state in Judea and Samaria.
Kosovo and Jerusalem
U.S. Selective War on Terrorism to Backfire
The Rising Beast—Germany’s Conquest of the Balkans
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
By David Ben-Ariel
"Born German, Made American" by Nicholas Kumanoff in The Atlantic Times, reveals how "to prove their patriotism, immigrants abandoned their old identities." Following "a virulent anti-German sentiment" that spread to several states, German language classes in school were banned, German books burned in the streets, frankfurters became hot dogs and sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage."
Anyone with a German name was suspect and subject to harassment. The American Defense Society announced that a German-American, "unless known by years of association to be absolutely loyal, should be treated as a potential spy."
This reminds me of how when I was 18 I told my Grandma Vivian Hoover I was going to the German-American Festival. I was visiting Grandpa and Grandma (Arthur and Vivian Hoover) on our farm in Risingsun, Ohio. She said, "Why are you going? You're not German." I said our name was German (even though it's been Anglicized). She snapped, "You're English. Your grandfather has a parent of pure English heritage" and something to the effect that her family also had such English ties (and we're clearly traced to England and Ireland, as well as Scotland on my mother's side). I replied that you didn't have to be German to attend the German-American Festival anyway.
My Grandfather Arthur Hoover's mother, Hattie Mervin, was born in England. My great-great grandfather, John Mervin, came to the United States a year before his wife and children rejoined him (after being shipwrecked three times en route).
I brought this incident up to my great Aunt, Neva Scoviac, Grandma Hoover's sister, during a visit to her home in Hudson, Michigan several years ago (Grandma died in 1980) and she said we're German. Grandma and Aunt Neva's maiden name is Ort - Pennsylvania Dutch - German. (I vaguely remember Grandma saying something about the Pennsylvania Dutch a long time ago, but then I thought it just meant Dutch - not Deutsche).
Aunt Neva served as a nurse during WWII and her brothers, my great uncles, served in the Philippines. Aunt Neva said after the war, especially when "we heard all the horrible stories" about what went on during the war, the Holocaust, you didn't want to be known as German or associated with Germany. She feels that's why Grandma was so adamant that we are English.
As one who believes in the Israelite origins of the West, the Hebrew roots of the Anglo-Saxons and white peoples of Northwestern Europe, I can see the hand of God in this disassociation from Gentile Germany. I can perceive Divine Providence playing its prophetic part in having sifted the Israelite tribes, specifically Manasseh the son of Joseph, through Germany and separating us from those who truly are Assyrian-Germans, literally distancing us from those Germans who remained behind, bringing us into this Promised Land of the United States, taking on a new identity, an American one, actually restoring our identity as Manasseh with our brethren - the "Lost Ten Tribes" - who emigrated from other countries where they had sojourned, through great works as The United States and Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong.
May God bless the United States of America, the biblical inheritance of the Tribe of Manasseh. And may God bless Germany to work with us (not against us) as they lead the European Union.
David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall. With a focus on the Middle East and Jerusalem, his analytical articles help others improve their understanding of that troubled region. Check out the Beyond Babylon blog.
Grandma Vivian Hoover in Risingsun, Ohio
(click on photo to enlarge)
John Mervin: Risingsun, Ohio Pioneer
Friday, March 30, 2007
Web Site Updates - March 2007
Number of articles and other study materials requested: 1,546,810
New Answers to Bible Questions
What does the word Easter mean in the book of Acts 12:4?
When did Jesus KNOW he was God (Son of God)? Did he ever doubt his own identity?
What is Communion? When should it be taken?
Must unleavened bread be eaten during the Holy Days called Days of Unleavened Bread?
Are wedding rings a Biblical tradition? What do they symbolize?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
"Acceptance of Easter over Passover did not come without resistance. Two religious leaders of the mid-second century—Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; and Anicetus, bishop of Rome—debated this very point.
Anicetus argued for Easter while Polycarp, stated Encyclopaedia Britannica, defended observing "the Christian Passover, on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar, regardless of the day of the week" (15th edition, Micropaedia, Vol. VIII, p. 94, "Polycarp").
Polycarp taught observance of the Passover as the early Church had observed it. Eusebius said Polycarp did so because this was the way "he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated" (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 1995, pp. 210-211). These Christians of the second century were still following the example of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6) in observing the Passover.
Several decades later another leader, Polycrates, argued with Victor, bishop of Rome, over the same issue. Eusebius wrote of the continuing debate:
"There was a considerable discussion raised about this time, in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the paschal [Passover] season. The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ...
"The bishops ... of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome. 'We,' said he, 'therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints ...
"Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; ... also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr. Thraseas, ... Sagaris, ... Papirius; and Melito ... All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For there were seven, my relatives [who were] bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the day when the people (i.e., the Jews) threw away the leaven.
"I, therefore, brethren, am now sixty-five years in the Lord, who having conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having studied the whole of the sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those things with which I am threatened, to intimidate me. For they who are greater than I, have said, 'we ought to obey God rather than men'" (Eusebius, pp. 207-209)."
Easter: Masking a Biblical Truth
Latest Edition! Winter 5767/2007
[PDF] You can download an Adobe Acrobat Reader for free here
We are so glad to send you our 2006/2007 Winter Edition magazine. You will find here a lot of information about the activities of the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement and the progress of her work for the rebuilding of the Temple of G-d on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem and to renew the worship on the Holy Temple Mount where G-d chose to dwell among His people Israel and all mankind, His creation. We feel and know the time is short and despite the very critical situation in Israel and all the world the day that the House of G-d will again stand on Mount Moriah is behind the door. So much depends on what we shall do to make this great day a reality in our lifetime. G-d is ready and we can hear His calling to His people Israel on the mountains and valleys of Jerusalem not to wait more but to move, to build His house and to become a biblical nation with a biblical mission: "To be a holy nation, a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations" (Exodus 19: 5-6).
The Temple Mount Faithful Movement answered this call of G-d from the first moment that we heard it 40 years ago when the G-d of Israel led His Israeli soldiers to liberate His Holy Temple Mount and to immediately rebuild His Temple. For forty years the Temple Mount Faithful Movement has acted, struggled and fought in Jerusalem, and all over Israel and the world to educate everyone about the urgent need to answer this call of G-d in the life of our generation as He is expecting from us to do so. We swore not to rest day and night until the Holy Hill of G-d is purified from foreign Arab Islamic pagan presence and the godly end-time vision of Isaiah is fulfilled in our lifetime. This is the right time for this prophesy to be fulfilled . . . more
Vol. X, Number 2
The TRUTH About SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
by Raymond F. McNair
Here are the AMAZING facts about how the world's churches attempt to justify "Sunday observance" -- how they have forsaken God's Sabbath! It is written by the Evangelist in charge of God's churches in Britain.
ONE of the most difficult things for one to do is to ADMIT IT when shown to be wrong! THE most difficult thing for one to do, is to CHANGE when proven wrong!
The Test Commandment
God has made the fourth command a TEST command. Obedience to it is the ONE great distinguishing sign separating true Christians from heretics.
Here, published in the Good News for the first time, are the candid admissions of Protestant and Catholic clergymen. These confessions bring to light the doubts and frank admissions of the clergy regarding their utter LACK OF BIBLE AUTHORITY FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY.
Most Christians profess that one must OBEY God. But they do not agree as to just what constitutes OBEDIENCE to God. Yet Jesus explained exactly what obedience means.
Jesus Christ SPECIFICALLY SAID that He didn't come to ABOLISH or destroy the law or the prophets -- He came to fulfill, that is, to do to the fullest, to "fill full." He told the rich young ruler: "If thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS" (Matt. 19:16-19). The verses following show that He referred to the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
The New Testament plainly shows that we are still to keep the Ten Commandments. Where, then, do men get the authority to change the FOURTH COMMANDMENT by substituting Sunday in the place of the original Sabbath which Christ and the Apostles kept?
The answer to this question will astound you!
How MEN Thought to Change God's Sabbath
Here are the theologians confessions. You will be amazed!
What was the first law made to enforce Sunday?
"Chamber's Encyclopedia," 1882 ed., Vol. VIII, p. 401, art: "Sabbath," declares: "By none of the Fathers before the FOURTH CENTURY is it [the first day] identified with the Sabbath; nor is the duty of observing it grounded by them either on the FOURTH COMMANDMENT or on the precept or example of Christ or His apostles. UNQUESTIONABLY THE FIRST LAW, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day [Sunday] is known to have been ordained, is THE EDICT OF CONSTANTINE, 321 A.D., of which the following is a translation: 'Let all judges, inhabitants of the cities, and artificers, REST ON THE VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN. But in the country, husbandmen may freely and lawfully apply to the business of agriculture; since it often happens that the sowing of corn and the planting of vines cannot be so advantageously performed on any other day.'"
Notice what the world-famous "Britannica" admits:
"The earliest recognition of the OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY AS A LEGAL DUTY," admits the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 11th ed., Vol. 26, p. 95, art. "Sunday," "IS A CONSTITUTION of Constantine in 321 A.D., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns and workshops were to be AT REST ON SUNDAY (venerabili die solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour."
THERE is the first law made to enforce Sunday!
Here is what the "Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," Vol. IV, pp. 2259-60, art. "Sunday" says: "SUNDAY (dies solis, of the Roman calendar, 'day of the sun', because dedicated to the sun), THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, was ADOPTED by the early Christians as a day of worship ... IT WAS CALLED THE 'LORD'S DAY' ... NO REGULATIONS FOR ITS OBSERVANCE ARE LAID DOWN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOR INDEED, IS ITS OBSERVANCE EVEN ENJOINED. In the second century its observance was universal ... The LORD'S DAY (Sunday) was not a continuation of the Jewish (or God's) SABBATH, WHICH WAS ALSO AT FIRST OBSERVED, but A SUBSTITUTE for it."
So it was not UNTIL THE SECOND CENTURY after Christ that Sunday observance became general, and it was not until 321 A.D. that it was enforced by State decree!
Most Catholics and Protestants would like to ASSUME that the Sabbath law was changed either by COMMAND or by EXAMPLE in the New Testament. But this is not true! You will not find one single verse authorizing such a change from Saturday to Sunday.
HOW Sunday Observance Began
If, then, the New Testament Scriptures do not explicitly abolish or change the FOURTH COMMANDMENT (as given in Exodus 20:8-11), then just WHEN and WHERE did the Christian-professing world begin to observe Sunday? When was Sunday substituted for the anciently observed Sabbath of Almighty God?
Yes, just who changed (or at least, CLAIMED TO CHANGE) the FOURTH COMMANDMENT? Who thought to change the Sabbath from Saturday (the seventh day) to Sunday (the first day)?
The answer is shockingly clear to those who aren't afraid of the TRUTH. History, as we have seen, reveals that it was the Emperor Constantine the Great, who made the first law which actually began to FORCE THE WORLD TO KEEP SUNDAY, and to break the Sabbath of God. And remember, Constantine was an unbaptized pagan sun-worshipper until the time of his death. On his death-bed he supposedly "embraced the Catholic faith," and received the pagan rite of "pouring" -- often (but erroneously) called "baptism"!
But HOW DID CHRISTIAN-PROFESSING CHURCHES OF THIS WORLD COME TO ADOPT SUNDAY as their Sabbath instead of the Sabbath of God?
Satan, the Devil, the Great Deceiver, has DECEIVED THIS WHOLE WORLD (Rev. 12:9). This was quite easy for him to do for, "The HEART IS DECEITFUL above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9). The Devil, then, has played upon the deceptive heart-strings of HUMAN NATURE in order to trick mankind into ACCEPTING A COUNTERFEIT DAY in the place of the Holy Sabbath of God.
Here, then, is HOW the CHRISTIAN-PROFESSING churches of this world came to observe Sunday. Admittedly, the Catholic Church existed before the Protestant churches. And it was the Catholic Church which bowed to Constantine's dictum to observe Sunday in the place of the Sabbath, and she later bequeathed this day to her protesting daughters. Just listen to the following compelling testimonies to THIS HISTORICALLY PROVEN FACT!
First, let us go to the Catholic Church to see what she has to say on this subject: In the August 26, 1900, issue of the "Catholic Press," of Sydney, Australia, we read: "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles ... From beginning to end of the Scriptures THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PASSAGE THAT WARRANTS THE TRANSFER OF WEEKLY PUBLIC WORSHIP FROM THE LAST DAY (SATURDAY) OF THE WEEK TO THE FIRST (SUNDAY)."
Here is an interesting comment from Cardinal Gibbon's book, "Faith of Our Fathers," 110th ed., p. 89: "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."
On September 23, 1893, Cardinal Gibbons also made this statement in the "Catholic Mirror:" "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 (Sunday) IS, therefore, to this day, THE ACKNOWLEDGED OFFSPRING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH as the spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world."
The Protestant Churches Follow Mother Rome
On page 15, Vol. IV of "Clifton Tracts" (a Catholic work) we read, "We Catholics, then have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy, instead of Saturday, as we have for every other article of our creed; namely, the authority of 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'; whereas, YOU WHO ARE PROTESTANTS HAVE REALLY NO AUTHORITY FOR IT WHATEVER; FOR THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR IT IN THE BIBLE, AND YOU WILL NOT ALLOW THAT THERE CAN BE AUTHORITY FOR IT ANYWHERE ELSE. BOTH YOU AND WE DO, IN FACT, FOLLOW TRADITION IN THIS MATTER; but we follow it, believing it to be part of God's Word, and the church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter; YOU (Protestants) FOLLOW IT, DENOUNCING IT (tradition) all the time as "fallible and treacherous guide, which often makes the commandment of God of none effect."
T. Enright, a Catholic Priest, while president of Redemptorist Fathers College made the following statement in 1893 in a lecture delivered at Des Moines, Iowa: ''THERE IS BUT ONE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHICH HAS THE POWER, OR CLAIMS POWER, TO MAKE LAWS BINDING ON THE CONSCIENCE, binding before God, binding under pain of hell fire. For instance, THE INSTITUTION OF SUNDAY.
What right has any other church to keep this day? You [Protestants] answer by virtue of the third [according to old editions of the Douay Bible] commandment, which says, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day!' But SUNDAY IS NOT THE SABBATH. Any school boy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I HAVE REPEATEDLY OFFERED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANYONE WHO WILL PROVE BY THE BIBLE alone that SUNDAY IS THE DAY, WE ARE BOUND TO KEEP, and no one has called for the money. IT WAS THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT CHANGED THE DAY OF REST FROM SATURDAY, the SEVENTH DAY, to SUNDAY, the first day of the week. WHICH CHURCH DOES THE WHOLE CIVILIZED WORLD OBEY? The Bible says: 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,' but the Catholic Church says, 'No, keep the first day of the week,' and ALL THE WORLD BOWS DOWN IN REVERENT OBEDIENCE TO THE MANDATES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."
And now I quote from the Catholic "Doctrinal Catechism," pages 101, 174, 351-355: "Question -- Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? Answer -- 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. Question -- When Protestants do profane work upon Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, DO THEY FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AS THE ONLY RULE OF THEIR 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 that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'"
More PROOF of the Protestant Dilemma
Waiter Drum, S. J., of Woodstock College, Maryland, challenges (on pp. 230-232 of "The Ecclesiastical Review," Feb., 1914, Vol. 50, No. 2): "The OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY thus comes to be AN ECCLESIASTICAL LAW entirely distinct from the divine law of the Sabbath observance. The prescriptions of Gen. 2:2, 3 in regard to the Sabbath have nothing whatever to do with the law of the church about SUNDAY, the Lord's day. Catholics should observe the law of the church, not by the Old Testament observances of the Sabbath, nor by the dictates of Protestants or of Jews, but by the prescription of the church herself. THE AUTHOR OF THE SUNDAY LAW is the only one who has a right to interpret that law; and THAT AUTHOR IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." And on page 236 he states, "THEY (the Protestants) DEEM IT THEIR DUTY TO KEEP THE SUNDAY HOLY. Why? -- BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TELLS THEM TO DO SO. THEY HAVE NO OTHER REASON."
Let me give you one more statement from the Catholics before turning to Protestant sources. I now quote from pages 3 and 4 of "The Library of Christian Doctrine," by Burns and Gates of London, art. 'Why Don't You Keep the Sabbath Day?':
"You [Protestants] 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."
The above testimony amply shows how the Catholics feel on this subject of who changed the Sabbath. They believe that the Catholic Church has power to make laws and to change the Word of God. But the Protestants are supposed to believe in no authority but the Bible.
Shameful Protestant Admissions
Next, let us see what the Protestants have to say, or admit, on this important subject.
"Some BAPTISTS are fond of demanding a 'Thus saith the Lord' for everything and profess to accept nothing for which explicit authority cannot be produced from the word of God. Probably not a reader [meaning a Baptist] of this paragraph would be willing to follow this principle to its legitimate conclusion. It would involve the immediate return to Sabbath worship, the abolition of Sunday schools." Quoted from the Baptist 'Examiner,' January 4, 1894.
Quite a candid admission!
The following confession, by Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of "The BAPTIST MANUAL," was made before a New York Ministers' Conference, Nov. 13th, 1893. "TO ME IT SEEMS UNACCOUNTABLE THAT JESUS, during three years intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false glosses, NEVER ALLUDED TO ANY TRANSFERENCE OF THE DAY; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. BUT WHAT A PITY THAT IT [Sunday] COMES BRANDED WITH THE MARK OF PAGANISM AND CHRISTENED WITH THE NAME OF THE SUN GOD, WHEN ADOPTED AND SANCTIONED BY THE PAPAL APOSTASY, AND BEQUEATHED AS A SACRED LEGACY TO PROTESTANTISM!"
In this same article, read before this Baptist Conference, he went on to say: "Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction (from seventh day to the first day) be found? NOT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, ABSOLUTELY NOT. THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH INSTITUTION FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK."
What an admission!
Now a quotation from the LUTHERAN CHURCH. "THE OBSERVANCE of the Lord's day (meaning Sunday) IS FOUNDED NOT ON ANY COMMAND OF GOD, but on the authority of the church," states the "Augsburg Confession," part 2, chapter 1, sec. 10. Also we discover the following statement in Article 28 of the "Augsburg Confession": "They [Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears; NEITHER IS THERE ANY EXAMPLE MORE BOASTED OF THAN THE CHANGING OF THE SABBATH DAY. GREAT, SAY THEY, IS THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE [Catholic] CHURCH SINCE IT DISPENSED WITH ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS."
Next, let us hear from a PRESBYTERIAN source, "The Christian at Work," April 19, 1883, and January, 1884. "SOME HAVE TRIED TO BUILD THE OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY UPON APOSTOLIC COMMAND, WHERE AS THE APOSTLES GAVE NO COMMAND ON THE MATTER AT ALL ... The truth is, as soon as we appeal to the LITERAL WRITING OF THE BIBLE, THE SABBATARIANS [Sabbath keepers] HAVE THE BEST OF THE ARGUMENT."
Continuing: "We hear less than we used to about the apostolic origin of the present Sunday observance, and for the reason that while the Sabbath and Sabbath rest are woven into the warp and woof of Scripture, IT IS NOW SEEN, AS IT IS ADMITTED, THAT WE MUST GO TO LATER THAN APOSTOLIC TIMES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE."
And what have the Methodists to offer? Notice!
From "A Theological Dictionary," by Mr. Charles Buck, a METHODIST Minister, art., "Sabbath," page 403: "Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is THE SEVENTH DAY of the week ... AND IT MUST BE CONFESSED THAT THERE IS NO LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCERNING THE FIRST DAY."
Alexander Campbell (of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH) made the following statement in the Washington (Pennsylvania), "Reporter," on October 8, 1821. "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE LORD'S DAY CAME IN THE ROOM OF THE JEWISH SABBATH, OR THAT THE SABBATH WAS CHANGED FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY, for this plain reason, that where THERE IS NO TESTIMONY, THERE CAN BE NO FAITH. NOW THERE IS NO TESTIMONY IN ALL THE ORACLES OF HEAVEN THAT THE SABBATH WAS CHANGED, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it ... There is no divine testimony that the Lord's day came in the room of it; therefore, THERE CAN BE NO DIVINE FAITH THAT THE SABBATH WAS CHANGED OR THAT THE LORD'S DAY CAME IN THE ROOM OF IT."
Protestants Admit They Follow Tradition Instead of Bible
The CHURCH OF ENGLAND (in one of its catechisms) makes the following statements, "AND WHERE ARE WE TOLD IN SCRIPTURE THAT WE ARE TO KEEP THE FIRST DAY AT ALL? WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE SEVENTH; BUT WE ARE NOWHERE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE FIRST DAY ... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church, has enjoined it." That is from "Plain Sermons on the Catechism," by Mr. Isaac Williams, D.D., Vol. I, pp. 334-36. London: Rivingtons, 1882.
That is quite an admission!
But now what does "The Christian Sabbath," by N. W. Rice, D.D., (PRESBYTERIAN) p. 60, have to say about the CHANGE of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day? Dr. Rice says: "There is no record, no express command, authorizing this change."
Dr. Lyman Abbott in Christian Union," Jan. 19, 1882, has to confess: "THE CURRENT NOTION THAT CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES AUTHORITATIVELY SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST DAY FOR THE SEVENTH, IS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT."
This CONGREGATIONALIST writer, Dr. Abbott, is quite frank in his admission and so is this statement from another "Congregationalist Minister," Mr. Grin Fowler, A.M. "There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath." -- "Mode and Subjects of Baptism:" by Mr. Orin Fowler.
William Prynne in his "Dissertation of the Lord's Day," pages 33, 34, 44 (1633) says, "THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH WAS ... SOLEMNIZED BY CHRIST, THE APOSTLES, AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS, till THE LAODICEAN COUNCIL DID IN A MANNER QUITE ABOLISH IT ... The Council of Laodicea (about 364 A.D.) ... first settled the observance of the Lord's day, and prohibited ... the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema."
"THE LORD'S DAY was merely an ecclesiastical institution. IT WAS NOT INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that (the fourth) commandment."
The renowned preacher, Henry Ward Beecher, made the following statement: "There is no direct command on the subject [of observing Sunday]. The only obligation resting upon us to observe Sunday is that which comes up through our nature." From "Bible Studies," p. 242, by Henry Ward Beecher.
Here is also a final admission: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday." From "The History of Christian Religion and Church," Neander, page 186, translated by Henry John Rose, D.D.
There are many more confessions which could be added to this list, both Catholic and Protestant. But the above list will suffice to prove that Sunday-observance was not instituted in the New Testament, but was instituted by Constantine the Great in 321 A.D., and enforced by the Catholic Church at the Council of Laodicea about 364 A.D.] -- and the Catholic Church bequeathed this pagan first day of the week, wrapped up in a Sunday wrapper, to the Protestant churches -- her daughters!
Sometimes an atheist or agnostic dares to put in plain words the real reason why he cannot accept the teachings of the churches. Did you know why Ingersoll was an agnostic? Here is one reason -- found in his book, "Some Mistakes of Moses", 1892, New York: C. P. Farrell, tenth ed., Chapter XIV, page 106. He says: "Since the establishment of the Christian religion, THE DAY (the Sabbath) HAS BEEN CHANGED, and CHRISTIANS DO NOT REGARD THE DAY AS HOLY UPON WHICH GOD ACTUALLY RESTED, and which He sanctified. THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH, or the LORD'S DAY was legally established by the murderer Constantine, because upon that day Christ was SUPPOSED to have risen from the dead. IT IS NOT EASY TO SEE WHERE CHRISTIANS GOT THE RIGHT TO DISREGARD THE DIRECT COMMAND OF GOD, TO LABOUR ON THE DAY HE SANCTIFIES, and keep as sacred, a day upon which He commanded men to labour. THE SABBATH OF GOD IS SATURDAY, AND IF ANY DAY IS TO BE KEPT HOLY, that is the one, AND NOT THE SUNDAY OF THE CHRISTIAN."
Do you now see WHY there are so many infidels? The veritable Babylon of hundreds of competitive religious bodies and conflicting teachings, has led many into rank atheism. If people would only accept and obey the plain teachings of the Bible, including Sabbath keeping, INFIDELITY WOULD VANISH FROM THE EARTH!
How grateful are we for the knowledge of this TRUTH?
PLEASE NOTE: THE BELOW CONFESSIONS ARE AN ADDENDUM AND ARE NOT PART OR PARCEL OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ABOVE.
Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions
The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about?
History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.
James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.
'But 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."
Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: 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."
John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.
"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."
Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p. 67.
"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Answer. 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.'
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.
"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday- for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!
"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."
Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."
Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927), p. 136.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975), Chicago, Illinois.
"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 man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to 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.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18, 1884.
"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."
Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath.
Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, vol. 1, pp. 334, 336.
"And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day .... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it."
Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments, pp. 52, 63, 65.
"There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday .... into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters .... The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday."
Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday.
We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church."
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers' conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner, Nov. 16, 1893.
"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week .... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not.
"To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.
"Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"
William Owen Carver, The Lord's Day in Our Day, p. 49.
"There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance."
Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton & Mains), p. 127-129.
" . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath - - . . 'Me Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday .... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."
Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.
" . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath."
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824, vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164.
"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.'
First Day Observance, pp. 17, 19.
"The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."
The Sunday Problem, a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.
"We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both."
Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.
"They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"
Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186.
"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."
John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp. 15, 16.
"But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect."
Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p. 26.
"Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day."
John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25, vol. 1, p. 221.
"But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken .... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other."
D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.
The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"
T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.
"The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue - the Ten Commandments. This
alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."