Observance Of Sunday In The First Centuries: The Complete Testimony Of The Early Fathers Paperback – December 15, 2008

THiS 31-word title refers to so many notions and concepts that, in order to make sense of the title, we must first make sense of the individual notions and concepts, namely, a) Who are the Early Fathers? When have they lived? And what constitutes their complete testimony? b) Where do we find the notion of `universal Sunday observance' in the Bible? c) What period is covered by the first centuries? d) What is meant by `historical evidence'? Does it include Scriptural evidence, i.e., evidence exclusively found in the OT-NT Bible? e) What day does the Lord's day refer to in the Bible? What is the biblical justification for it? And f) What period is covered by the `time of the Apostles'?This is a tall order, indeed, which may, or may not, be answered in Canright' 45-page booklet. From here on forward, I have structured my review of Canright's booklet around its 31-word long title.A). The complete testimony of the Early Fathers (Who are the Early Fathers?). In his booklet, Canright lists some twenty-three (n=23) church fathers, all from the second, third, and/or fourth century AD, 1. Pliny's letter (AD 107); 2. Barnabas (AD 120); 3. The teaching of the Apostles (AD 125); 4. Justin Martyr (AD 140); 5. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in Greece (AD 170); 6. Bartizans of Edessa, Syria (AD 180); 7. Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (AD 194); 8. Tertullian of Africa (AD 200); 9. Origen (AD 225); 10. The Apostolic constitutions (AD 250); 11. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (AD 253); 12. Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, Asia (AD 270); 13. Victorinus, bishop of Petau (AD 300); 14. Peter, bishop of Alexandria (AD 306); 15. Eusebius (AD 324); 16. Testimony to the Council of Nice (AD 325); 17. Anastasias (AD 326); 18. Justin martyr (AD 140); 19. Irenaeus (AD 178); 20. Tertullian (AD 200); 21. Eusebius (AD 324); 22. The Council of Laodicea (AD 364); 23. Saint Augustine (AD 395).B). [proving] the universal observance of Sunday (Where do we find the notion of `universal Sunday observance' in the Bible?). The 2nd to 4th century church fathers listed (above, under A) hardly qualify to give a testimony about the `universal observance of Sunday in the first century AD.'C). in the first centuries (What period is covered by the first centuries?) The concept of `first centuries' typically include, a) the 1st century: 1 AD -- 100 AD (there was no year "0"); b) the 2nd century: 101 AD -- 200 AD; c) the 3rd century: 201 AD -- 300 AD; d) the 4th century: 301 AD -- 400 AD; e) 5th century: 401 AD -- 500 AD; and f) the 6th century: 501 AD -- 600 AD, among others. Incidentally, despite its title, Canright does NOT include evidence for the first century (1 AD -- 100 AD). Indeed, Canright writes, "We will now present historical [i.e., NOT Biblical] evidence, proving that the observance of the first day of the week, as a day of worship, was universal among christens in the days immediately following the apostles [...]. We will begin soon after the close of the New Testament" (pp. 11, first paragraph). Obviously, Canright is NOT honest: a) in the title, Canright leads the innocent and unsuspecting reader to believe that "there was a universal Sunday observance in the FiRST century [1 AD--100 AD], and then proceeds to restrict the evidence to the time beginning with the second century (pp. i [preface], 11, first paragraph). This is well-known as a `bait-and-switch' tactic, to which a respectable scholar would never stoop.D). Historical evidence that... (What is meant by historical evidence? Does it included Scriptural evidence, i.e., evidence exclusively found in the OT-NT Bible?). As the 2nd to 4th century church fathers listed (above, under A) may be able to give historical evidence, they do not qualify to provide Scriptural evidence for when the Lord's day was observed in the first century, if ever.E). our Lord's day was observed (What day does the Lord's day refer to? What is the biblical justification for it referring to Sunday, if any?). In his preface, Canright writes, "the Scripture evidence for the Lord's Day is only briefly touched [See below] here as this is given fully in my book, "Seventh-day Adventism renounced," noted on the cover (pp. i). as far as I can tell, the only passage dealing with the Lord's Day is found on page 10, where Canright writes, "The character and good influence of the Lord's Day are no longer open questions. They have been settled by the consensus of the ages in their influence on the individual, on the Church, on the community, and on the nation" (pp. 10, last paragraph).F). from the time of the Apostles (What period is covered by the time of the Apostles?). In his preface, Canright writes, Sunday was observed by all Christians immediately following the close of the New Testament" (pp. i). The close of the New Testament does NOT include the "time of the Apostles" covered in the New Testament, especially the book of Acts. To the very end, Paul the apostle claims to have lived as a Pharisee, "They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee" [Acts 26:5]; "Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee" [Phil. 3:5]. If Paul lived as a Pharisee, there is no doubt that he did NOT worship on any other day but the seventh day Sabbath, and certainly NOT on Sunday. Even the Pharisees are quick to exonerate Paul of any wrong doing, "Then a great clamor arose; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended, "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?" [Acts 23:9]. If Paul had worshipped on Sunday, as Canright claims he had, then the Pharisees would have been quick to jump on his back for break the Jewish law. If the Bible is to believed, no such thing ever happened, proving Canright ABSOLUTELY wrong! All his life, St Paul remains a zealous Sabbath-keeping Jew & Pharisee who does nothing WRONG against the customs of the Fathers. On December 24, 2011 (i.e., on Christmas eve), my colleague Frank [the first reviewer for Canright's 'other' book,  Morality of the Sabbath, The ] is asking a very pertinent question: "Is the Sabbath still binding?" My response is, "Yes, of course, it is!" My rather short reason for my positive answer is simply this, "To the end of his life and ministry (Acts 13:1--28:31), Paul the Apostle remained a Sabbath-keeping Jew (i.e., Messianic Jew] and a Sabbath-keeping Christian. Several statements attest to this reality:* "But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial" [Acts 23:6].* Then a great clamor arose; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended, "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?" [Acts 23:9].* "They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee" [Acts 26:5].* "Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee" [Phil. 3:5]. Paul's very own statements made in self-defense after he was arrested confirm this rather unsettling reality for many Evangelical believers. I let Paul speak for himself, rather than other people who, no matter how well-intentioned, may be tempted to put words in Paul's mouth, and ever so subtly change the ultimate meaning of Paul's words, and thus his theology and ecclesiology. To that effect, Paul says,A) "To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass" (Acts 26:22).B) "After three days [Paul] called together the local leaders of the Jews; and when they had gathered, [Paul] said to them [FYi: THESE WERE THE ORTHODOX JEWS, NOT THE MESSIAH-BELIEVING JEWS], "Brethren, though I had done nothing [WRONG] against the people or the customs of our fathers [AND THIS INCLUDES THE BREAKING OF THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH], yet I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans" (Acts 28:17].C) Earlier, during the trial in Caesarea, Paul was absolved of any and all wrong doing by the Roman magistrates, as Luke ever so faithfully records, "and when they [King Agrippa, Festus the Governor, and Bernice et al] had withdrawn, they said to one another, "This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment [AND THIS, IN THE EYES OF THE JEWS ACCUSERS, CERTAINLY WOULD INCLUDE THE BREAKING OF THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH]"(Acts 26:31). Frank's question about Canright's book  Morality of the Sabbath, The is, "Is the Sabbath still binding?" Referring to Paul's own words in the book of Acts, I can say with the greatest confidence, "Yes, it was for Paul until the end of his earthly life and ministry." If keeping the seventh day sabbath is good enough for Paul (see 26:22, 28:17) as it was for Jesus' disciples after the crucifixion of Jesus (Luke 23:56//Exo. 20:8-11), then keeping the seventh day sabbath is good enough for me and my family. "And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD [on the seventh day Sabbath]" (See Josh. 24:15c].At one point, Canright writes, "I was keeping the seventh day sabbath for 28 years" {Canright, 1916 + 2008 #1789: Sunday observance, pp. 1, 1st line}. His first book "The morality of the Sabbath" came out in 1875 (1916 = 41 years earlier that Canright's passionate Sunday book). Obviously in 1875 and the years leading up to it, and a few years following 1875, DM Canright must have observed the seventh day sabbath, He joined the SDA church in 1859, and quit after 22 years (1891) {Wikipedia, 1875 #1795: Canright 1840-1919}. It is not clear in which year Canright began to see the light, or the error about, sabbath-keeping, probably around 1890. His first book was published during his sabbatarian days (1859-1891). For the next 25 years (1891--1926), he could busy himself with finding post-Biblical justification(s) for Sunday keeping and for the Lord's day. A truly amazing career in ecclesiology and Sabbath/Lord's theology.His 1916 preface is signed "Rev. D.M. Canright, Pastor Emeritus of the Berean Baptist Church, in Grand rapids, Mich." I always considered "Bereans' as model Bible students, which, apparently, Pastor Canright was NOT. According to Dr. Luke, "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. [11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. [12] Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17: 10-12). Had Pastor Canright studied the book of Acts as the Bereans had in Paul's day (Acts 17:11), he would have discovered that Paul remained a Pharisee all his life, and to the end of his life, Paul observed the seventh day Sabbath, contrary to what Pastor Canright tries, in vain, to demonstrate in his little booklet.///////////////////////////////////////////////= END OF MY REVIEW =NOTE: Should you have any questions and/or comments about my review, I can be reached via email at {jpheldt123[at]yahoo[dot]com}.

I believe this to be a very good source of information. Too many times people who observe the Sabbath buy into anything to support their view. Many have bought into such ideas. I do observe the Sabbath and am a retired Seventh Day Baptist pastor. It does not shake my belief because it is not based on such false information. Truth matters and this is good research.

I thought I had read it all when it comes to the Saturday Sabbatarian arguments versus the Sunday Sabbatarian arguments, but this book did bring out a couple "aha" moments. I highly recommend it for those who have been taught that the early church did not observe Sunday as a holy day. Time to put Seventh-day Adventist misinformation to rest forever. The earliest church did indeed observe Sunday as the Lord's Day, time to be honest with history. Canright did a good job.

I bought this book among others to see if there was some supporting evidence to help defend the worship of Sunday rather than Saturday. I did not find much to convince me (I already have freedom from either way) but for those who would question, this would not seem to prove their point.

This is the best book I have found which addresses the change from Saturday to Sunday as a day of worship. Contrary to Ellen G. White's unsubstantiated accusations that the pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday (she never tells when or which pope), the author explains in detail that Sunday was observed by the apostles many years before the time of Constantine. The author also explains why the pope did not and COULD NOT a brought about that change.