Adventist view on the Sabbath as the final test of loyalty

Will the Sabbath be a 'test of loyalty' in the end times? Well we have this:
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The Bible describes the mark of the beast in as a sign of allegiance to a power that usurps God’s authority, compelling worship through coercion or law. Those who receive this mark are said to face God’s wrath, while God’s faithful are sealed with His mark, symbolizing loyalty and protection. So what is in Gods Law that has been usurped?

History shows and we have seen, Sunday worship was never given by Christ, or His apostles or Gods Word. So how will this be a choice for Christians at the end, which will give them the Mark of the Beast versus what is a mark or seal of the Creator God. Soon every person on earth will have aligned with either evil or good, and it is described in the book of Revelation. Scripture shows that God has an emblem, a mark, that will identify His people. Satan also has an emblem, a mark, that will identify those who follow him and Satan will work through an earthly power as symbolized in Revelation by the Beast to impose his mark on those who follow him. The conflict from the very beginning has been one of authority, whose do you follow, that of God or that of another, the father of lies. The Resurrection did not change the Sabbath, nor does man have the authority to put in a substitute day for Gods Sabbath, but the one who rebelled against God brings in the change to assert his authority, so here is whose authority you put yourself under whether in your belief (forehead) or in your actions (in the hand).

We see God's mark, or symbol, of authority which is laid out..

Ezekiel 20:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.

Here we see God is saying that He gave us His Sabbath as a sign of His power to create and His power to sanctify (convert and save) us. In the Bible, the Sabbath, represents Gods holy power to rule as Creator and Savior and has never been changed. Now lets look first at the mark on the forehead:

Revelation 7:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Revelation 7:1–3 says it will be written upon the foreheads (or minds) of His people. It will signify that they are owned by Him and have His character. We find Hebrews 10:16 and may others that it will be written in their minds or the forehead:

Hebrews 10:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Since the symbol, mark, of God's authority and power is His holy Sabbath day, it seems likely that the symbol, or mark, of God's enemy the beast might also involve a day and its mark of authority. Let's see if it does:

Revelation 14:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

So what does the Roman Catholic Church say is her symbol, or mark, of authority? Notice from Catholic catechism:

"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."8

There is a authority which lays claim that it "changed" Sabbath to Sunday and that virtually all churches accepted the new holy day. Thus, it claims that Sunday as a holy day is the mark, or symbol, of her power and authority and you find it in many places...

"Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950. This Rock

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.

We see in Revelation that this entity causes the mark to be in the hand (secular) as well as the forehead (or mind) which is the belief is followed whether held of not, or the religious belief is held to be true:

Revelation 13:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

The forehead represents the mind and a person will be marked in the forehead by a decision to keep Sunday as a holy day. The hand is a symbol of work and a person will be marked in the hand by going along with Sunday laws for practical reasons (job, family, climate change, pandemic, etc.). The sign, or mark, for either God or the beast will be invisible to people as it is the mark of authority from one or the other. You will, in essence, mark yourself by accepting either God's mark, the day He made for man from Creation, the Sabbath, or the beast's mark which is the Papacy, its mark of authority, Sunday/Sunday Sacredness. Though invisible to men, God will know who has which mark, and who they follow:

2 Timothy 2:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Revelation 20:4 King James Version (KJV)
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Now no one will have the mark of the beast until Sunday worship, this substitute day of rest becomes an issue forced by law, and it will come just as all Bible prophecy. At that time, those who decide to follow the false teachings of the beast and worship on the beast's counterfeit holy day will receive his mark. Those who follow Christ and obey His truth will keep His holy Sabbath from Creation, and receive His mark.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Personally I also strive to rest on the Sabbath (=the Western Saturday), but think the claims are exaggerated .. it's not really true the Roman Catholic church by the Pope (or even Emperor Constantine) made a decision for Christians to worship and/rest on a Sunday.

In the 2nd century AD Christians (which were mostly of Gentile original by that time) already gathered and worshipped on Sunday simply based on the principle of remembering the resurrection. In those days there was no Roman Catholic church - there was only one church; the East/West split had not occurred yet (1054 AD) and the Bishop of Rome hadn't been accepted yet by the Western church as its leader (gradual process).

Church Fathers from that early era already reflect on these Sunday gatherings - and most Christians/Church Fathers did not consider the Ten Commandments as literally applying to Gentile believers. The Eastern (Orthodox) Churches also gather/worship on Sundays.

It doesn't help to get a proper perspective on history if people incorrectly keep blaming the Roman Catholic church, the Pope or Emperor Constantine for Sunday gatherings/worship - that had happened already way earlier than that. Constantine instituted Sunday as official day of rest for the Empire but the worship practice already had existed for centuries at that point in time.

E.g. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) already strongly stated believers no longer observe the Jewish Sabbath .. That's an inconvenient truth maybe, but it's reality - and he wasn't en exception.

Maybe it's more helpful to focus on why you think the Ten Commandments also apply to Gentile believers, when historically I don't know any Christian author in the early era who advocated for that (apart from the Ebionites sect).

Click to expand...

Read their own words...

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. -Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50

Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide?
A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ... Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7.

"It is true that Protestants contradict their "Bible Only" theory by keeping the Sunday instead of Saturday, because nowhere in the Bible can a clear text be found to show that Christ changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. From tradition only, which Protestants claim to reject, can Sunday observance be justified. It is not true that the Catholic Church parades the world wide Christian custom as a sign of her power in religious matters, but she refers to it as an instance of Protestant inconsistency. Saturday was the Sabbath day and observed as such even by Christ."
(Source: Our Sunday Visitor, of Huntington Indiana, October 26, 1913, Bureau of Information, page 3.)

"If we would consult the Bible only, without Tradition, we ought, for instance, still to keep holy the Saturday with the Jews, instead of Sunday ..."
Source: Deharbe's Catechism, translated by Rev. John Fander, published by Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, 53 Park Place, New York, Sixth American Edition, Copyright 1912, 1919, 1924, page 81.

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.

Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; —they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;...
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer

Notice from Catholic catechism:

"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."

Dont think much more needs to be said...

Reluctant Theologian said:

The word 'Catholic' in the early church means 'universal/whole' in Latin ... so whenever you read that word in any document in the Early Church you need to keep that in mind. Read what the Early Church Fathers (first 4 centuries) wrote .. look at history itself rather than modern writings from Roman Catholic sources ... The Roman Catholic church didn't exist as an entity before the year 1054 AD.

All believers except for excommunicated sinners and sects were considered to be part of the catholic (=universal) church in the early Christian era.

Click to expand...

Need to read your history my brother, its all there. Here is an eye opener in what it says on the origin of the Roman Catholic Church is as we read: 'The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church.

The bishop of Rome was allowing the corruption of paganism to come into the early church. The rites and rituals of the old Pagan Roman religion was brought in, and idols renamed or 'Christianized" so the masses could continue with what they were familiar with. Here is a excellent explanation better than anything I can say....

"THE EARLIEST Roman religion of which we have any record was a system of pandemonism. There was a
spirit a demon it was often called in every object, every act, every process and sometimes in every stage of a process....

But the evidence of this particularistic character of Roman religion is not confined to these lists of obscure spirits. The gods of the
Roman pantheon in general even the greatest of them showed, in their origin at least, a high degree of specialization. In some cases
the original function of the divinity expanded in different directions but in others the early specialization maintained its old limits. Janus
was the god of the door, Vesta of the hearth, Faunus of the forest, Pales of pasture land, Fons of springs, Volturnus of running streams,
Saturn of sowing, Ceres of growth, Flora of blossom, Pomona of fruit, and Consus of harvest. Even the great god Jupiter, manifold
as his powers subsequently became, was at first only the spirit of the bright sky....

It pervaded the whole religious system. Its persistence, either with or without modification, in the case of the well-known
gods of Rome is too familiar a fact to require comment....
So much for the pandemonism of the ancient Romans. Enough has been said to show how deeply rooted in their minds this attitude
toward supernatural powers was. It was one of the most important phases of their religious consciousness and was to such an extent of the very essence of their faith that it was bound to survive. And survive it did. For though there is a notable difference in the character of the supernatural beings that in the fourth century succeeded to the multitudinous functions of the old departmental spirits, there is little or no change In the attitude of mind....

AND it is in the doctrine of the veneration of Saints that the polytheism of the old depart- mental deities survives. It may be that the
founders of Christianity found that the belief of the people especially the Illiterate class in these specialized spirits of minor grade was one
of their greatest problems. They recognized the people's predilection for spirits that would help in specific situations, and they realized
also that the masses felt more at home with beings who, while of divine nature or associations, were not too far removed from the human
level. They were keenly interested in winning the pagans to the faith and they succeeded. But undoubtedly one element in their success
was the inclusion in their system of the doctrine of the veneration of Saints. They seem to have felt that in order to make any headway
at all, it was necessary for them to match the swarms of spirits available for the pagans with a multitude of wonder-working saints and martyrs. How far they were prepared to go is indicated by their favorable attitude toward the pagan veneration of Virgil that amounted al-
most to deification. Apparently most of the churchmen of the period of the conflict of religions proclaimed the greatness of Virgil and
placed him almost on a level with the biblical prophets. They sought evidence of the truth of Christianity in pagan literature and insisted
that Virgil had prophesied the coming of Christ. Everyone is familiar with the mass of literature that has grown up around the so-
called Messianic Eclogue. Not only Virgil was glorified but also the pagan Sibyls who were thought to have inspired his words. The Sibyls
too were given a place beside the Old Testament prophets. ..

There have been many discussions of the relation of the doctrine of the veneration of Saints to various phases of Roman religion,
ranging from the notably temperate treatment of Lucius 5 to the more positive statements of Renan 6 and Harnack 7 and the uncompro-
mising assertions of Trede, 8 " P. Saintyves " 9 and Salomon Reinach. 10 Renan for example says that any peasant who prays to a particu-
lar saint for a cure for his horse or ox or drops a coin into the box of a miraculous chapel is in that act pagan. He is responding to the
prompting of a religious feeling that is older than Christianity and so deep-set that Christianity has not been able to root it out. Har-
nack sees in the veneration of Saints nothing but a recrudescence of pagan polytheism.

The term " veneration of Saints " has been used advisedly. For in any fair discussion of this subject it should be remembered that the
Church has never taught the worship of Saints. Every enlightened churchman knows this, but whether the peasants of southern Italy and
other parts of Europe distinguish with any degree of precision between veneration and worship is another question.....
A good example of the closeness of the resemblance of the specialization of function of different Saints to that of pagan spirits is found
in the published lists of Saints used by Spanish peasants. The very publication of the list emphasizes the similarity of the situation to that
which existed in ancient Roman times, when the people, overwhelmed by the number and multiplicity of names of the departmental
deities, used to appeal to the official list kept by the pontiffs.

Here are some of the examples furnished by the Spanish index: San Serapio should be appealed to in case of stomache-ache;
Santa Polonia for toothache; San Jose, San Juan Bautista and Santa Catalina for headache;
San Bernardo and San Cirilo for indigestion; San Luis for cholera; San Francisco for colic;
San Ignacio and Santa Lutgarda for childbirth; Santa Balsania for scrofula; SanFelix for ulcers;
Santa Agueda for nursing mothers; San Babilas for burns; San Gorge for an infected cut; Santa Quiteria for dog's bite;

San Ciriaco for diseases of the ear; Santa Lucia for the eyes; Santa Bibiana for epilepsy; San Gregorio for frost-bite;
San Pantaleon for haemorrhoids; San Roque for the plague; Santa Dorothea for rheumatism; SanPedro for fever;
and Santa Rita for the impossible !

There is a similar list for southern Italy, the Saints and their functions sometimes coinciding with the Spanish classification but in other
cases showing variations. San Roque for example is associated with cases of plague in Italian legends 1X just as in Spain. To the
Italians also the intercession of Santa Lucia is efficacious for sore eyes. San Giuseppe, however, to south Italians seems to be connected
with the interpretation of dreams. Giuseppe had interpreted dreams to Pharaoh during his life time, and it was believed that he retained
his interest in them after death. "......
SURVIVALS OF ROMAN RELIGION BY GORDON J. LAING
Professor of Latin The University of Chicago

So while the Catholic Church can 'categorically deny' that it ever gave the 'Saints' to the people to worship or pray to and say it was 'veneration', the pagan masses were drawn in by their use, and what they had always done. So the 'spirits' became the 'Saints' to watch over them and to give their prayers directly to them. They could go on believing in the power of the dead of the ancient beliefs now set up as 'Saints' in the church, to help them in their troubles as they had done before. Some of the early Christians protested against the this 'veneration' of the Saints which was essentially the continuation of the old Roman religion, but their attempts were swept by the influx of the pagan masses.

Now looking at the 'veneration' and the festivals which came in, there are some specific festivals that go back directly to pagan customs connected with the dead. All Saints' Day, was observed on the the Roman festival of the dead, the Lemuria. In the modern festival the faithful visit the tombs of the Saints, venerate their relics, and pray for their blessing. The next day also, the second of November, All Souls' Day, unquestionably reproduces some of the features of the Parentalia.

"Parentalia, Roman religious festival held in honour of the dead. The festival, which began at noon on February 13 and culminated on February 21, was essentially a private celebration of the rites of deceased family members. It was gradually extended, however, to incorporate the dead in general. During the days of the festival, all temples were closed and no weddings could be performed. On the last day a public ceremony, the Feralia, was held, during which offerings and gifts were placed at the graves and the anniversary of the funeral feast was celebrated." ... Parentalia | Roman religious festival

So we see how this nine day festival held to honor the dead ancestors with visits to tombs and sacred offerings, got into the church, and 'Christians' then went to the cemeteries and decked the graves of the members of their family with flowers and candles. So it was not long that there were ceremonies which took the place of the ancient 'veneration', for the 'souls of the departed'.

We find even more on All Saints Day...
Catholic scholars themselves admit that the day they call "All Saints' Day" was not observed by early Christians, but was a later addition:

ALL SAINTS. As early as the fourth century, the Greeks kept on the first Sunday after Pentecost the feast of all martyrs and saints, and we still possess a sermon of St. Chrysostom de-livered on that day.

In the West, the feast was introduced by Pope Boniface the Fourth after he had dedicated, as the Church of the Blessed Virgin and the Martyrs, the Pantheon, which had been made over to him by the Emperor Phocas. The feast of the dedication was kept on the thirteenth of May. About 731 Gregory III. consecrated a chapel in St. Peter's Church in honour of all the saints, from which time All Saints' Day has been kept in Rome, as now, on the first of November. From about the middle of the ninth century, the feast came into general observance throughout the West. (Addis W, Arnold T. Catholic Dictionary, 6th ed. The Catholic Publication Society Co, 1887. Nihil Obstat. EDUARDUS S. KEOGH, CONG. ORAT., Censor Deputatu Imprimatur. HENRICUS EDUARDUS, CARD. ARCHIEP. WESTMONAST. Die 18 Dec., 1883. Imprimatur. John Card. McCloskey, Archbishop of New York. Feb. 14, 1884. Copyright, Lawrence Kehoe, 1884/1887. p20).

All Saints' Day

In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of St. Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus. Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of St. Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of St. John Chrysostom (407). (Mershman, Francis. "All Saints' Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 11 Aug. 2013 <CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: All Saints' Day>)...

Here is information on when and how people keep All Saints Day:

All Saints' Day

All Saints' Day is a celebration of all Christian saints, particularly those who have no special feast days of their own, in many Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant churches. In many western churches it is annually held November 1 and in many eastern churches it is celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost. It is also known as All Hallows Tide, All-Hallomas, or All Hallows' Day.

What Do People Do?

All Saints' Day is observed by Christians in many countries around the world. In countries such as Spain, Portugal and Mexico, offerings are made on this day. In countries such as Belgium, Hungary and Italy people bring flowers to the graves of dead relatives. In other parts of Europe, such as Austria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania, it is customary to light candles on top of visiting graves of deceased relatives. It is also observed in parts of Asia, such as the Philippines, where people visit graves of deceased relatives and clean or repair them. They also lay flowers on the graves and light candles. All Saints' Day accessed 10/01/19

Prayers for to the dead saints are often given then....

Here are various excerpts which clearly show what was done to the Sabbath:

Sunday, an apostolic Tradition, replaces the sabbath:
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath.
...
2177 "The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life.
'Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.' "
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc.--Libreria Editrice Vaticana, bearing the Imprimi Potest of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, page 524.

The Church Transferred Sabbath Observance to Keeping Sunday Holy as the Lord's Day:
The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.
Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.
[pg. 383] The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church.
[pg. 387] Besides the Sabbath, the Jews observed other festivals which were instituted by the divine law, and the end and aim of which was to awaken in the people the recollection of the principal favours conferred on them by the Almighty. On these festivals the pastor will see Leviticus, (28) Numbers, (29) and Deuteronomy; (30) and on the moral objects contemplated in the institution of such festivals, he may also consult S. Cyril, (31) and S. Thomas. (32)
But the Church of God has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath should be transferred to "the Lord's day:" as on that day light first shown on the world, so by the resurrection of our Lord on the same day, by whom was thrown open to us the gate to eternal life, we were called out of darkness into light; and hence the Apostle would have it called "the Lord's day." We also learn from the sacred Volume that the first day of the week was held sacred for other reasons: on that day the work of the creation commenced, and on that day the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles.
Source: The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Issued by order of Pope Pius V, first published by W. Folds and Son, Great Strand-Street. Published by Richard Coyne, Capel-street, Dublin; and by Keating and Browne, London, 1829, Copyright 1975 and Reprinted 1985 by The Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, California, 90251, The Third Commandment, pages 383, 387.

The Church Sanctifies Sunday, Not the Sabbath day.
OF THE THIRD COMMANDMENT

What is the third Commandment of God?
Remember that thou sanctify, & keep holy the Sabbath day. In Moses law the people were commanded to sanctify & keep holy the Sabbath day, which day we call Saturday, or the seventh day. For after that almighty God had created all kind of creatures in six days, the seventh day he rested or ceased to create any new creature. But in the law of grace we do not sanctify or keep holy the seventh day, called the Saturday: but we sanctify or keep holy the day following, called the Sunday or our Lord's day: in the which day christ our Lord arose from death, making mankind (that was created earthly) a heavenly creation, in the day of his resurrection. This precept of sanctifying or keeping holy the Sunday, or our Lord's day, does contain under it, all feasts & holy days instituted & commanded by the Church. ...
Source: A Catechisme or Christian Doctrine, by Laurence Vaux, B.D., reprinted from a 1583 edition by The Chetham Society in 1885, Manchester England, (updated to modern spelling for this excerpt) pages 34, 35. Text of A Catechisme or Christian Doctrineonline.

Catholic Tradition and Authority Command Sundaykeeping:
[p. 202]
Q. What are the days which the Church commands to be kept holy?
A. 1st, The Sunday, or the Lords day, which we observe by apostolical tradition, instead of the Sabbath.
Q. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferably to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
A. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolical tradition.
Q. Does the scripture any where command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
A. The scripture commands us to hear the Church, St. Matt. xviii. 17. St. Luke x. 16, and to hold fast the traditions of the Apostles, 2 Thess. ii. 15, but the scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath. St. John speaks of the Lord's day, Rev. i. 10; but he does not tell us what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments: St. Luke also speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week, Acts xx. 7. And St. Paul, I Cor. xvi 2, orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay by in store what they designed to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one nor the other tells us, that this first day of
[p. 203]
the week was to be henceforward the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly, the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the Church. And therefore, those who pretend to be so religious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same Church authority, show that they act by humor, and not by reason and religion; since Sundays and holydays all stand upon the same foundation, viz, the ordinance of the Church. ...
[p. 204]
Q. What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the Saturday to the Sunday?
A. Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday: as therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than that of our creation, the primitive Church thought the day, in which this work was completely finished, was more worthy [of] her religious observation than that in which God rested from the creation, and should be properly called the Lords day.
Source: The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church, by the Right Rev. Dr. Richard Challoner,published in Baltimore in 1852 by John Murphy & Co., pp. 202 - 204.
A Question for Bible-Only Protestants:
What day of the week is the Seventh or Sabbath day? It is Saturday. Then why do we not keep Saturday holy? Because the Church, in the Apostles' time, transferred the obligation from the Seventh to the First day of the week. ... Protestants profess to learn the whole of their Religion from the Bible; but where does the Bible tell them that the obligation of the Sabbath is transferred from the Seventh to the First day of the week?
Source: A Full Course Of Instructions For The Use Of Catechists; Being An Explanation Of The Catechism; Entitled "An Abridgment Of Christian Doctrine" by the Rev. John Perry, Approbation of the Most Rev. John Hughes; D. D., Archbishop of New York, published in New York in 1860 by D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 164 William-St., Boston 128 Federal Street, Montreal Corner Notre Dame and St. Francis Xavier Sts., pg. 189.

No Scriptural Authority for the change to Sunday:
[pg. 174]
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. 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.
[pg. 181]
Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences?
A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week. If, then, he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained?
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Third American Edition, Published by P. J. Kenedy and Sons, New York, Copyright 1876 by T. W. Strong, pages 174, 181. Text of A Doctrinal Catechism online.

Maria Billingsley said:

Loyalty to who?

Click to expand...

Well lets take a look and see what church of Rome says that lays out to who...

Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented below:

For ready reference purposes here are verses quoted in the article below. New Testament verses relating to the topic of the apostles assembling the "first day of the week"
Luke 24:33-40; John 20:19; John 20:26-29; Acts 2:1; Acts 20:6-7; Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 18:4
All New Testament references to "The Lord's day" or "day of the Lord"
Acts 2:20; 1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:13-14; Phil. 1:6; Phil. 1:10; 2 Pet. 3:10; 2 Pet. 3:12; Rev 1:10


Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?
In 1893, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists adopted certain resolutions appealing to the government and people of the United States from the decision of the Supreme Court declaring this to be a Christian nation, and from the action of Congress in legislating upon the subject of religion, and remonstrating against the principle and all the consequences of the same. In March 1893, the International Religious Liberty Association printed these resolutions in a tract entitled Appeal and Remonstrance. On receipt of one of these, the editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of four editorials, which appeared in that paper September, 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893. The Catholic Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and the Vatican in the United States. These articles, therefore, although not written by the Cardinal's own hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the expression of the Church to Protestantism, and the demand of the Church that Protestants shall render to the Church an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it.

Here is the start of the articles
********************************
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH
THE GENUINE OFFSPRING OF THE UNION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIS SPOUSE. THE CLAIMS OF PROTESTANTISM TO ANY PART THEREIN PROVED TO BE GROUNDLESS, SELF-CONTRADICTORY, AND SUICIDAL
[From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 2, 1893]
Our attention has been called to the above subject in the past week by the receipt of a brochure of twenty-one pages, published by the International Religious Liberty Association, entitled, "Appeal and Remonstrance," embodying resolutions adopted the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists (Feb. 24, 1893). The resolutions criticize and censure, with much acerbity, the action of the United States Congress, and of the Supreme Court, for the invading the rights of the people by closing the World's Fair on Sunday.
The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of the day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation, "Seventh-day Adventists." Their cardinal principle consists in setting apart Saturday for the exclusive worship of God, in conformity with the positive command of God himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, literally obeyed by the children of Israel for thousands of years to this day, and endorsed by the teaching and practice of the Son of God whilst on earth.
Per contra, the Protestants of the world, the Adventists excepted, with the same Bible as their cherished and sole infallible teacher, by their practice, since their appearance in the sixteenth century, with the time-honored practice of the Jewish people before their eyes, have rejected the day named for His worship by God, and assumed, in apparent contradiction of His command, a day for His worship never once referred to for that purpose, in the pages of that Sacred Volume.
What Protestant pulpit does not ring almost every Sunday with loud and impassioned invectives against Sabbath violation? Who can forget the fanatical clamor of the Protestant ministers throughout the length and breadth of the land against opening the gates of the World's Fair on Sunday? the thousands of petitions, signed by millions, to save the Lord's Day from desecration? Surely, such general and widespread excitement and noisy remonstrance could not have existed without the strongest grounds for such animated protests.
....The Christian world is, morally speaking, united on the question and practice of worshiping God on the first day of the week.
The Israelites, scattered all over the earth, keep the last day of the week sacred to the worship of the Deity. In this particular, the Seventh-day Adventists (a sect of Christians numerically few) have also selected the same day.
Israelites and Adventists both appeal to the Bible for the divine command, persistently obliging the strict observance of Saturday. The Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but the Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same ground as the Old: viz., an inspired record also. He finds that the Bible, his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer, during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday. The Gospels plainly evince to him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, not the vestige of an act canceling the Saturday arrangement can be found.
The Adventists, therefore, in common with Israelites, derive their belief from the Old Testament, which position is confirmed by the New Testament, endorsing fully by the life and practice of the Redeemer and His apostles the teaching of the Sacred Word for nearly a century of the Christian era.
Numerically considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an insignificant portion of the Protestants population of the earth, but, as the question is not one of numbers, but of truth, and right, a strict sense of justice forbids the condemnation of this little sect without a calm and unbiased investigation; this is none of our funeral.
The Protestant world has been, from its infancy, in the sixteenth century, in thorough accord with the Catholic Church, in keeping "holy," not Saturday, but Sunday. The discussion of the grounds that led to this unanimity of sentiment and practice of over 300 years, must help toward placing Protestantism on a solid basis in this particular, should the arguments in favor of its position overcome those furnished by the Israelites an Adventists, the Bible, the sole recognized teacher of both litigants, being the umpire and witness. If however, on the other hand, the latter furnish arguments, incontrovertible by the great mass of Protestants, both cases of litigants, appealing to their common teacher, the Bible, the great body of Protestants, so far from clamoring, as they do with vigorous pertinacity for the strict keeping of Sunday, have no other [recourse] left than the admission that they have been teaching and practicing what is Scripturally false for over three centuries, by adopting the teaching and practice of what they have always pretended to believe an apostate church, contrary to every warrant and teaching of sacred Scripture. To add to the intensity of this Scriptural and unpardonable blunder, it involves one of the most positive and emphatic commands of God to His servant, man: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
No Protestant living today has ever yet obeyed that command, preferring to follow the apostate church referred to than his teacher the Bible, which, from Genesis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine, should the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists be correct. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their "infallible" teacher. Let the Bible decide whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two bodies must be wrong, and, whereas a false position on this all-important question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God Himself, against the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall enter on the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both sides. Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution:

• 1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
• 2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
• 3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?

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

[From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 9, 1893]
"But faith, fanatic faith, one wedded fast; To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last." --Moore.
Conformably to our promise in our last issue, we proceed to unmask one of the most flagrant errors and most unpardonable inconsistencies of the Sola Scriptura rule of faith. Lest, however, we be misunderstood, we deem it necessary to premise that Protestantism recognizes no rule of faith, no teacher, save the "infallible Bible." As the Catholic yields his judgment in spiritual matters implicitly, and with the unreserved confidence, to the voice of his church, so, too, the Protestant recognizes no teacher but the Bible. All his spirituality is derived from its teachings. It is to him the voice of God addressing him through his sole inspired teacher. It embodies his religion, his faith, and his practice. The language of Chillingworth, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants," is only one form of the same idea multifariously convertible into other forms, such as "the Book of God," "the Charter of Our Salvation," "the Oracle of Our Christian Faith," "God's Text-Book to the race of Mankind," etc., etc. It is, then, an incontrovertible fact that the Bible alone is the teacher of Protestant Christianity. Assuming this fact, we will now proceed to discuss the merits of the question involved in our last issue.
Recognizing what is undeniable, the fact of a direct contradiction between the teaching and practice of Protestant Christianity -- the Seventh-day Adventists excepted -- on the one hand, and that of the Jewish people on the other, both observing different days of the week for the worship of God, we will proceed to take the testimony of the teacher common to both claimants, the Bible. The first expression with which we come in contact in the Sacred Word, is found in Genesis 2:2 "And on the seventh day He [God] rested from all His work which He had made." The next reference to this matter is to be found in Exodus 20, where God commanded the seventh day to be kept, because He had himself rested from the work of creation on that day; and the sacred text informs us that for that reason He desired it kept, in the following words; "wherefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." (1) Again we read in chapter 31, verse 15: "Six days you shall do work; in the seventh day is the Sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord;" sixteenth verse: "it is an everlasting covenant," "and a perpetual sign," "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh He ceased from work."
(1) Of course the scriptures quoted throughout in these editorials are from the Douay, or Catholic, Version, --ED.
In the Old Testament, reference is made one hundred and twenty-six times to the Sabbath, and all these texts conspire harmoniously in voicing the will of God commanding the seventh day to be kept, because God Himself first kept it, making it obligatory on all as "a perpetual covenant." Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the law, A.M. 2514 to A.D. 1893, a period of 3383 years. With the example of the Israelites before our eyes today, there is no historical fact better established than that referred to; viz., that the chosen people of God, the guardians of the Old Testament, the living representatives of the only divine religion hitherto, had for a period of 1490 years anterior to Christianity, preserved the weekly practice the living tradition of the correct interpretation of the special day of the week, Saturday, to be kept "holy to the Lord," which tradition they have extended by their own practice to an additional period of 1893 years more, thus covering the full extent of the Christian dispensation. We deem it necessary to be perfectly clear on this point, for reasons that will appear more fully hereafter. The Bible -- the Old Testament -- confirmed by the living tradition of a weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of God, teaches, then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself, named the day to be "kept holy to Him",-- that the day was Saturday, and that any violation of that command was punishable with death. "Keep you My Sabbath, for it is holy unto you; he that shall profane it shall be put to death; he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish in the midst of his people." Ex 31:14.
It is impossible to realize a more severe penalty than that so solemnly uttered by God Himself in the above text, on all who violate a command referred to no less than one hundred and twenty-six times in the old law. The ten commandments of the Old Testament are formally impressed on the memory of the child of the Biblical Christian as soon as possible, but there is not one of the ten made more emphatically familiar, both in Sunday School and pulpit, than that of keeping "holy" the Sabbath day.

Having secured the absolute certainty the will of God as regards the day to be kept holy, from His Sacred Word, because He rested on that day, which day is confirmed to us by the practice of His chose people for thousands of years, we are naturally induced to inquire when and where God changed the day for His worship; for it is patent to the world that a change of day has taken place, and inasmuch as no indication of such change can be found within the pages of the Old Testament, nor in the practice of the Jewish people who continue for nearly nineteen centuries of Christianity obeying the written command, we must look to the exponent of the Christian dispensation; viz., the New Testament, for the command of God canceling the old Sabbath, Saturday.
We now approach a period covering little short of nineteen centuries, and proceed to investigate whether the supplemental divine teacher -- the New Testament -- contains a decree canceling the mandate of the old law, and, at the same time, substituting a day for the divinely instituted Sabbath of the old law, viz., Saturday; for, inasmuch as Saturday was the day kept and ordered to be kept by God, divine authority alone, under the form of a canceling decree, could abolish the Saturday covenant, and another divine mandate, appointing by name another day to be kept "holy," other than Saturday, is equally necessary to satisfy the conscience of the Christian believer. The Bible being the only teacher recognized by the Biblical Christian, the Old Testament failing to point out a change of day, and yet another day than Saturday being kept "holy" by the Biblical world, it is surely incumbent on the reformed Christian to point out in the pages of the New Testament the new divine decree repealing that of Saturday and substituting that of Sunday, kept by the Biblicals since the dawn of the Reformation. Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one times.
In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, (2) but during the whole record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday), He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in tomb, Luke (23:56) informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the sabbath day according to the commandment." "but on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared." The "spices" and "ointments" had been prepared Good Friday evening, because "the Sabbath drew near." Verse 54. This action on the part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday, and regarded the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?
We now approach the investigation of this interesting question for the next thirty years, as narrated by the evangelist, St. Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles. Surely some vestige of the canceling act can be discovered in the practice of the Apostles during that protracted period.
(2) It is also referred to in Mark 2:28.---ED.
But, alas! we are once more doomed to disappointment. Nine (3) times do we find the Sabbath referred to in the Acts, but it is the Saturday (the old Sabbath). Should our readers desire the proof, we refer them to chapter and verse in each instance. Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44. Once more, Acts 15:21; again, Acts 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks." thus the Sabbath (Saturday) from Genesis to Revelation!!! Thus, it is impossible to find in the New Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour or his Apostles with the original Sabbath, but on the contrary, an entire acquiescence in the original arrangement; nay a plenary endorsement by Him, whilst living; and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping of that day and not other by the apostles, for thirty years after His death, as the Acts of the Apostles has abundantly testified to us.
(3) This should be eight.
Hence the conclusion is inevitable; viz., that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday.