“John Ankatell, A. M., priest of the diocese of New York, writing in the Outlook, July, 1889, says of Sunday, the Lord’s day: ‘We think it was given by our Lord to the apostles during the great forty days after His resurrection, but we cannot prove this.’ He states the Catholic doctrine exactly; viz., that the change was made by Christ and the apostles, but that the Scriptures are not plain enough on this point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic authority, which says it was made in New Testament times.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 214.DOF 138.1

It seems to us that this is as clear a case of groping in the dark as we have ever witnessed. No evidence can be found for Sunday observance, but that fact does not deter those who are determined to substitute that day for God’s Sabbath. Failing to find a “Thus says the Lord” for their doctrine on this point, they find the next best thing-a Catholic priest of New York, who thinks the Sunday command was given to the disciples by the Lord during the forty days after His resurrection! Of course, this priest is honest enough to add that he “cannot prove this,” but then the very fact that he thought it, was evidence to Mr. Canright that it must be true.DOF 138.2

We wonder now what this priest’s supposition is based upon? Paul says that he shunned not to declare all the counsel of God, and yet he declared nothing: about Christ’s having secretly told the disciples about Sunday’s taking the place of the holy Sabbath. Strange, isn’t it, that he should have forgotten so important a matter as that! And one would think that Luke or John would have thought to mention it, but no, they must have forgotten also. What a pity that the New Testament should have been marred by this failure on their part! Surely, if they expected plain, ordinary folk down here in the twentieth century to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, they should have made it plainer. As it is, they have left us without any hint or instruction whatsoever on this point of Sunday sacredness. But then, of course, there is the New York priest. Yes, there is the prist!DOF 138.3

But catch that further admission of Mr. Canright the Baptist quoted above. He says of this priest:DOF 139.1

“He states the Catholic doctrine exactly; viz., that the change was made by Christ and the apostiles, but that the Scriptures are not plain enough on this point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic authority, which says it was made in New Testament times.”DOF 139.2

Now, surely that is an astonishing admission for a Protestant minister who is a Sunday advocate to make. The Scriptures are not plain enough on this point (of Sunday sacredness) to prove it. Quite right, Mr. Canright, they are not. We are glad that you, by citing this quotation as evidence, admit the truth at last. We are glad it is frankly stated that we have to rely upon Catholic authority for information on this point. That clears the atmosphere considerably. We can now see clearly upon what platform you stand. “the Scriputes are not plain enough on this point to prove it,” so the thinking of a New York priest of the Roman Church is substituted!DOF 139.3

True, there is no information in “the Scriptures” about Sunday sacredness; therefore, Sunday advocates do “have to rely upon Catholic authority,” the same source from which people get “authority” for purgatory, prayers for the dead, mediation of the virgin Mary, and other doctrines unknown to the postles, one of which was Sunday sacredness.DOF 139.4

Let it be known that there is one thing on which the Scriptures are clear, all the way from Genesis to Revelation, and that is that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:10). That this day was sanctified in Eden, set apart for the holy and religious use of men, as a great memorial of creation; that it is God’s holy day (Isaiah 58:13); that Jesus is Lord of it (Mark 2:28); that Jesus kept it (Luke 4:16); that the disciples, still kept it after the resurrection of our Lord (Luke 23:56); and that it was “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10).DOF 140.1

There is no need to find out what the New York Catholic priest thinks about that. It is written in letters of fire, as it were, and was dictated by the Holy Ghost. It was spoken from heaven by the omnipotent God. It was engraved on stone with His finger; it was substantiated by Jesus by both precept and example; it was accepted without question by all the inspired writers. In fact, it is so plain that “the wayfaring men, though fools,” need not err therein. (Isaiah 35:8)DOF 140.2

Shall all this clear, shining testimony be discarded for the passing thought of a New York Roman Catholic priest?DOF 140.3

Canright Examines First-Day Texts

The Lord’s Day