Sabbath

[djconklin]

I don't go to a worship service, because that's too much work.  I save that for the Lord's Day.

How can it be too much work on one day, but not on the next???

[Bocephus]

I don't go to a worship service, because that's too much work.  I save that for the Lord's Day.

How can it be too much work on one day, but not on the next???

Because the sabbath is about rest.

[djconklin]

Rest from secular work.  It is also a day of worship (Lev. 23:3 "holy convocation").

[Bocephus]

Rest from secular work.  It is also a day of worship (Lev. 23:3 "holy convocation").

For a preacher, it is a day of secular work then as well.  So, we do as the disciples at Troas did, and worship Christ, on the day He was risen, the first day, the Lord's Day.

[winsome]

Even as late as the 5th century most Christians kept the Sabbath.  And much later than that in Ireland and Ethiopia.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Apart from Acts 20 that Gary mentioned there is plenty of evidence that Sunday worship was the norm from the earliest times.

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

“When you come together on the Lord’s Day, break bread and give thanks, having confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.” (The Didache – 1st Cent)

"Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead" (Justin Martyr: First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

[djconklin]

For a preacher, it is a day of secular work then as well.

Interesting; I've never heard of doing the Lord's work being called secular work.

So, we do as the disciples at Troas did, and worship Christ, on the day He was risen, the first day, the Lord's Day.

At Troas they were meeting on Saturday nite, because Paul was going to be leaving (secular travel) on Sunday morning.

[djconklin]

Even as late as the 5th century most Christians kept the Sabbath.  And much later than that in Ireland and Ethiopia.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes.

“The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries.”  Salaminius Hermias
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Chapter XIX at http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Socrates%20and%20Sozomenus%20Ecclesiastical%20Histories.pdf – page 592

Socrates Scholasticus:

"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chapter 22 found @ http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Socrates%20and%20Sozomenus%20Ecclesiastical%20Histories.pdf – page 244

Apart from Acts 20 that Gary mentioned there is plenty of evidence that Sunday worship was the norm from the earliest times.

You have to be careful about some of the alleged quotes--they have inserted the word "day" when it isn't in the text.

Secondly, Paul noted that after he would be gone wolves would enter into the church:

Acts 20:29-30  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

[Amo]

Do you have any evidence of that?

Some historical quotes regarding the observance of the seventh day Sabbath up till the fifth century.
In the 2nd Century

     "The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;..therefore the Christians for
     a long time together, did keep their conventions on the Sabbath, in which some portion
     of the Law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." The
     Whole Works of Jeremey Taylor, Vol. IX, p416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol.XII, p.416)

 "The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and did spend the day
     in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice
     from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose."
     Dialogues on the Lord's Day. p.189. London: 1701. By Dr. T. H. Morer.(church of
     England divine)


"It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the
     celebration of the Lord's day by the Christians of the East Church) three hundred years
     after the Saviour's death." A learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p.77.

In the 3rd Century.

     "The seventh-day Sabbath was.. solemnised by Christ, the Apostles, and primitive
     Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of
     it." Dissertation on the Lord's Day, pp.33,34,44.

 "Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of
     creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the
     Law, not for idleness of the hands." The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol.7, p 413, From
     Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A document of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

     In the 4th Century.

     "It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the
     west..For in the church of Millaine [Milan];.. it seemes the Saturday was held in farre
     esteeme ..Not that the Easterne churches, or any of the rest which observed that day,
     were inclined to Iudaisme [Judaism]; but that they came together on the Sabbath day,
     to worship Iesus [Jesus] Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." History of the Sabbath
     (original Spelling retained) Part 2, par. 5, pp. 73,74, London: 1636, Dr. Heylyn.

 "The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh
     day..It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world,
     observed the Sabbath as a festival..Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious
     assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to
     worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." Antiquities of the    Christian Church, Vol. II, Book XX, chap. 3, Sec. 1, 66.1137, 1138

In the 5th Century.

     "Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in
     the Christian church." Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Lyman Coleman, Ch.26,
     sec. 2, p.527.

     "In Jerome's day (420 A.D.) the devoutest Christians did ordinary work on Sunday."
     Treatise of the Sabbath Day. by Dr. White, Lord Bishop of Ely, p.210.

     "For although almost all Churches throught the world celebrate the sacred mysteries
     [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria
     and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote
     which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath" It
     says : "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called
     'the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Sacrates, Ecclesiastical History,
     Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.

[djconklin]

"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church." Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Lyman Coleman, Ch.26, sec. 2, p.527.

You can see the quote for yourself at http://books.google.com/books?id=EccOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Ancient+Christianity+Exemplified%22&lr=&ei=uUzjStyRDY28MMWSgNUL#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Amo]

"Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

In the following quote from Ignatius, it can be seen that the seventh day Sabbath was still being observed in his day. Although they had begun to make changes in it's observance, they still observed the seventh day, along with the first day. This is the beginnings of the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week, to the first day of the week. Ignatius is not one of the Church Fathers, but more over, one of the Church Fathers of the Church of Rome.

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to
newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us
when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for
he wrote of Me;” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My
day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;” how shall
we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and
foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and
expected Him as their Lord and Savior, saying, “He will come and save
us.” Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner,
and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.”
For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy
bread.” But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner,
rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring
the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before,
nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor
finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And
after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the
Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all
the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To
the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and
the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of
perdition, the enemies of the Savior, deny, “whose God is their belly, who
mind earthly things,” who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God,
having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” These make
merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale:
they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men’s possessions,
swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the
mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ! (THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS
TO THE MAGNESIANS CHAP 9 )

[Amo]

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

BARNABAS.

First of these two comes the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas. This has been attributed to the companion of St. Paul in his missionary labors, and dated as early as A.D. 71. The following from standard authorities will show that such claims are false. Neander speaks as follows:

"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition. But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabis who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)
 
Mosheim says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)

Eusebius says:

"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.
 
Prof. Hackett says:
 
"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)

Millner says:

"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)

Kitto says:

"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)
 
Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:
 
"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)
 
Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:

"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)
 
Rev. Lyman Coleman says:
 
"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)

Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:

"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)

The Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge (article Barnabas' Epistle), speaking of Barnabas the companion of Paul, says:
 
"He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this Epistle."
 
In the presence of the foregoing evidence, but one conclusion is possible, viz., the Epistle of Barnabas is a vague, fanciful production of some unknown author, forged at an uncertain date in the second century. The passage quoted in favor of Sunday observance reads as follows:

"Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And he says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: When His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how he speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens." (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. I., pp. 127, 128.)

It is to be regretted that many writers in favor of Sunday have quoted only the last clause of the foregoing beginning with the words, "For which cause," etc. They have thus perverted the meaning and sought to make it appear that the "resurrection" was the main reason assigned for "observing the eighth day with gladness." Whereas, the fanciful notions concerning the creation and the millennium constituted the main reason for such notice of the eighth day. Hence, another conclusion must be added, viz.: If any persons joined with the forger of this Epistle in observing the eighth day, their action was predicated on grounds very far removed from common sense, and from the Word of God.

The above taken from - A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND THE SUNDAY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (SECOND EDITION, REVISED), by A.H. LEWIS D. D., LL.D.     THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY, PLAINFIELD, N.J., 1903

[Amo]

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead" (Justin Martyr: First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

CHAPTER V.
JUSTIN MARTYR, THE F’IRST DIRECT REFERENCE TO SUNDAY, AND THE RISE OF NO-SABBATHISM.

THE middle of the second century marks the beginning of a new era in the Sabbath question. The first direct and indisputable reference to any form of Sunday-observance by Christians is made it this time, and simultaneously and by the same man the no-Sabbath theory is propounded. Up to this time, the Scriptures had held the better part of the church to the Sabbath as taught in the Decalogue. Polytheism and heathen philosophy ignored this idea, and openly proclaimed a type of no-lawism and absolute no-Sabbathism. It was a part of the fruitage which came from the corrupting of the church and the gospel by admixture with heathen fancies and speculations. Under the sway of these loose ideas, Sunday, already a festival among the heathen, found gradual welcome at the hands of the semi-Christianized leaders in the church, and final recognition by a still less Christianized form of civil government during the third and fourth centuries. Justin Martyr stands as a prominent representative of this no-Sabbathism, and also as an apologist for Christianity, who sought to soften the fury of the heathen persecutors by claiming a similarity between Christianity and heathenism. The entire passage concerning Sunday is as follows; only a part of it is usually quoted by writers who claim that Sunday is the Sabbath:
 
"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday), and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." ( The First Apology of Justin, chapter 67. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, pp. 65, 66.)

The foregoing extracts will be better understood if the reader remembers that the author was a Grecian philosopher who accepted - we dare not say was converted to Christianity, after reaching the age of manhood, and who retained many of his heathen notions and sympathies through life. The days referred to, Saturn’s and the Sun’s, are designated only by their heathen names, and the reasons which are given for meeting on Sunday are at once fanciful and unscriptural. The passage shows Justin in his true place is an Apologist, who sympathized with both parties, and sought to soften the feelings of the Emperor by indicating those points in which Christianity and heathenism agreed. The following extracts from the same author show that he could not entertain any idea of the Sun’s day as being in any sense the Sabbath, or even a Sabbath. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, the differences between Justin’s theories of Christianity and Judaism are strongly set forth, and the Sabbath is frequently referred to. In the 23d section of the Dialogue he says:
 
"You have no need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 12, p. 101.)

In another place he says:
 
"But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither was circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions; to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd. Therefore we must confess that He who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men, and we must declare Him to be benevolent, fore-knowing, needing nothing, righteous and good. But if this be not so, tell me, sir, what you think of those matters which we are investigating. And when no one responded:
 
"Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 23, pp. 115, 116.)

Be it here remembered that the Sabbath is often referred to in Justin’s Dialogue, and that in the passage just quoted he is answering a charge which Trypho brings against Christians, who, he declares, "differ in nothing from the heathen in their manner of living, because they neither observe festivals, nor Sabbaths, nor the rite of circumcision. (Dialogue, chap. 10.)

Justin’s reply seeks to defend himself against the charge by showing that such things were not required of men under the gospel. In this way, Justin shows that he did not predicate any observance of Sunday upon the Fourth Commandment, or upon any transfer of the "Jewish" to the "Christian" Sabbath. He does not link Sunday with the former dispensation by any such claims. In the forty-first section of the Dialogue he gives another fanciful reason in addition to those given in the Apology for giving Sunday a religious pre-eminence. This reason he expresses in the following words:
 
The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first." (Ante- Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, p. 139.)
 
Thus it appears that Justin is at once the first of the "Fathers" who makes any authentic mention of the pre-eminence of Sunday among Christians, and the first exponent of absolute no-Sabbathism. It is also pertinent to note, as Dr. Hessey has done, (Sunday, p. 43, sec. 11,) that Justin always uses sabbatizeiv "with exclusive reference to the Jewish law," and that "he carefully distinguishes Saturday [Sabbath], the day after which our Lord was crucified, from Sunday upon which he rose from the dead." In the face of these facts, it is manifestly unjust to claim Justin as an advocate of the sacredness of Sunday in any sense. It were better to let him stand in his true place as the exponent of semi-pagan no-Sabbathism.
 
What we do learn from Justin, inferences and suppositions aside, is this: At the middle of the second century, certain Christians held some form of religious service on Sunday. All that Justin says is compatible with the idea that the day was not regarded as a Sabbath, and his silence concerning any sabbatic observance is strong negative proof, of the absence of any such idea. His no-Sabbathism is added proof of this. It is further apparent that since be undertook to describe the things which were done on Sunday, and to give the reasons therefor, that had anything like the modern theory of a Sunday Sabbath then obtained, he must have mentioned the fact. Domville sums up the case as follows:
 
"This inference appears irresistible when we further consider that Justin, in this part of his Apololgy, is professedly intending to describe the mode in which Christians observed the Sunday. . . . He evidently intends to give all information requisite to an accurate knowledge of the subject he treats upon. He is even so particular as to tell the Emperor why the Sunday was observed; and he does, in fact, specify every active duty belonging to the day, the Scripture reading, the exhortation, the public prayer, the Sacrament, and the alms-giving: why then should he not also inform the Emperor of the one inactive duty of the day, the duty of abstaining from doing in it any manner of work ?

If such was the custom of Christians in Justin's time, his description of their Sunday duties was essentially defective. . . . But even were it probable he should intend to omit all mention of it in his Apology to the Emperor, it would be impossible to imagine any sufficient cause for his remaining silent on the subject in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; and this whether the Dialogue was real or imaginary, for if the latter, Justin would still, as Dr. Lardner has observed, "chose to write in character.'' The testimony of Justin, therefore, proves most clearly two facts of great importance in the Sabbath controversy; the one, that the Christians in his time observed the Sunday as a prayer day, the other that they did not observe it as a Sabbath-day. (Sabbath, Examination of the Six Texts: p. 274, seq. London, 1849.)
 
Such is the summary of the case at the year 150 A.D. No-Sabbathisrn, and a form of Sunday-observance were born at the same time. Trained in heathen philosophies until manhood, Justin accepted Christianity as a better philosophy than he had found before. Such a man, and those like him, could scarcely do other than build a system quite unlike apostolic Christianity. That which they did build was a paganized rather than an apostolic type.

The above taken from - A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND THE SUNDAY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (SECOND EDITION, REVISED), by A.H. LEWIS D. D., LL.D.     THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY, PLAINFIELD, N.J., 1903

[Bocephus]

I won't worry about non-canonical sources.  We do know in Acts 20 of God's Word that the disciples met on the first day, and that is good enough for me.  I'll take the words in God's Word over those of a sabbatarian.

[djconklin]

We do know in Acts 20 of God's Word that the disciples met on the first day, and that is good enough for me.

They met on Saturday nite. Not Sunday morning.

I'll take the words in God's Word over those of a sabbatarian.

There's no evidence that Socrates or Sozomen were sabbatarians.  They awere historians with no axe to grind.  They were there so I'll take their word on it.

[blituri]

The nasty theologians or doctors of the Law Jesus fired love to hate JOHN LOCKE: Locke seems to have been the only scholor at the time who did not think it DISHONEST to look up a word or a prase and then say "THIS is the will of the Lord and you must not oppose it."

The SDA people really twist ALL historic scholars badly and depend primarily on quotes of their OWN theologians who are like all theologians who LIFT better than a pickpocket.

Someone above noted:

Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of
     creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the
     Law, not for idleness of the hands." The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol.7, p 413, From
     Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A document of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Part of it is correct and Scriptural: the Sabbath was ONLY for reading and meditating on the Word.

However, half a truth can often be a whole lie as can be seen from all of the quoted documents.

http://www.piney.com/ApostConstLawGrace.html

UNDER THE LAW
(1) He who had commanded to keep the Sabbath, by resting thereon for the sake of meditating on the laws, ONLY

BUT NOW
has now commanded us to consider of the law of creation, and of providence every day, and to return thanks to God, He abrogated circumcision when He had Himself fulfilled it. For He it was "to whom the inheritance was reserved, who was the expectation of the nations."

UNDER THE LAW.
Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols.

BUT NOW
Instead of the divine service confined to one place, He has commanded and appointed that He should be glorified from sun-rising to sunsetting in every place of His dominion.

http://www.piney.com/DocAposConstitu2.html

But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival;
      because the former is the memorial of the creation,
      and the latter of the resurrection.

      But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival.
       SABBATH MEANS REST AND NOT A WORSHIP SERVICE.

For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His own creatures.

Next, I will show you that the SDA documents lie about Justin Martyr and all of the recognized scholars.