The Original Meaning of “Sabbath”: Does the Bible Really Teach Saturday Observance? A Catholic Biblical and Historical Response to Seventh-day Adventist Claims

Introduction

One of the most common claims made by Seventh-day Adventists (SDA) is that Christians are still obligated to observe the Sabbath on Saturday because the biblical word "Sabbath" supposedly means the seventh day of the week and therefore can never refer to Sunday.

But is this really what the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures teach?

To answer this question honestly, we must examine:

1. The original Hebrew and Greek words.
2. The biblical meaning of Sabbath.
3. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
4. The practice of the Early Church.
5. Catholic teaching on the Lord's Day.
6. Common SDA objections.

The evidence reveals that the Sabbath was originally a sacred day of rest under the Old Covenant, but in Christ its deeper meaning is fulfilled, and Christians gathered on Sunday—the Day of the Resurrection—from the earliest apostolic era.

---

1. The Original Hebrew Word for Sabbath

The Hebrew word translated as Sabbath is:

שַׁבָּת (Shabbat)

Derived from the Hebrew root:

שָׁבַת (shavat)

Meaning:

• To cease
• To stop
• To rest
• To desist from labor

The emphasis is not primarily on a particular weekday but on the act of ceasing from work.

For example:

"On the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day." (Genesis 2:2)

The verb used is shavat—God ceased from His creative activity.

Therefore, the original meaning of Sabbath is:

"A sacred cessation from work"

rather than simply:

"Saturday."

---

2. The Greek Word for Sabbath

In the Septuagint and New Testament the word becomes:

σάββατον (sabbaton)

This Greek term is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew Shabbat.

Like the Hebrew, it primarily means:

• Sabbath
• Day of rest
• Sacred cessation

The word itself does not literally mean "Saturday."

Instead, it refers to the Jewish Sabbath observance.

For example:

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)

Jesus used the Sabbath as an institution established for humanity's benefit, not as an end in itself.

---

3. Does Sabbath Literally Mean Saturday?

The answer is:

No.

The Hebrew word means "rest" or "cessation."

The Jewish Sabbath happened to occur on the seventh day of the week under the Mosaic Covenant.

This is similar to saying:

• "Passover" does not mean the number 14.
• "Pentecost" does not mean the number 50.

The word identifies a sacred observance, not merely a calendar date.

Thus, SDA arguments that "Sabbath literally means Saturday" are linguistically inaccurate.

---

4. The Sabbath Before Moses

Interestingly, Genesis never records Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob keeping a weekly Sabbath.

The first explicit command appears in:

Exodus 16

before Sinai.

Then it becomes part of the Mosaic Covenant:

"Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath." (Exodus 31:16)

Notice:

Israel is specifically named.

The Sabbath functioned as a covenant sign between God and Israel.

"It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel." (Exodus 31:17)

This covenantal context is crucial.

---

5. Jesus and the Sabbath

Jesus repeatedly challenged the Pharisees' understanding of Sabbath observance.

He healed on the Sabbath:

• Matthew 12:9-14
• Mark 3:1-6
• Luke 13:10-17
• John 5:1-18

He declared:

"The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:8)

This is a remarkable claim.

Jesus is not merely interpreting Sabbath regulations.

He is claiming authority over the institution itself.

---

6. Christ Fulfilled the Sabbath

The New Testament teaches that many Old Covenant observances pointed toward Christ.

St. Paul writes:

"Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

Here Paul explicitly calls Sabbaths:

"a shadow."

Christ is the reality.

The shadow gives way to the substance.

Likewise:

"There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (Hebrews 4:9)

The author explains that the ultimate Sabbath is entering God's eternal rest through Christ.

The Sabbath ultimately points beyond a weekly observance to salvation itself.

---

7. Why Did Christians Meet on Sunday?

Jesus rose from the dead:

"On the first day of the week." (Matthew 28:1)

The Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost:

also on the first day.

The New Testament records Christians assembling on Sunday.

Acts 20:7

"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread..."

The phrase "break bread" commonly refers to the Eucharistic celebration.

1 Corinthians 16:2

"On the first day of every week each of you is to put something aside..."

This indicates a regular Christian gathering.

The New Testament repeatedly highlights Sunday as the principal day of Christian worship.

---

8. The Earliest Church Fathers

Long before the Catholic Church was accused of changing the Sabbath, Christians were already gathering on Sunday.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107)

Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

"Those who were brought up in the ancient order have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's Day."¹

Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John.

This testimony is extraordinarily important.

---

St. Justin Martyr (c. AD 155)

Justin Martyr wrote:

"On the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place."²

This is one of the earliest detailed descriptions of Christian worship.

---

The Didache (1st-2nd Century)

One of the earliest Christian documents states:

"On the Lord's Day gather together and break bread."

Again, Sunday worship appears as normative apostolic practice.³

---

9. What Does the Catholic Church Teach?

The Catholic Church does not teach that Sunday is merely a replacement Saturday.

Instead, Sunday celebrates:

• Christ's Resurrection
• The New Creation
• The New Covenant

The Catechism teaches:

"Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week."⁴

And:

"The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life."⁵

The Church sees Sunday as the fulfillment—not the abolition—of what the Sabbath foreshadowed.

---

10. Answering Common SDA Objections

Objection 1:

"The Ten Commandments are eternal."

Catholics agree.

The moral principles remain.

However, the ceremonial form of the Sabbath command belonged to the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Testament never commands Gentile Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

---

Objection 2:

"Jesus kept the Sabbath."

Of course.

Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law.

Galatians 4:4

He also observed Passover sacrifices and Temple regulations.

Yet Christians are not bound to all Mosaic ceremonial laws.

---

Objection 3:

"The Catholic Church changed God's law."

Historically false.

Sunday worship existed centuries before Christianity became legally recognized under Emperor Constantine the Great.

The writings of Ignatius and Justin prove this.

The Church did not invent Sunday worship; it inherited it from apostolic Christianity.

---

Objection 4:

"Revelation teaches Sabbath observance."

Revelation never commands Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

Instead, John refers to:

"the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10)

From the earliest centuries Christians understood this as Sunday.

---

The Deeper Meaning of Sabbath

The deepest biblical meaning of Sabbath is not merely:

• Saturday
• A calendar day
• A legal requirement

The Sabbath points toward:

• Christ
• Salvation
• Eternal Rest

Jesus Himself declared:

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

The true Sabbath is found in Him.

---

Conclusion

The original Hebrew word Shabbat means "to cease" or "to rest." The Greek Sabbaton carries the same meaning. Neither word literally means "Saturday."

While the Jewish Sabbath was observed on the seventh day under the Mosaic Covenant, the New Testament reveals that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath's deeper purpose. The Apostles and the earliest Christians gathered on Sunday, the Day of the Resurrection, which became known as the Lord's Day.

The evidence from Scripture, apostolic practice, Church Fathers, and Catholic teaching demonstrates that Christians are not obligated to observe the Jewish Sabbath as Seventh-day Adventists claim. Instead, Christians celebrate the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Jesus Christ and gather on Sunday to commemorate the new creation inaugurated by His Resurrection.

---

Footnotes (Chicago Style)

1. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, 9.
2. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.
3. Didache, 14.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2175.
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2177.

Which Christian Church Today Has the Strongest Documented Claim to Unbroken Continuity from the Apostles?

Introduction

One of the most important questions in Christian history is this:

Which Christian Church today possesses the strongest documented claim to an unbroken institutional continuity from the Apostles?

This question is not merely academic. If Jesus Christ established a visible Church, entrusted authority to His Apostles, and intended His mission to continue until the end of the age, then identifying that Church becomes a matter of profound significance.

Many Protestant communities argue that faithfulness to biblical doctrine is more important than institutional continuity. Others claim that the true Church became corrupted and disappeared for centuries before being restored during the Protestant Reformation. Atheists often dismiss all apostolic claims as later inventions.

Yet history presents a very different picture.

The evidence from Scripture, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the historical record overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Catholic Church possesses the strongest documented claim to continuous institutional existence from the Apostolic age to the present day.

This article will examine the biblical foundation of apostolic succession, the testimony of the earliest Christians, the teaching of the Catholic Church, and common objections raised by Protestants and skeptics.

---

Christ Founded a Visible and Enduring Church

The first question is not whether apostolic succession exists.

The first question is whether Jesus intended His Church to continue visibly throughout history.

Christ declared:

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Notice several important facts:

1. Christ founded one Church.
2. The Church belongs to Christ.
3. The Church would never be overcome.
4. The Church would remain until the end of time.

Likewise, Jesus promised:

"I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:20)

Christ did not promise temporary guidance.

He promised perpetual guidance.

Therefore, any theory claiming that the true Church disappeared for centuries directly contradicts Christ's own promises.

---

Apostolic Authority Was Meant to Continue

Some Protestants argue that the Apostles were unique and had no successors.

Scripture itself disproves this claim.

When Judas died, the Apostles immediately replaced him:

"His office let another take." (Acts 1:20)

Matthias was chosen to occupy Judas' apostolic office (Acts 1:26).

This demonstrates a crucial principle:

The office continued even when the man died.

The Apostles also appointed successors to oversee local churches.

Paul instructed Titus:

"This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Titus 1:5)

Likewise:

"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2)

Notice four generations:

1. Paul
2. Timothy
3. Faithful men
4. Others

This is succession.

Christian leadership was never intended to end with the Apostles.

---

The Early Church Believed in Apostolic Succession

The earliest Christians after the Apostles explicitly taught apostolic succession.

St. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 96)

Writing while some Apostles were still within living memory, Clement explained:

"The Apostles appointed bishops and deacons... and provided that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them."¹

This statement alone destroys the claim that apostolic succession was invented centuries later.

The Church already believed it in the first century.

---

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107)

Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John.

He repeatedly taught obedience to the bishop:

"Where the bishop appears, there let the people be."²

For Ignatius, the bishop represented continuity with apostolic authority.

This hierarchical structure is recognizable today in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It is absent from most Protestant denominations.

---

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180)

Irenaeus directly confronted heretics by appealing to apostolic succession.

He argued that authentic doctrine could be verified by examining the succession of bishops in apostolic churches.

Concerning Rome, he wrote:

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church."³

He then listed the succession of Roman bishops from Peter onward.

This is one of the earliest surviving historical records of episcopal succession.

---

Why Rome Occupies a Unique Position

Both Catholics and Orthodox possess apostolic succession.

However, the Catholic Church makes an additional claim:

The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.

The biblical basis is substantial.

Jesus said to Peter:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

In Isaiah 22:22, the "key" symbolizes a dynastic office that survives the death of its holder.

Thus many Church Fathers understood Peter's authority as an enduring office rather than a temporary privilege.

Peter also appears consistently as the leader of the Apostles:

• First named in apostolic lists (Matthew 10:2)
• Speaks for the Apostles (Matthew 16:16)
• Preaches at Pentecost (Acts 2)
• Receives the keys (Matthew 16:19)
• Strengthens the brethren (Luke 22:32)
• Shepherds Christ's flock (John 21:15–17)

The Catholic claim is that this Petrine ministry continued through the bishops of Rome.

---

Historical Continuity of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church can document:

• Continuous episcopal succession
• Continuous sacramental life
• Continuous doctrinal development
• Continuous institutional existence

From the first century to the twenty-first century, there has never been a period in which the Catholic Church ceased to exist.

Empires rose and fell.

Kingdoms disappeared.

Denominations emerged and fragmented.

Yet the Catholic Church remained.

No Protestant denomination can demonstrate institutional continuity before the sixteenth century.

Even respected Protestant historians acknowledge that the Catholic Church existed continuously long before the Reformation.

The debate is not whether the Catholic Church existed.

The debate is whether it remained faithful to apostolic teaching.

---

What the Catechism Teaches

The Catholic Church teaches:

"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors."⁴

The Catechism further teaches:

"The mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles will continue until the end of time."⁵

Apostolic succession is therefore not merely historical.

It is essential to Christ's plan for preserving the Gospel.

---

Protestant Objection #1:

"The True Church Is Invisible"

Many Protestants claim that the true Church consists only of believers known to God.

However, Scripture consistently describes the Church as visible.

Jesus commands believers to:

"Tell it to the Church." (Matthew 18:17)

A purely invisible church cannot hear disputes.

Paul calls the Church:

"The pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

An invisible institution cannot function as a visible pillar of truth.

The New Testament Church had bishops, presbyters, deacons, councils, discipline, and sacraments.

These are visible realities.

---

Protestant Objection #2:

"The Church Fell into Apostasy"

Some claim Christianity became corrupted after the Apostles and was restored during the Reformation.

This theory creates serious problems.

If the Church disappeared:

• Christ's promise failed (Matthew 16:18).
• Christ abandoned His Church (Matthew 28:20).
• The Holy Spirit failed to guide believers (John 16:13).

Furthermore, no historical evidence exists for a complete disappearance of the Church.

There is no century in which historians cannot identify Catholic bishops, sacraments, councils, and Christian communities.

The historical record is continuous.

---

Protestant Objection #3:

"Only the Bible Matters"

The Bible itself points to apostolic authority and succession.

The New Testament nowhere teaches:

"Sola Scriptura."

Instead, Paul writes:

"Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

The Apostles transmitted both written and oral teaching.

The Church preserved both.

Indeed, it was the Catholic Church that recognized and preserved the biblical canon itself.

Without the Church's historical witness, no Christian could know with certainty which books belong in the New Testament.

---

Atheist Objection:

"Apostolic Succession Was Invented Later"

The documentary evidence disproves this claim.

Clement of Rome wrote about succession in the first century.

Ignatius discussed bishops in the early second century.

Irenaeus defended succession in the second century.

These writings predate the legalization of Christianity and the rise of medieval Catholicism by centuries.

Apostolic succession is not a medieval invention.

It is part of the earliest historical record of Christianity.

---

Does Orthodoxy Also Have a Strong Claim?

Yes.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches maintain valid apostolic succession and ancient sacramental traditions.

Catholics acknowledge this.

However, the principal disagreement concerns the role of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox Church possesses apostolic continuity, but rejects universal papal jurisdiction.

Consequently, historians generally recognize both Catholicism and Orthodoxy as possessing ancient apostolic roots.

The Catholic argument is that communion with the successor of Peter belongs to the fullness of apostolic unity.

---

Conclusion

When judged solely by historical documentation, institutional continuity, episcopal succession, and global organizational continuity, the Catholic Church possesses the strongest documented claim to unbroken continuity from the Apostles.

This conclusion is supported by:

• Scripture
• Apostolic succession
• Early Church Fathers
• Continuous historical records
• The witness of Christian antiquity

The Catholic Church does not claim merely to resemble the Church of the Apostles.

It claims to be the same Church, enduring through history under Christ's promise:

"I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

For nearly two thousand years, despite persecution, schisms, heresies, wars, and revolutions, that Church remains.

The question each Christian must answer is not whether apostolic continuity matters.

The question is whether Christ intended His Church to remain visible, identifiable, and united throughout history—and if so, where that Church is found today.

---

Footnotes

1. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 44, c. A.D. 96.
2. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, c. A.D. 107.
3. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.3.2, c. A.D. 180.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 77.
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 860.

Romans 1:7–8 and the Church of Rome: Can Protestants Claim This Passage, or Does It Point to the Catholic Church?

Introduction

One of the most frequently overlooked passages in discussions about the Catholic Church is Romans 1:7–8:

"To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world." (Romans 1:7–8)

Many Catholics point to this text as evidence that the Church in Rome held a unique prominence from the earliest days of Christianity. Some Protestants, however, argue that this passage merely refers to ordinary Christians living in Rome and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

So who is correct?

The answer requires examining the biblical text, the historical Church of Rome, the testimony of the early Church Fathers, and Catholic teaching.

---

The Immediate Context of Romans 1:7–8

St. Paul is writing to the Christian community in Rome around A.D. 57–58.

Several important observations should be made:

1. Paul is not writing to multiple competing churches.
2. He is addressing a single Christian community in Rome.
3. Their faith was already famous throughout the Christian world.

Paul says:

"Your faith is proclaimed in all the world."

This is extraordinary praise.

At this point in history there was only one Christian Church. There were not yet Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals, or other denominations.

Therefore, the Christians in Rome belonged to the same universal Church founded by Christ and governed by the Apostles.

---

Was the Roman Church Already Catholic?

The word "Catholic" means "universal."

Although the term does not appear in Romans, the reality certainly existed.

The Church of Rome was part of the universal apostolic Church.

By the early second century, the Church was already commonly called "Catholic."

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote around A.D. 107:

"Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."¹

This is only a few years after the death of the Apostle John.

Therefore, the Roman Christians praised by Paul belonged to the same Church later universally known as the Catholic Church.

---

Does Romans 1:7–8 Belong Exclusively to Catholics?

This is where careful distinctions are necessary.

No, the Passage Is Not Exclusively About Modern Catholics

Paul was addressing first-century Christians living in Rome.

The passage cannot be claimed as if Paul were directly addressing twenty-first-century Roman Catholics.

Likewise, it was not directly addressed to modern Protestants.

The original recipients were the Christians of Rome in A.D. 57.

---

Yes, Catholics Have a Historical Connection to This Church

The key question is:

Which modern Christian body is the direct historical continuation of the Church in Rome that Paul praised?

Historically, the answer is clear.

The present-day Church centered in Rome under the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is the direct institutional continuation of the Roman Church that existed in Paul's day.

There is an unbroken line of bishops from St. Peter to the present.

The Church in Rome did not disappear and later reappear.

It continued throughout history.

Therefore Catholics have a unique historical claim to continuity with the Roman Church addressed in Romans.

---

What Did the Early Church Fathers Say About the Roman Church?

The earliest Christian writers consistently recognized the Church of Rome as possessing special authority.

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

St. Irenaeus wrote:

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its preeminent authority."²

This statement comes barely a century after Paul wrote Romans.

Irenaeus connects the authority of Rome directly to the apostolic succession of Peter and Paul.

---

St. Clement of Rome (A.D. 96)

While the Apostle John was still alive, St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, intervened in a dispute in Corinth.

Remarkably, the Corinthians accepted Rome's correction.

This shows that the Roman Church already exercised a leadership role among the churches.³

---

St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107)

Ignatius described the Roman Church as:

"presiding in love."⁴

Many scholars see this as evidence of Rome's unique position among the churches.

---

Does This Passage Prove the Papacy?

Romans 1:7–8 alone does not prove every aspect of Catholic teaching on the papacy.

Catholic doctrine concerning the papacy rests on a broader biblical foundation, including:

• Matthew 16:18–19
• Luke 22:31–32
• John 21:15–17
• Acts 15
• Early Church testimony

However, Romans 1:7–8 does provide evidence that:

1. The Roman Church was already highly respected.
2. Its faith was known throughout the Christian world.
3. Rome occupied a prominent place among the churches.

These facts harmonize with later Catholic teaching regarding Rome's special role.

---

Common Protestant Objections

Objection 1: "Paul Is Praising Individuals, Not the Roman Church"

While Paul addresses individual believers, he addresses them collectively as a single church community.

The letter itself is addressed to the Christian body in Rome.

The distinction between the believers and the church is artificial because the church is composed of believers.

---

Objection 2: "The Roman Church Later Became Corrupt"

This argument faces a major difficulty.

If Christ promised:

"The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18),

and if the Roman Church completely apostatized, then Christians would need to explain where Christ's true Church existed for more than a thousand years before the Reformation.

Historically, no Protestant denomination can demonstrate existence prior to the sixteenth century.

---

Objection 3: "Protestants Can Claim Romans 1:7–8 Because They Also Have Faith"

In a spiritual sense, all Christians who genuinely believe in Christ can learn from Paul's praise.

However, the historical recipients were members of the apostolic Church in Rome.

Modern Protestants may apply the passage devotionally, but they cannot claim historical identity with the Roman Church in the same way the Catholic Church can.

---

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ established one visible Church that continues throughout history.

The Catechism states:

"The sole Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." (CCC 816)

The Catechism further teaches:

"The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ... has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church." (CCC 882)

From a Catholic perspective, the Church in Rome praised by Paul is the same Church that continues today under the successors of Peter.

---

A Balanced Conclusion

Can Protestants claim Romans 1:7–8?

Yes, in a spiritual sense. Any Christian can be inspired by Paul's praise of faith, holiness, and devotion.

No, in the historical and ecclesial sense. The Church addressed by Paul was the first-century Church of Rome, whose historical continuation is the Catholic Church.

Romans 1:7–8 does not by itself prove every Catholic doctrine, but it undeniably demonstrates that the Roman Church already enjoyed extraordinary recognition in the apostolic age.

The testimony of Scripture, apostolic succession, and the early Church Fathers all point in the same direction: the Church of Rome was not merely another congregation among many, but a church whose faith and influence were known "throughout the whole world."

For Catholics, this passage is one more piece of evidence that the Church centered in Rome today stands in continuity with the very community that received Paul's inspired letter nearly two thousand years ago.

---

Footnotes

1. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:2 (c. A.D. 107).
2. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.3.2 (c. A.D. 180).
3. Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
4. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Prologue.