The Sunday, the Sabbath, and the Change.
By Eld. W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(Concluded.) SHOULD it be objected, right here, that it is just as impossible to prove from the New Testament the custom of seventh-day observance on the part of the early church as it is to prove that of the sanctification on their part of the first day of the week, we reply, that even though we were not able to cite a single instance in which it is declared in so many words that the disciples in the first century were convened on the seventh-day Sabbath for the purposes of Christian worship, still the obligation to hallow that day at the present time could be clearly made out. The difference between the two days lies in the fact that one is enforced by positive command, and the other is not. If the first day has any claim to sanctity whatever, that claim must be drawn from the practice of the early church; since, therefore, the practice of that church has been shown to be opposed to the idea of its sanctity, it loses all its claim to be honored as such. If, on the other hand, we concede, as the majority of orthodox Christians do, that the fourth commandment is still binding, then, even though the day were not mentioned once by name, its obligation would be unquestionable, since it has for its enforcement a specific statute. Nay, more; the necessary presumption would be, in the absence of any positive statement to the contrary, that the early disciples habitually hallowed its hours upon its weekly return. To illustrate: We might ransack in vain the history of the United States for a positive declaration that George Washington ever paid a highway tax in his life; nevertheless, no reasonable person would question the fact that he did so, since there is no dispute that men were taxed for the improvement of the highway in his day, and therefore, as he was a man of property and a good citizen, it is fairly to be presumed that his property was assessed for that purpose, and that he paid the tax for the same. But let us bring the argument to bear upon a portion of Bible history, where the facts and circumstances will not be denied. From the time that the Sabbath was given on Mt. Sinai to the reign of David (a space of 500 years), the Sabbath is not once mentioned, nor is it declared that the Israelites kept it at all during that period. Notwithstanding these facts, it is admitted by all that they were in the habit of Sabbath observance. But why, we inquire, such universal agreement in regard to the practice of the Israelites during the 500 years in question? The answer is, that the existence of the law creates the presumption that the Hebrews, to whom the law was given, observed the same in the absence of all testimony to the contrary. Now that we have demonstrated the proposition that we are under no obligation to furnish a single recorded instance from the New Testament of seventh-day observance, in order to perpetuate that observance, so long as a positive law exists enforcing the same, we wish to glance at the subject for a moment from the stand-point of the hypothetical argument. First, then, we inquire—granting for the moment that a change of days did really take place at the time of the resurrection—what would be the necessary result of such a transition? All, we think, must agree that it could not have taken place without bringing about the most serious collisions between the Jews and the Christians. If the latter had been actually instructed that the so-called Jewish Sabbath had been abolished, and that a new day had taken its place, it is undeniably true that their practice would have changed, so far as to enable them to conform to the new order of things. Two duties would necessarily have devolved upon them. First, it would be required that they themselves should uniformly and strictly observe the Sunday; and, secondly, that they should enforce by their teachings the same duty upon others. Another consequence of the transition in question would be the desecration of the old Sabbath on their part, since both pecuniary interest and that strict regard for moral ingenuousness, which would prevent them from treating a day as holy which they did not regard as such, would unite in compelling them to devote the old Sabbath to secular purposes. The result of such a course of conduct, however, is too manifest to leave room for doubt. Those fanatical Rabbis who sought to condemn Christ, because his hungry disciples ate of the standing corn through which they passed on the Sabbath, and again and again anathematized him because he healed on that day, would surely have made the Sabbath desecration of the early Christians the prolific source of constant collision and debate. At every turn they would have been watched, and for every desecration of the Sabbath they would have been subjected to trial and even violence. These collisions, resulting, as they must have done, in heated contests and frequent arrests, would necessarily have found recognition in the records which have come down to us. The perfect absence of everything of the kind, therefore, justifies an inference, almost as strong as demonstration itself, that these collisions never took place, and therefore that the early disciples were not Sabbath-breakers, as otherwise the book of Acts, covering as it does about thirty years of early church history, would have made them prominent. Once more: The change of Sabbath must have occasioned either the transfer of the name Sabbath from the old to the new one, or else it would have insured the creation of a new title for the new day, by which its sacredness would have been signified. Neither of these two conditions, however, are met by the Sunday. It is never called the Sabbath in the Scriptures, and there is nowhere applied to it any sacred title whatever. It is mentioned eight times in the New Testament, but in every instance it bears the secular title of first day of the week. Should it be replied that in Rev. 1:10 it is called Lord's day, we answer that such cannot be demonstrated to be the case. The Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, wrote the Gospels also, about two years subsequent to the time when he penned the former. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit had designed to signalize the day of Christ's resurrection by styling it the Lord's day in Rev. 1:10, it would be impossible to explain why the same Spirit, when resting upon the same apostle, two years later, should have uniformly referred to the same day in the use of the purely secular title first day of the week. Again; the term Lord's day was the common appellation of the ancient Sabbath. Isaiah, in speaking of the latter, employs the following language: "If thou wilt turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, and call the SABBATH a delight, the HOLY of the Lord, HONORABLE," &c. Isa. 58:13. (See also the language of the commandment in Ex. 20:8-12, and the words of Christ in Mark 2:27, 28.) Now, therefore, the natural if not necessary inference of all unprejudiced minds, when reading Rev. 1:10, would have been that the day referred to was no other than the one alluded to by Isaiah, i. e., the Sabbath of Eden and Sinai. To overcome such a tendency it is quite certain that inspiration would have been more explicit had the allusion been to a new day, which had received a recognition as sacred in no other place in the Bible. But to return to the hypothetical argument. The seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath fifty-six times in the New Testament. The weight of this circumstance in the argument can hardly be overrated, when we consider the uniform agreement among Christians in regard to the perpetuity of the Sabbath command of the decalogue. It would be strange indeed if a day which is not such should be called the Sabbath fifty-six times in the New Testament, and the day which is in reality the true Sabbath should never be thus styled even once. Nay more; it would be incomprehensible,—if it be true that the first day of the week is really the Sabbath at the present time,—that the New Testament writers, as in Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:54-56 to Luke 24:1, should not only fail to call it the Sabbath but should actually style the day before it the Sabbath; thus contrasting the one with the other in this particular. Should our opponents, with an ingenuity which sometimes characterizes them, attempt to parry the point of this argument by explaining away the difficulty on the ground that the first day of the week is never properly styled the Sabbath, but should always be called the Lord's day, we would reply as follows:— 1. As shown above, the seventh day of the week is the Lord's day. 2. That if the first day of the week cannot properly be called the Sabbath, then there is no law for its enforcement, since the day commanded in the fourth commandment is styled therein the Sabbath. 3. That as they agree with us in the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, there must be a Sabbath-day properly so styled, which it enforces in this dispensation, and that the seventh day must be the one in question, unless it be admitted that inspired men improperly applied that title to it fifty-six times, a thing which is in the highest degree improbable to any one who has any knowledge of human nature; for nothing would be more natural, when there was a conflict of opinion as to which of two days was the Sabbath, than that the advocates of each should persistently apply the title to the day which they favored, and stoutly refuse to apply it to the one which they opposed. If the reader would have a practical illustration of the correctness of the above proposition, let him try his hand in an effort to induce Sabbatarians at the present time to designate the Sunday in the use of the sacred title, The Sabbath. Our word for it, he would either conclude that men are different now from what they were 1800 years ago, or else he would decide that his former theories in the matter under consideration were at fault. But it is now time to bring this article to a close. That a change of the Sabbath has actually taken place, there can be no dispute. That such a change has been brought about either by Christ or anti-Christ, will be equally obvious. That the former did not accomplish the work, has, we think, been made evident by the considerations offered heretofore. We read in John 12:48, that we are to be judged by Christ's words. But in all the utterances which ever emanated from him, there is not one which favors first-day sanctity. On the other hand, his example, as well as that of the apostles, positively contradicts such a theory. Not only so, but the general tenor of the New Testament, recognizing, as it does, the obligation of the Sinaitic Sabbath law, both by the record containing the example of Christ, and by positive statement bearing upon the subject, as well as by the practice, uniform among the New Testament writers, of styling the seventh day of the week the Sabbath, is such that the unbiased reader would necessarily conclude that the Sabbath of Adam and of Christ is still obligatory upon the followers of the latter. Thus much for Christ and his relation to the subject. Now we turn to anti-Christ. Is it possible that he is the author of the change in question? On this branch of the subject we must be exceedingly brief, contenting ourselves with a few sentences, where chapters would be required to do the subject justice. In Dan. 7:25, the prophet, in speaking of the papacy under the symbol of the "little horn," says that he would "think to change times and laws." This prediction has been literally fulfilled by the Pope of Rome. On repeated occasions he has asserted his ability to change even the law of God. Nor has he been content with claiming the power merely, but he also claims to have put it into practical operation. In the various catechisms of the Romish Church, it is asserted, again and again, that Catholics have changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and Protestants are charged with recognizing their power to do so by sanctifying the Sunday which they claim has no other authority than the decrees of the hierarchy.459The following from a Catholic work entitled, "Plain Talk About Protestantism of To-day," will furnish the only citation which we can introduce here. (For further information on the subject, the reader is requested to refer to a tract entitled "Who changed the Sabbath?" published at the office of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.) "It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but that it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church." (Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day, p. 225.) Reader! Where do you propose to stand henceforth in the battle of Sabbath observance? Will you hallow the day which God blessed, rested upon, and sanctified in the beginning of the world; which he enforced on Mt. Sinai, by the only Sabbath law which is contained in the Bible; a day which is uniformly styled the Sabbath in both the Old and the New Testament; or will you persist in hallowing a day which God never blest, never rested upon, never sanctified, and never commanded any man to observe? The case is before you. Judge, I pray you, and act as becomes one whose only rule of conduct is that written word whose teachings will furnish the standard of judgment in the great day.
Allegan, Michigan.