HOW THE SABBATH WAS CHANGED.
By M. E. K.
Not many years ago, had a professed Christian of any of the great Protestant churches been asked, How was the change from the observance of the seventh day to that of the first day brought about? the answer would probably have been, By command of Christ and his apostles. They could not then, any more than now, produce statements from Christ nor his apostles to prove their declaration, nor could they even find any clear inferential evidence that Christ or his apostles ever in any way disparaged the weekly Sabbath, but still, somehow that impression had taken root, the popular prejudice favored it, and, like a noxious weed in a fair garden, for a long time it resisted all efforts to dislodge it. The influence of Puritanism may be clearly seen in this tenacious clinging to the idea that the Sunday is the Christian successor of the Jewish Sabbath, and that it has for its support all the moral force of the ancient law of the Sabbath. That theory has been like a wall of error resisting the power of the truth to batter it down, but at the present time it certainly is beginning to give way. Few persons with any pretensions of scholarship are now found who are bold enough to assert that Sunday rests upon the authority of the fourth commandment, or that the change from the observance of the Sabbath to that of the keeping of Sunday was quickly done under absolute and unequivocal divine direction. Two causes have united to bring in this change of sentiment in regard to the Sabbath, a primary and a secondary cause. The primary cause is the truth of the Scriptures, which is squarely opposed to this transfer of the Sabbath theory, and the application of this truth to the reason and consciences of men, which has been done most persistently and earnestly during the last forty years by that people who, in the providence of God, have been set for the defense of the Bible truth that only one Sabbath day was ever given to mankind, that this day is the seventh day under all dispensations, and serves the same purpose for them all. The people who are engaged in this work are not great in point of numbers, tho they are constantly receiving accessions; nor remarkable for their ability or education, yet comparing favorably with others; and hence their success in gaining adherents, and at the same time causing their opponents to change their attitude toward the question, is an evidence that it is the word of God which they handle, which is both the fire and hammer which break the rock in pieces, and under which the strong wall of opposition is being at least slowly battered into another shape. The primary cause, then, of this change of front upon the subject of the Sabbath, which the adherents and defenders of the Sunday-sabbath have now largely accepted, is that the truth preached by the people symbolized6 (54)by the angel of Rev. 14:9-12 has broken the defense of the opponents and caused them to make a new alignment on the field of scriptural contention. In thus describing the primary cause of this change of front which those who would support an unscriptural sabbath have been compelled to assume, the secondary cause is also suggested; but it may be further treated. Under the constant pressure of those who present the simple, clear truths of the Bible that the Sabbath is as unchangeable as its divine Author, and that there is no evidence in Scripture or history of any change of the Sabbath by divine appointment, those who would still sustain Sunday have gradually yielded their old position, and have taken up a new, and, to their minds, a more advantageous position. They now claim no warrant in the Scriptures for the change, make the Sabbath a thing of small account, and allow that the change was effected gradually through long series of years. Thus Professor Salmond in his new book, entitled “The Sabbath,” says: “No word of Christ, no decree of the apostles, is on record abrogating the seventh day and appointing the first.” The book reviewer in the Biblical World, quoting the above statement, adds, “And had there been such, it presumably would have been put on record,” and then quotes again from Professor Salmond as follows: “Rather was it (the change) by a gradual way, under the sense of a divine propriety and the suggestions of apostolic practice,” that the change came about. This confession at once removes the act of the change of the Sabbath from where it can gain any authority of Christ and his apostles, and places it where it belongs, in the times when the innovations and changes which led to the formation of the Papacy were superseding in the church the teachings of Christ. The change from presbyter or bishop to metropolitan bishop, to archbishop, to pope,—in short, the whole paraphernalia of apostasy,—is assumed step by step, and under conditions and circumstances which were believed to be “under the sense of a divine propriety and the suggestions of apostolic practice.” We therefore assert without fear of a successful contradiction that every one of the innovations which are peculiar to the Papacy may be sustained by the declaration that they were enacted “under the sense of a divine propriety,” as easily as the change of the Sabbath may be so excused and warranted. Even the defenders of this notion of the authority of Sunday-keeping are not perfectly satisfied with it, and the book reviewer before referred to, pertinently says that “perhaps we still need to ask ourselves more precisely what is the nature of the Christian Sunday as derived from its predecessor, the Jewish Sabbath, and as derived from its own peculiar accession and significance.” Such a confession demonstrates that the supporters of Sunday are, and have been, on the wrong track; for after centuries of study, discussion, and change of opinion, they are not yet settled as to the origin of Sunday and its status in the Christian church. In all this discussion there are for us, who accept the scriptural idea of the Sabbath, some crumbs of comfort. Every retreat, every change of position, of the advocates of Sunday, leads some honest soul who has been groping in this Sunday fog to see the light of the Sabbath of the Lord shining like a bright star from creation until now. To one who has confidently believed that the obligation to observe the Sabbath was transferred by divine authority to Sunday, it is a severe shock to learn that such is not the case, and that Sunday-keeping is on a level with many practices which he has been taught to look upon as of papal origin. Under such a shock many transfer their allegiance to the Sabbath of the Bible, whose foundation never changes, and whose claims for allegiance and obedience are always truthful, consistent, and harmonious. We have no reason to be discouraged in our work of heralding God's idea of his Sabbath; the walls of error are crumbling; the honest will see the light and rejoice in it. M. E. K.