Your ShelfYour Projects

The Apostolic Delegate on Sunday

4%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 23, 1913

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 90, No. 43.

Read the full edition

The Apostolic Delegate on Sunday

By C. M. S.

THE special representative of the Pope in the United States, Monsignor John Bonzano, has made a very interesting contribution to the Sunday-sabbath literature of the present day. It came about in this way: the Washington Times has been conducting a campaign for more general attendance at church on Sunday, and ministers and priests have been invited to assist the campaign by writing articles designed to encourage Sunday churchgoing.
We give the Vatican official's article entire, and for three reasons: (1) That we may not be accused of garbling his testimony or omitting important portions; (2) because this official is the highest Roman Catholic authority in the United States, and what he speaks is authoritative; (3) that our readers may see the slender thread on which this dignitary of the Roman Church hangs the sacredness of the Sunday institution. His article, entitled "Why Sunday Is the First Day," was printed in the Washington Times of October 11, and reads:—
We know by the light of our reason that there is an obligation for man to adore his Creator, God Almighty. Natural law requires that every human being shall devote some part of his time to acts of divine worship, but it does not fix or determine any particular time for the fulfilment of this obligation. For the people of Israel, in the Old Law, there was a specified time for it, because God himself condescended to appoint a day on which they were to discharge this duty toward their Maker. He set apart the seventh day of the week for this purpose in commemoration of the day on which he rested from the work of creation.
In the New Law the time for fulfilment of this obligation was changed by the apostles from the Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, to Sunday, or the first day of the week, primarily to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who early in the morning on the first day of the week arose, glorious and triumphant, from the dead. Hence it is that, in Scripture, the first day of the week is called the "Lord's day." Apoc. 1:10.
Other reasons for this change were: Because it was on this day that the apostles received their commission, as apostles, from Jesus Christ, with the same power and authority which he, as man, has received from his Father, "As the Father has sent me," he said to them, "so I send you" (John 20:21); and because it was on this same day that they received from Christ the power of forgiving sins. It was also on this same day of the week that the Holy Ghost came down upon the apostles, and that the faith and law of Christ was for the first time solemnly published to the world by them.
The manner in which Christians are bound to keep holy the first day of the week consists in their abstaining from
all unnecessary servile work and in occupying themselves with some positive act of divine worship.
Since the law of God in this matter is, therefore, so clear, and since the determination of the time for the fulfilment of this duty has been reasonably changed from the day of Saturday to that of Sunday, it is very much to be desired that all who claim to be Christians should faithfully discharge their duty in this regard. So much, at least, is their duty of conscience.
From the faithful observance of Sunday the commonwealth, as well as the individual, derives much good, both of the spiritual and of the temporal nature. And hence it is that, in view of this good, society should be greatly concerned in enacting laws for the observance of Sunday, and most careful in seeing that they are put into practise.
As we read this article, we should not forget that we are reading the deliberate declaration of the highest official in America of that church which claims to reach back to apostolic days. Frequently Protestant ministers are heard to declare that Jesus Christ changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. The apostolic delegate does not put forth that claim. He lays upon the shoulders of the apostles the responsibility for the change, and they are not here to repudiate the charge, as they most certainly would do if they were here and could speak in their own defense.
It will be noted that the apostolic delegate confines to the Israelites alone the only law that was ever divinely given for a weekly Sabbath. If God were to leave it where he leaves it, there would be absolutely no Sabbath for the Christian dispensation; for he quotes no law for the observance of a sacred day in the Christian dispensation. The ten-commandment law, by his own declaration, is restricted to the Jews.
Monsignor Bonzano is speaking of the necessity of having some definite time set apart for religious worship. He says: "In the New Law the time for fulfilment of this obligation was changed by the apostles from the Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, to Sunday, or the first day of the week, primarily to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ." But immediately before making this declaration, he had stated that "God himself" had "set apart the seventh day of the week for this purpose in commemoration of the day on which he rested from the work of creation."
If, then, the apostles changed the day in order "to commemorate the resurrection," they defeated the purpose of God, who appointed the day to commemorate "the day on which he rested from the work of creation." Had they power to do this? Had they a desire to do this? Had they a reason for doing
this? Had they authority to do this? To each of these questions there is and can be but one answer, No. The apostles did not change the day. There were numerous arguments between some of the Jewish converts and other Christians over such questions as circumcision and the eating of certain flesh, but never do we read of their reproaching the Christians for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath. The Christians of apostolic days kept the Sabbath of Jehovah, the seventh day of the week, and the Hebrew converts to Christianity kept the same day these Christians kept, and it was the day their fathers kept from Eden and from Sinai down to Christ.
Had there been any question as to the identity of the day at the time of the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the manna in the wilderness would have set them straight at that time; for certainly God knew. Had there been any doubt as to the identity of the day in the time of Christ, his observance of the day would have settled the question for that time. And since his time, there is no possibility of the loss of the day or any uncertainty as to its identity.
More than that, we hear Paul, in arguing with the Jews of Rome, plainly declaring to them, "I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers." Acts 28:17. One of the "customs" of the Jews was the observance of the seventh day of the week. Could Paul have said that if he had abandoned the observance of the seventh day, and had adopted as a sabbath the day on which the heathen worshiped the sun? The answer is obvious. Paul did not keep Sunday. He was not one of the apostles who changed the day.
Matthew, writing with the pen of inspiration the record of our Lord's doings and teachings, gives a most striking contradiction of Monsignor Bonzano's declaration that the law given on Sinai was for the Jews and the old dispensation. We read:—
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:17-19.
These are the words of Jesus Christ. He knows of no "new law" that abrogates the commandments written on stone; but he does emphasize the importance of observing the precepts of the decalogue. The apostolic delegate speaks of the New Law as something that has in some way supplanted the Old Law.
Who made the New Law? The apostles, he says. Who made the Old Law?—God. Then follows the inevitable question, Whom shall we obey, God or men? But the apostles made no such law, nor ever assumed to themselves any such prerogatives of divinity. They knew, as we may know if we choose to know, that the divine law, of which the Sabbath command is a part, is eternal and unchangeable. “My covenant will I not break,” saith Jehovah, “nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” Ps. 89:34. Out of his mouth went that law, spoken with his own lips, and of which, by the declaration of the Son of God himself, not one jot or tittle should fail.
They who accuse Christ of having changed the law, or of having authorized his disciples to do so, accuse him of doing what he declares he did not come to do, and seek to set him at variance with God the Father, in spite of his declaration that he and the Father are one. They set him forth as having done what Satan sought to do, that is, to change or overturn the foundation of the government of God. They who can make such a claim show plainly that they understand neither Jesus Christ nor his purpose in coming to the world, nor the government of heaven, which Jesus gave his life to vindicate before men.
C. M. S.
(To be concluded)