Chapter 8. — The Sabbath — Its Change From The Seventh to the First Day of the Week.
CHAPTER 8. — THE SABBATH — ITS CHANGE FROM
THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
I. IT may easily be shown that this change is reconcilable with the law of the Sabbath. Admitting that the institution is of perpetual and universal obligation, it necessarily follows that it cannot be changed in what is essential to its nature, except by the same divine authority by which it was originally constituted. Mere adventitious appendages or circumstances, not divinely prescribed or pertaining to the essence of the institution, may be modified or altered as experience may dictate, but all that is essential to its character must be preserved intact, or the institution is perverted. The Sabbath in its real essence, as we have already shown, is a moral as contradistinguished from a positive institute. But the question to be settled is this: What elements are comprised as essential to the Sabbath? This can only be determined by appealing to the great moral code, as formally enacted and inscribed on the tables of stone.
We cannot be made to believe, even by the revered authority of Richard Watson, that the Sabbath is founded upon a law “partly moral and partly positive;” nor can we perceive the import of the language used in the presentation of that theory, that “the institution consists of two parts — the Sabbath, or holy rest, and the day on which it is observed.” The Sabbath is the institution in question. Then to say that the Sabbath is only a part of the institution, is to say that it is only a part of itself, which is absurd. Again, to say that a holy rest is one part of the institution, and a day or time on which it is observed is another part, is to speak unintelligibly; for how can we conceive of a holy rest, or Sabbath, without a day or time on which it took place? But if the meaning be that a Sabbath, or a holy day of rest, is one thing, and the particular day on which the rest takes place is another thing — if this be the meaning, why not so express it? If we admit the theory, that the particular day on which the Sabbath is observed is an essential part of the institution, then we must abandon the idea that the institution is embraced in the moral law; for the specific day to be observed is not there prescribed — all that is expressed is, that after six days’ labor, the next day, which, according to that mode of reckoning, will be the seventh, is to be observed as the Sabbath, It is there said that “the Lord blessed (not a particular seventh day, but) the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it;” hence it is clear that the particular seventh day is not essential to the institution of the Sabbath. It is not prescribed in the statute engraven upon stone by which this duty is enjoined; therefore, to say that the Sabbath is an institution partly positive and partly moral, not only involves us in absurdity, as shown above, but excludes it from being embraced in the Decalogue, and paves the way for its abrogation.
The particular seventh day in question is a mere adventitious appendage, not constituting an essential element of the Sabbatic institution. This appendage is no constituent part of the Sabbath, but only a positive enactment, which may or may not have a temporary and local existence, and may or may not pass away without affecting the perpetuity or the universality of the institution as such.
Thus we see how it was that all the merely Jewish ordinances and enactments concerning their sabbaths, embracing much minutia and some burdensome and rigorous requirements, could pass away with the rest of their typical and ceremonial system, leaving the Sabbath itself, with every element essential to its nature, as embodied in the moral law, permanent and undisturbed. Thus we arrive at the conclusion, that the particular seventh day to be observed, not being an essential element of the institution, may be changed without affecting the integrity of the Sabbath, and in perfect conformity to the position that it is grounded not on positive, but moral law.
Again, to say that the particular seventh day in question is an essential element of the Sabbath, embodied in the moral law upon which it is founded, and consequently not properly susceptible of change without formal, divine precept to that effect, is unreasonable in view of the nature of the subject.
Some nations and communities commence their computation of days at one hour, and some at another; some begin at six in the evening, some at midnight. Now, if the precise day were essential, so would be the precise hour at which to begin the reckoning; otherwise, the Sabbath of one people would be half over before that of another people would commence. Again, suppose the precise seventh day and the exact hour had both been prescribed in the moral law, even then confusion and inconsistency would have been the inevitable result. All nations do not dwell in the same latitude and longitude; and from this fact alone, it would necessarily follow that different nations, according as their latitude and longitude varied, would commence their Sabbath at different times; and the entire day, held sacred by some, would be desecrated by others. Thus, according to this view, the only way to prevent the Sabbath from being profaned would have been for each nation to be furnished with a separate and distinct revelation on the law of the Sabbath, arranged, like an almanac, according to the diversity of localities. Such a one the Jews had, but it was connected not with the moral, but the ceremonial law, which, being intended for them alone, passed away with their “law of commandments contained in ordinances.” But the Sabbath, as embraced in the moral law, being intended for man — for all men, in all ages and in all latitudes and longitudes — is encumbered and lettered by no such localizing elements. Neither the specific seventh day nor the precise hour is prescribed, because neither the one nor the other was essential; hence, agreeably to both Scripture and reason, the Sabbath may be changed from the seventh to the first day of the week in perfect consistency with the great moral law on which it is founded. II. THIS CHANGE WAS MADE BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, DIVINELY CONFERRED.
1. To establish this position, we observe, first, that the apostles were divinely commissioned by our Lord to organize and regulate the Christian Church. This appears from the terms of their grand commission. “Go ye therefore,” said Jesus, “and teach all nations, … teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:19, 20. Here the apostles are sent forth with a divine commission to teach the nations “all things whatsoever the Saviour had commanded them.” This certainly embraced every thing necessary to the organization and regulation of the Church, and consequently included the institution of the Sabbath. But as a guarantee that they would be divinely guided and assisted in this work, our Lord promises his accompanying presence “alway, even unto the end of the world.”
But to show their plenary authority yet more fully, Christ says to his apostles: “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” John 20:21. Now as the Father had sent the Son, endued with “all power in heaven and in earth,” even so does the Son send forth his apostles in the discharge of their apostolic functions, clothed with all the authority he had received from the Father — that is, the apostles, in the discharge of their high office, as Christ’s inspired agents, expounded the doctrines of salvation, and “set in order” the affairs of the Church with the same divine authority as though Christ had performed this work in person.
2. The divine authority of the apostles appears from the promises given them by the Saviour.
Christ said to his apostles: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26. Again, Jesus says to his apostles: “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” John 16:13. More Scripture proof to the same effect might be presented, but the passages quoted amply show that the doings and teachings of the inspired apostles in executing their mission, as the “master-builders” in the erection and organization of the Christian Church, ought to be viewed as divinely authoritative. It only remains, therefore, to examine the evidence establishing the fact that —
III. THE SABBATH WAS CHANGED UNDER THE APOSTOLIC
ADMINISTRATION FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
1. This appears, first, from the testimony of the New Testament. If the fact can be made manifest that from the time of the resurrection of Christ the apostles and the Christian Churches generally celebrated religious service regularly, not on the Jewish Sabbath, according to the long-established and universal custom of the Jews, but on the first day of the week, it will appear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that by apostolic example and direction that day, instead of the seventh, was set apart as the Christian Sabbath. On this subject, we thus read: “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” Acts 20:7. In 1 Corinthians 16:2, we read: “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” The apostle had just said that he had “given order to the Churches in Galatia” similar to the instructions here furnished the Corinthians. Now, we ask, is it not a rational inference, from these scriptures, that it was the regular custom of these Churches, while under the eye and direct supervision of the inspired apostles, to assemble on the first day of the week for religious worship?
In reference to the disciples at Troas, referred to in the passage quoted from The Acts, it is not said, that “the disciples came together on the first day of the week” (as though it had incidentally occurred); but the language is, “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” The form of the language obviously indicates that this assembling of the disciples on “the first day of the week to break bread” was an established custom in the Church; and it seems also to have been the custom of the Churches in Galatia and Corinth, for why should the apostle have specified that, their collections for the poor should all be made on the first day of the week, unless as matter of convenience, that being the day of their regularly assembling for divine service? And if that was the day on which all these Churches met for weekly worship, especially for the “breaking of bread,” or the Supper of the Lord, is it not evident that they observed the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath? St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 4:10), says: “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.” Macknight but expresses the opinion of commentators generally, when he says: “By ‘days,’ the apostle means the Jewish weekly Sabbaths.” Of course he here reproves the Galatians for their superstitious adherence to these days, according to Jewish custom.
Again, the same apostle says: “Let no one judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths.” Colossians 2:16. Here the apostle refers also to the Jewish “commandments contained in ordinances” which Christ had taken “out of the way, and nailed to his cross.” The testimony of the apostle must be understood in these passages as being pointed against the sabbaths of the Jews, so far as they were connected with the ceremonial and ritual precepts of the law; but, unless he intended to contradict himself, which is inadmissible, he had no reference to the Sabbath as set forth in the moral law, for we have already shown that he taught the perpetuity of that law; hence, according to St. Paul, while the Jewish Sabbath, so far as relates to circumstances outside of the Decalogue, is superseded under the gospel, yet that institution, as embodied in the Decalogue, is not abrogated, but established.
And as the Jewish restriction of the Sabbath to the seventh day of the week is not derived from the moral law, which is permanent and unalterable — but from outside, positive enactment, which is liable to change — it necessarily follows that, under the gospel, while the institution of the Sabbath cannot be annulled, yet it may be changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. And since St. Paul teaches that the Jewish sabbaths are not, while the moral law is, obligatory on Christians, it is clear that the Christian Church is under no obligation to observe the seventh day of the week as a sabbath; but as the first day of the week was observed as the Christian Sabbath by the apostles and the first Christians under their sanction, it necessarily follows that, from the establishment of Christianity, the first and not the seventh day of the week has been the divinely authorized Sabbath.
St. John (Revelation 1:10) says: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s-day,” etc. All commentators agree that the reference here is to the first day of the week, which was termed “the Lord’s-day” in honor of our Lord’s resurrection, which took place on that day; hence, from that period and ever afterward, beginning with the inspired apostles themselves, the first day of the week has been termed “the Lord’s-day” by the Christian Church, and observed, instead of the seventh, as the Christian Sabbath.
2. That the apostles and first Christians observed the first day of the week as a Sabbath, assembling regularly on that day for the public worship of God and for the sacrament of the Lord’s-supper, is not only evident from the New Testament, but this fact is confirmed by an uninterrupted stream of Church-history, beginning in the apostolic age and extending to the present period.
Upon this question, a few of the many available testimonies will be sufficient.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 101, says: “Let every one that loves Christ keep holy the Lord’s-day — the queen of days, the resurrection-day, the highest of all days.”
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote in the second century, says: “Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s-day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.”
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, who also lived in the second century, and who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a companion of St. John, speaks of the Lord’s-day as the Christian Sabbath. “On the Lord’s-day,” said he, “every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath.”
Clement of Alexandria, of the same century, testifies: “A Christian, according to the command of the gospel, observes the Lord’s-day, thereby glorifying the resurrection of the Lord.”
Tertullian, of the same period, says: “The Lord’s-day is the holy day of the Christian Church.”
These testimonies abundantly establish the fact, not only that the first day of the week was styled “the Lord’s-day,” in honor of our Saviour’s resurrection, but that the Christian Church, even in the apostolic age, observed it as the Christian Sabbath.
“IV. In the next place, we, observe that this change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week under the gospel economy is founded upon adequate reasons.
1. It is admitted that the seventh was a day appropriate for the Jewish Sabbath, because it celebrated and kept up in lively remembrance the great work of creation. The poet has said:
“‘T was great to speak the world from nought,
‘T was greater to redeem.”
How appropriate is it, then, that the resurrection of Christ, the crowning evidence of his Messiahship, and the concluding scene in the great drama of the work of redemption for which he was manifested in the flesh, should be celebrated as the Christian Sabbath! Hence, from the morning on which he arose, as a memorial of that glorious event, the first day of the week has ever been hallowed by the Christian Church as “the Lord’s-day,” or the Sabbath. And thus, while the Christian Sabbath still commemorates the great work of creation according to the original appointment, by the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, it also commemorates the resurrection of our Lord.
2. But this day is not only memorable as the day of Christ’s resurrection, but for several of his remarkable appearances afterward; for on the same day on which he arose he appeared twice unto his disciples. On the next Lord’s-day, when they were all assembled, as though for religious worship, he again appeared in their midst. It was also on the Lord’s-day that the miraculous Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place; and through the successive ages of the Church God has manifestly sanctioned the public celebration of his worship on the Lord’s-day by innumerable