p. 1 | THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN by W. H. Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, April 21, 1885

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 62, No. 16

THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN.

By W. H. Littlejohn

ADDITIONAL CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH; THE WHOLE SUBJECT CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF GOD'S WORD.

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

Mr. Biblist.—At the conclusion of our last talk, if my memory serves me aright, we were debating the question whether the church of Rome claimed that the Sabbath was changed before or after the ascension of Christ. This is a very important point. There is a wide difference between insisting that Christ had the ability to do a certain thing, and arguing that the church can do, on their own motion, all that Christ could do personally. Again it is a fact which Protestants will not dispute, that when Christ ascended upon high, the new covenant was complete, all its doctrines having been fully defined and established. This is particularly true of the law of God, or the ten commandments; since the new covenant was made with reference to its observance. Paul says in Heb. 9:16, 17: “For where a testament [covenant] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” You might as well undertake to add to the will of a dead man as to alter

the conditions of the covenant after it has been made and ratified. Christ sealed the new covenant with his blood, as typified by the wine which we drink in connection with the celebration of the eucharist. From the moment that he died upon the cross, the new covenant became unalterable in its requirements and conditions. The only way to add to or take therefrom lies through the annulling of that covenant and the creation of another one based upon other conditions and promises.

Mr. Thoughtful.—Let me see if I get your idea. If I understand you correctly your thought is this: the ten commandments, or law of God, are connected with the new covenant, and as that covenant was perfected by the death of Christ, it would be impossible—so long as that covenant stands—to change those commandments.

Mr. B.—Yes, sir; that is it exactly. The keeping of the ten commandments, or law of God, is one of the conditions of the new covenant. To change those commandments, therefore, would be to change the conditions of that covenant; or, in other words, to destroy that covenant and to make a new one. If the papacy is right, therefore, we are now living under the third instead of the second covenant. Such a thing, however, is too preposterous to require refutation.

Before going farther, I wish to bring additional proof that Romanists insist that the Sabbath has been changed since Christ ascended. I am about to read an extract from a work entitled “Catholic Christian Instructed.” Its commencement will be found on page 209 of that book. Before beginning to read, let me remind you that when a Romanist writer speaks of “the church” he always means his own church. Romanists never acknowledge the existence of any true church outside of their own. The latter, as they claim, originated with Christ and the apostles and has continued ever since. Now mark closely what I am about to read; remembering that what I wish to establish is the proposition that the Romanists claim that their own church has changed the Sabbath somewhere this side of the day of pentecost, and therefore this side of the ascension of Christ. Here is the extract in question:—

“Ques. What are the days which the Church commands to be kept holy?

“Ans. 1. The Sundays, or our Lord’s day, which we observe by apostolical tradition, instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our Lord’s Nativity, or Christmas day; his Circumcision, or New Year’s day; the Epiphany, or Twelfth day; Easter day, or the day of our Lord’s resurrection, with the Monday following.”

Here comes a long list of the Catholic festivals and feast-days, which you can find in almost any almanac, so I will omit the reading of them just now. Dropping down a little way I will begin again:—

“Q. What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the Saturday to the Sunday? “A. Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday. As therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than that of our creation, the primitive Church thought the day in which this work was completely finished, was more worthy her religious observation than that in which God rested from the creation, and should be properly called the Lord’s day.”

You see, Mr. Thoughtful, from what I have just read, that it was the “primitive church”—i. e., the primitive Catholic church—which it is claimed changed the Sabbath. You see also that it is insisted that this change took place after the day of pentecost, since one of the reasons assigned for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week is the fact that it was on the latter that the Holy Ghost was sent down upon the church; i. e., on the day of pentecost. That indeed is the burden of the whole argument, as you will see hereafter. Romanists, instead of admitting for a moment that Christ in his life time instituted Sunday observance, deny this emphatically, arguing that such observance has no authorization in the Bible, and can only be defended by the traditions of their church, which teach that the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was made after Christ had ascended to the Father. They even taunt Protestants that in keeping Sunday as a holy day they recognize the principle that the church can institute “festivals of precept;” thus conceding the great point at issue between Romanism and Protestantism. I will now read an extract in point from “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” another authoritative Catholic production:—

“Ques. How prove you that the church has power to command feasts and holy days?

“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.”

“Q. How prove you that?”

“A. Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.”

You see, as I have already remarked, that there would be no force in the logic of the Romish writers if it were admitted that the Sabbath was changed by Christ. As it is they claim that the change was brought about by their church independently of any authority of Christ given before his ascension, insisting, therefore, that Protestants by keeping Sunday virtually acknowledge the principle that the church of Rome has power to change the law of God. One more quotation and I must leave this branch of the subject. I hold in my hand a little work which I purchased at a Catholic bookstore on account of the item which I am about to read. The book is entitled, “Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day.” I will commence to read on page 225:—

“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 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.”

Here I leave the question of the change of the Sabbath. That such a change has been brought about there can be no dispute. Once the people of God were united in the observance of the last day of the week. Now they almost unanimously celebrate the first day of the week. What is most remarkable is the fact that there is not in all the book of God a single word which authorizes such a change. The seventh day is the only one that God ever commanded any man to hallow. It is also the only day that is ever called the Sabbath in the Bible. Neither God nor Christ nor an angel nor an inspired man has ever said that the first day of the week was the Sabbath, or ever commanded any one to observe it as such. These facts can never be reconciled with the idea that God was the author of the change of the Sabbath which has taken place. To reason that God would command all men everywhere to hallow the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and then substitute the first day of the week in the place of the seventh without leaving on record a formal declaration to that effect, is simply preposterous. God does not do business in that way. It would be gross injustice to give a commandment requiring the observance of the last day of the week, and then punish men for not keeping the first day of the week, which he has nowhere required them to hallow.

We read of a tyrant who delighted in having his laws posted so high above the point where the people could read them, that they would transgress them through ignorance of what they contained; thus affording him an opportunity to wreak his vengeance upon them for not doing that which they knew not that he had required them to do. Should God change the Sabbath without notifying men of that fact, and then punish them for not keeping the Sabbath law as changed, such a procedure would place him on a level with the historic tyrant to whom I have alluded. Assuredly God cannot be less anxious that his creatures should know precisely what his will is in such matters, than are earthly legislators; and yet who does not know that the law-makers of his own State take infinite pains to give publicity to every change that is made in the statute law. Every amendment and every change in an existing statute is published far and wide, that no citizen may be entrapped through ignorance into a violation of existing law. Every attribute of God’s nature pledges him to a like course. As we look through the Bible, however, we find no intimation of a change in question. On the contrary, we are distinctly notified that a blasphemous earthly power should arise who would think himself able to change the times and the law of God. The ages roll on, and, lo! he lifts himself from the plane of history, and we hear him saying that he has done the work which God said that he would do. I have read in your hearing some of his proud utterances. The only question that remains, therefore, for us to decide, is this: Which is the more probable supposition that God would command the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and then substitute another day in the place of that one without ever notifying any one to that effect; or that it is true that the pope has really changed the Sabbath as he claims to have done, as the prophet said that he would attempt to do.

Mr. T.—Your words astonish me beyond measure, sir. Do you really mean to be understood by saying that the Bible nowhere teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ himself changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week?

Mr. B.—Most emphatically, sir, do I declare that such is the case. There is not one word in all the Scriptures which even intimates that Christ did change the Sabbath, or that he did any thing to place any honor or distinction on the first day of the week above other days. To satisfy you that I am right in what I say, perhaps I had better examine all the instances in the Bible in which the first day of the week is mentioned.

Mr. T.—Why, sir, that would take you a while.

Mr. B.—Not so, by any means. Perhaps you will be astonished when I tell you that the first day of the week is only mentioned in the Scriptures in particular nine times; once in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. It is now getting late, and I will defer my examination of these texts until our next sitting.

Mr. T.—Thank you, sir. I shall look forward to that interview with great anxiety. I am thoroughly aroused on this Sabbath question. I did not suppose that I should ever take any interest in it whatever; but if you are right in your theory that the pope has changed the Sabbath instead of the Lord Jesus Christ as I have always supposed, I am anxious to be undeceived. I confess that you have made a strong presumptive argument in favor of your view. And if you are able to substantiate what you say about the first day of the week, my astonishment will know no bounds. I am impatient to know the whole truth about this matter. Never in all my life was I stirred up about any thing. If the pope has indeed changed the Sabbath, it is all I wish to know. The Bible is my rule of action, and if first-day sanctity cannot be proved from its pages, then I will throw the Sunday to the winds.

Mr. B.—Well, be calm, and we will decide the whole question by the authority of God’s word. The subject is a broad one, and will require a little time for its consideration. We will therefore proceed slowly and cautiously.