1. To the first then this command does morally and perpetually oblige to these: (1) That there is a solemn time set apart and observed for worship. (2) That this should be one day of seven. (3) That it should be such a day, the very day, which God commands, the Sabbath of his appointment, whatever day it should be. (4) That it is a whole natural day of twenty-four hours, yet having an artificial day together undivided. (5) That six, and no more but six, working days intervene, and that these are together in a week. And therefore (6), that the Sabbath is a bounding day, dividing one working week from another; if then six working days must be in one week, and go together, this will follow also, that the Sabbath must be the first or last day of the seven.

2. As for the propositions clearing the change and consistency of it with this command, the first shall be this:

Proposition One. The Sabbath may be changed from the last or seventh day to the first day of the week without any derogation to this command or inconsistency with it; for all that is moral in it, to wit, a day and one day of seven, and a bounding seventh day, leaving six for work together, remains untouched by the change. Besides, the seventh day not having its institution from this command expressly and directly, but only accidentally (the particular day whether the Jews’ seventh day, or the Christians’ first day of the week being supposed by the fourth commandment as instituted, or to be instituted elsewhere), as is said, and its first institution (Gen. 2) being only a positive and temporary law may be therefore changed, and yet the fourth commandment kept entire. We need not insist in further prosecution of this proposition, much being spoken to it on the matter already.

Proposition Two. Not only may the seventh be altered from what it was under the law to another seventh day under the gospel, but it is meet and convenient from good reasons (even in the command) that it should be so.

Argument One. If these two ages, before Christ, and after him, are looked on as diverse worlds, and if the redemption by Christ at his coming is accounted the making of the one, as God’s creation was of the other, then it’s meet that when the world is renewed by redemption, the Sabbath day should be changed for memory of that, as well as it was instituted at first for the memory of the former, there being the same reason for both. But they are looked on as two distinct worlds, and called so in the plural number (Heb. 1, 2), and this last world distinguished from the former (Heb. 2:5), and the redeeming of the one is looked upon as the making of the other; therefore from that day forth the day of rest is to be such as may relate to both. Now the day being changed to the first, it reminds us of God’s rest at the creation by distinguishing six days from the seventh, and it reminds us of the new creation by putting Christ’s resurrection in the room of the former.

Argument Two. If the new world is a work as much for the glory of God, and as comfortable to men, when it’s begun and closed or finished by the work of redemption, as the making of the old world was, then the day of rest of the new world is to be made to relate to that; much more if the redemption of the world is more for the glory of God, and for the comfort of men. Then by the ground on which the seventh day was at first instituted, it’s also again to be changed, to wit, the memory of God’s great work. But both the former are true. Ergo, or thus, if the ground that made the seventh to be chosen for the Sabbath in the old world is changed in the new, and that ground agrees better to another than to it, then it is to be changed. But the ground whereupon the old seventh day was preferred is now changed, and there are grounds to prefer another day to it for the same ends; therefore it is meet the day be changed also. Or thus, if the perfecting of the work of redemption, and the rest of the Mediator after it, is as much to be remembered as the work of creation and God’s resting after it, then the day is to be changed, but so it is, Ergo.

Argument Three. If by Christ all the Levitical services are changed in the new world, and the ceremonial worship of that day; then it is meet that the day also should be changed. (1) For showing the expiration of that worship and law, it being hard to keep that day, and to distinguish it from the Jewish former worship. (2) To keep Christians more from Judaizing, and to abstract them even from former services of the Sabbath now abolished; just as now no particular family has the priesthood, as Levi had it before, nor no particular nation has the Church confined in it, as that of the Jews had (though these were not typical properly); yea, it would be such a day as would point out the evanishing of former ceremonies, which the in-bringing of the first day abundantly does.

Argument Four. If the worship and ordinances of the new gospel world is eminently to hold their institution of Christ the Mediator, and to be made some way relative to his redemption past, then it is meet for that end that the Sabbath day be changed, so as it may be dependent on him as all other worship is that is moral-positive or positive moral, and that cannot be done well, if the former day is kept unchanged, at least not so well, as when it is changed. But the former is true — all gospel-worship holdeth of him sacraments, prayers, praises, ministry, etc. (now sacraments as they seal are not ceremonial, for the tree of life was instituted to be a seal of the Covenant of works in the state of innocency before the fall, while there were no typical institutions of a Savior to come, and so sacraments as they are seals may be continued, as perpetual pieces of worship, without hazard of typifying a savior to come); therefore he instituted new ones, and that with relation to his work of redemption, considered as past. Hence also his prayer or pattern is called the Lord’s Prayer, and his sacrament of the supper is called the Lord’s Supper, because instituted by him and relating to him. In this sense it is peculiarly said (Heb. 2:5), that God put in subjection to him the world to come different from what was before, and he is put as the Son in the New Testament in the place of Moses, who was the law-giver and faithful servant in the Old (Heb. 3). Upon this ground we think that day is called (Rev. 1:10), the Lord’s Day, to bring it in dependence on Jesus Christ, and to make it respect what is past of the work of redemption.

Argument Five. If the day of solemn public worship is a piece of God’s worship, capable of bearing a relation to Christ to come, and falling out under the Mediator’s kingdom properly; then when he comes in the new world, it is meet it should be changed. (1) To show he is come. (2) To show he is absolute over the house and worship of God. (3) Some way to preach his grace and redemption in the very change of it. But it is a piece of worship and tribute of our time (as is said before), and a piece of worship capable of his institution and remembrance (therefore called the Lord’s Day), which could not be, were not a day of worship capable of that, and it falls under the power of Christ, who (Mat. 12), Even as the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. And why is that power pleaded in that particular of the day so often, if it were not to show that there is reason by his coming to look on the Sabbath as under him, even as all other worship was, which stood by God’s positive command, even as this did?

Argument Six. If by this command the day of rest from God’s most solemn work is to be our day of rest; then after Christ’s coming (not so before), not the seventh, but the first day is to be observed; but by the command the former is true. Again, if that day is to be kept in reference to any solemn work of God, which was the first day after his perfecting it, then the first day is to be kept. But by the command the former is true, because our resting day is to be kept in reference to the work of redemption, and therefore must be on the first day, which was the day after its closing and perfecting, as to Christ’s suffering and labor, though not as to its application, even as the seventh was of God’s resting from the work of creation, though not from his works of Providence.

Argument Seven. If the seventh day which the Jews kept, had any peculiar tie or motive unto them, which by Christ is not taken away, then it was meet that at Christ’s coming that day should be changed. We would understand here, that there might be some[thing] peculiar or typical in their seventh day, and yet nothing so in the fourth command, which commands one of seven, but not the seventh. And though we could not particularly pitch upon what is typical or peculiar in it, yet may we conceive that something there is, as in tithes, offerings, etc., though the particular thing which is typified is hardly instructed.

As (1), if its beginning was on the evening to them (as some think) the reason of it was peculiar, to wit, their coming out of Egypt at evening (Ex. 12). And in so far at least it would be peculiar to them, and by Christ’s rising in the morning is changed.

(2) It’s pressed peculiarly on the account of God’s redeeming them from Egypt. They had that to think on, that sometime they were where they got no liberty to rest any day; therefore should they ease their servants (as it is Deut. 5:14, 15). This holds especially if it was on the seventh day that their freedom from Egypt began (which was after that, made the first day of their year, that is, the morrow after they did eat the Passover) as it’s made probable by some (Ex. 12).

(3) It was peculiarly discovered to them by God’s raining manna from Heaven six days, and by his withholding it from them the seventh.

(4) It was peculiarly accompanied with special ceremonial services beyond other days.

(5) God’s manner of dealing with them before Christ, was to press duties by temporal and external advantages expressly, and more implicitly by spiritual mercies; therefore it was most agreeable to that way and time to press the seventh day on them which minded them of the benefit of creation. But it’s otherwise with the church under the gospel. Hence their sacraments had respect (externally) to their deliverance from Egypt and temporal things, whereas ours have respect purely to what is spiritual.

(6) The Apostle (Col. 2:16) takes in their Sabbaths with their other days, and though he takes not in all days alike, yet it can hardly be denied but their seventh-day Sabbath comes in there, where all the Jewish times are put together. Therefore it would seem there is a type, not in the command, but in that day, though not properly, yet accidentally in respect of its worship, end, application, etc., complexly taken; and that therefore this seventh-day Sabbath is expired at least, if not repealed, seeing that days and times kept by the Jews are enumerated with their other services which were antiquated; even as when the Apostle condemns difference about meat or drink, his meaning is not to condemn, what difference is made in the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, but what is from the Old. So may the same be said of days. It’s their old difference he cries down.

Proposition Three. As it’s meet that the day of worship under the gospel, should be another than what was under the Law, and should therefore be changed; so it’s meet that the change should be into the first day of the week, and to no other day. For:

(1) No other day has been honored with so many gospel privileges. As [1], with Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 28). It was the first day of his victory and rest. [2] With Christ’s appearing twice, at least, on it to his disciples, singling it out from other days; or his appearing is for no purpose particularly recorded by the Evangelist John to have been on that day, if there were not something remarkable in it besides what is in another day. [3] The Spirit’s giving at Pentecost (Acts 2), will be found to be on the first day of the week. Now no other day can claim so many privileges, and so many ways relate to Christ.

(2) If the grounds upon which the seventh day under the Law was preferred during that world, do in this renewing of the world agree only to the first day of the week; then is the first day to succeed. But these grounds proportionally agree only to the first day under the gospel, which agreed to the seventh under the Law. Ergo:

That which make the seventh day preferable was [1], that God had ended all his works on the sixth, and rested the seventh. It was the first day after the creation; so the first day of the week is that day on which Christ rose (having perfected the work of redemption, and obtained victory over death, under whose power some way for a time his body was before that) and was thereby manifestly declared to be the Son of God, to wit, by his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4).

[2] The force of the example will hold here — God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh, therefore rest you with him. So Christ having for a time suffered, fully overcame [on] the first day, and began his estate of exaltation, therefore rest with him, and rejoice that day, it being the beginning of this new joyful world.

[3] No other day can be substituted in place of the old seventh day, reserving entire the morality of this command; therefore it must be this that is put in the place of that. For this command requires one day of every seven, allowing six of every seven to work, and that together. Now if the day had gone beyond the Sabbath ensuing, it had not been one day of seven. If it had been the second, third, or fourth day, then the six working days had not gone together. But now the first being appointed for God next to the seventh, God has his part or tribute called for, and then came six working days together unto us of that same week, and so still they run; God has one, and we have six of the same week.

If it is here objected, that this way, the new world is begun with a Sabbath, whereas the Sabbath closed and ended the creation of the old world.

Answer. (1) Thus God has no loss of what he required; for this way, no week [lacks] its Sabbath. (2) It’s most suitable that the old world should end in a Sabbath, and the new begin in a Sabbath, that so the worship of the new (which most distinctly discovers the change) might the more immediately and convincingly preach the change, which could not so well have been done if working days of both had met together, or a working day of the one, and the Sabbath of the other. (3) Though the old Sabbath was the seventh in order from the creation, yet it was the first day after man’s creation, God beginning as it were, and entering him with that; even so when men are brought into this new world or change, God will begin it with gladness and joy to them.

Proposition Four. The day of solemn public worship required to be observed by this command, was really changed from the seventh or last day to the first day of the week, according to the former grounds. That it was really changed, may be made out by these.

(1) That the apostles and primitive Christians after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, had their solemn day for meeting to worship God; yet neither did they by themselves together in practice keep the seventh, nor by command appointed it to be kept, nor gave it the title of the Lord’s Day. It’s true, that often they kept it in a sort with the Jews, as they did Pentecost, for the opportunity of the multitude coming together on these days, or to bury it with honor; as they did practice for a time several of the Jewish rites antiquated for their gaining, and till they were fully informed of their abolition. But in constituted churches of the Gentiles, we never read that they kept it, but another day.

(2) The apostles and primitive Christians kept and esteemed the first day for their solemn day, beyond and above all days, yea, and it only as the Christian Sabbath. For [1], on that day they used to meet ordinarily, and that not occasionally, but purposely and determinately, as [in] John 20:19, 26, which is clearly the first day. [2] They are purposely together, and not for fear (for fear scatters) but while they are together, they do for fear shut the doors, being very probably led from the news of the resurrection to be together; and so again (v.26) they meet, and Christ with them. And though it may possibly be, that on other days they met; yet doubtless this holds forth something peculiar to this day, and some lesson to be taken from it. That [1], Christ’s coming to them is especially trysted on that day, and that while they are together. [2] That when they met at any other time, ‘ere he came to them it’s never said, they were or came together the second, third or fourth day of the week, but on the first. And wherefore does the Holy Ghost record that day, or their meeting on that day, when he omits the naming of other days, but that day in its exercises may be especially taken notice of. And though other days had been much alike in exercises to them, yet the recording of this day so often, and omitting the other, intimates a difference, surely they are not alike in this. So much for the 20th of John, which is the first place of Scripture we make use of.

The second is Acts 2:1, 2. Here they are said to be, all with one accord in one place when Pentecost came. Where it’s clear, [1] that Pentecost was on the first day of the week, for it was the fiftieth day after the feast of unleavened bread. Now according to the Jews’ account, their Passover day was on the Sabbath (called, John 19:31, a high Sabbath) in which Christ lay all the day in the grave. As appears, for that day is called their preparation for the feast, wherein Christ suffered, which is our Friday. Reckon now what will be the fiftieth day after, or Pentecost, and it will be found to be the first day of the week. And it’s not only observable for their meeting, but for God’s sending the Spirit on them, as a special blessing of that day, and his countenancing of their worshipping him on it, according to his promise. [2] It is clear that they did meet together on this day. [3] That this meeting together was not a daily or ordinary meeting together (for John 21 we see they went to fishing, and no question sometimes they went asunder), for (v. 1) it’s marked as a thing not ordinary to every day, that on that day they were altogether in one place. [4] It was not a meeting in reference to the Pentecost feast; for (a), they only are together, distinct from the people. (b) It’s not in the Temple, but in some other house fit for their meeting together at public worship. It must be therefore, because that day was the time of their solemn meeting, even their Christian Sabbath.

The third place is Acts 20:7. And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them, etc. Where it is clear:

[1] That this meeting was for public worship, as the breaking of bread and preaching intimates.

[2] That there is some observableness in the circumstance, that it was on the first day of the week, and that day is mentioned rather than any of the former six days in which he had been there at Troas, though it’s more than probable they had meetings and preaching on them also. But this is the only and great difference, that their meetings on these days were occasional, and it may be but partial (to speak so) but the solemn chief fixed meeting of all, was usually and ordinarily on the first day.

[3] This coming together on that day for these ends is spoken of, as a thing that was not new, nor occasional; but as their customary, constant, known practice. They came together purposely, to break bread and to wait on other ordinances.

[4] It’s clear, that by special applying of these exercises to that day, and by mentioning of the day for that end, that, that day was their most solemn day, and that the old seventh day was not so (at least necessarily) employed by them.

[5] Neither is it likely, that Paul, who was ready to depart, would have stayed for the first day of the week, if there had not been some solemn worship in that, or that he would have passed the old seventh day Sabbath, especially to the marring of his other occasions, had they been equal, or more sanctification required in it, than in the first day of the week, or that he would have so much insisted in religious public worship on that day, if the former seventh had been employed in that service. But here the church being constituted of believing Gentiles, there is no mention of the old Sabbath, but as of another common day of the week.

Yea [6], Paul’s spending this whole day in that service, and continuing his sermon till midnight (yet accounting it still one day) in solemn meeting, confirms this day to be more than an ordinary day, or than other days of the week, as being specially dedicated to these services and exercises, and totally spent in them.

[7] It’s said that the disciples came together. They were not sent for that day, but they came together being called and accustomed so to do on that day, and as being put to these duties by the day, as the proper exercises in which it is to be spent.

Hence we may argue, if the apostles and primitive Christians did observe the first day of the week, as their prime and chief time for solemn, public worship, and did pass over the old seventh day, then is the day changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. But the first is cleared by the former instances, Ergo, etc.

And if these meetings on that first day were not such as used to be formerly on the seventh day, I desire to know a reason: (1) Why their meetings on that day should be particularly recorded rather than their meetings on any other day. And then (2), why the one is so often mentioned, and the other never, to wit, that they met the second, third day, etc., of the week. Or (3), if their meeting on this first day now (after Christ’s ascension) is not like his going to the Synagogue on the seventh day Sabbath, and doing such and such things on the Sabbath, that day being most frequently mentioned before, whereas now there is deep silence of that day, and the first day is recorded in its room, neither can the Scriptures speaking of the one, and silence in the other be for no purpose, or for any other purpose.

"God promises many blessings to those who hallow the sabbath day in soul and body.  Regarding this, consider the following two passages: 

'Blessed is the man...that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it...For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths...even unto them will I give in Mine house and within My walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters:  I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off...every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant; even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer:  their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine alter' (Isa. 56:2, 4-7). 

Consider also this passage:

'If thou turn away thy foot fom the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it' (Isa. 58:13-14). 

He who therefore desires all these benefits ought to hallow the sabbath - the promise being that they will be given on this day."  

Taken from The Chistian's Reasonable Service by Wilhelmus a Brakel