Chapter 7. — The Sabbath — Its Origin And Perpetuity.
CHAPTER 7. — THE SABBATH — ITS ORIGIN AND
PERPETUITY.
IN considering our duty to God, we next call attention to the institution of the SABBATH, or, as styled under the Christian economy, the Lord’s-day. Theologians have differed greatly in their views concerning the Sabbath. Some have considered it only a positive duty, others a moral duty, and others still a mixed duty — both positive and moral. These diversities of sentiment will be considered in our examination of the subject. I. ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY OF THE SABBATH.
Before we inquire directly concerning the origin of the Sabbath, we deem it proper to call attention to the distinction between a moral and a positive precept. We do this in the language of Bishop Butler, thus: “Moral precepts are those, the reasons of which we see; positive precepts are those, the reasons of which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external command; nor would they be duties at all, were it not for such command received from Him whose creatures and subjects we are.”
1. We maintain the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath from the fact that it is properly a moral, instead of a positive duty. We know that some have contended that this duty depends entirely upon positive precepts for its existence, and that therefore, as there is no express precept to that effect, the obligation to observe it cannot be perpetual.
Others have considered the obligations of the Sabbath of a mixed nature, depending partly on moral, and partly on positive precepts; but, notwithstanding the great names that have been enrolled in favor of both these positions, we must consider them erroneous. We think they have been taken in haste, and have led to very pernicious results. Had not the admission first been made that the obligation is not wholly moral, but of a mixed nature — partly moral and partly positive — it is hardly probable that the perpetuity of this obligation would ever have been questioned by such men as Dr. Paley. It is much to be regretted that a work so ably written as this author’s “Moral and Political Philosophy,” and one so admirably adapted, in many respects, to fill the place it has so generally occupied as a text book in our colleges, is so exceedingly heterodox on the important subject of the Sabbath. We think the two positions, that the obligation of the Sabbath is not wholly moral, and that it is not perpetual, are connatural, and that Dr. Paley never would have adopted the latter but for the general admission of the former.
We freely admit that, when the Sabbath became connected with the Mosaic ceremonial law, numerous minute appendages, by specific enactment, were connected with it; but these appendages were merely adventitious — they did not constitute its essence. The Sabbath derived not its being from them — it existed anterior to and independent of them. Of course, as it did not derive its existence from them, it cannot be dependent upon their continuance for its perpetuity. These appendages are positive and not moral duties; but the Sabbath itself, whose essential nature lies deeper than adventitious circumstances, and whose origin dates anterior to all such appendages, is a moral duty. It is true that, in the absence of external precept, we might not have been able either to discover or comprehend the nature of this duty; but the same may be said of other commandments of the Decalogue. That a duty may be properly embraced under the head of moral, in contradistinction from positive, precept, it is not necessary that it be actually discoverable by human reason; all that is requisite to this is, that, when revealed and explained, we may be able to perceive, in the nature and fitness of things, to some extent, the reasonableness and propriety of the duty in question.
Now, that the observance of the Sabbath is a duty which, when prescribed and understood, commends itself to the understanding of every right-minded person as reasonable and proper, must be admitted. What position can be plainer than this, that a portion of time is necessary to man as a periodical cessation from toil? And is it not equally obvious that this sacred rest-day is necessary to man, as furnishing one day for devotional exercises after six days of labor? How admirably is this hallowed institution calculated, not only to preserve in the heart of man a grateful remembrance of the wonderful creative acts of God, but also to secure to him the benefits resulting from a periodical consecration of a due proportion of time to devotional exercises!
If it be true then, that, in the very nature and fitness of things, the proportion of one day out of seven is needful for man as a respite from labor, and also for the performance of that religious service we owe to God, and which is necessary that we may maintain that communion with God so essential to our religious welfare and happiness, then it follows that this institution is grounded on a great moral reason, and consequently is as really a moral duty as that enjoined in any one of the Ten Commandments; and, being a moral duty, the perpetuity of its obligation results as a necessary sequence.
2. Again, the perpetuity of the Sabbath is clearly inferable from the history of its origin. On this subject we read as follows: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Genesis 2:2, 3.
The plain, natural construction of the language here employed, implies that the seventh day on which God rested was a literal day, such as each of the six preceding days had been; and that it was the next day to the sixth in immediate succession. And as God then rested upon the seventh day, and as the fact of his thus resting is given as a reason why he “blessed and sanctified” that day, the plain inference is, that the consecration of the day commenced simultaneously with the reason upon which it was founded. As it was the first seventh day, coming next after the six days of his creative work, on which he rested, so it was that seventh day which he consecrated, and at that time he performed the act of consecration.
The reason given, as well as the plain narrative style in which the facts are recorded, forbid the supposition that the inspired writer only intended to convey the idea that God, some centuries afterward, would set apart some other seventh day in commemoration of the rest Which then took place. If the day was then spoken of as being “sanctified” by way of prolepsis, though not then actually set apart, why may we not affirm also that the prolepsis applies equally to the fact of God’s resting, and conclude that this did not really begin till the lapse of centuries, when the day was actually sanctified? There is as much reason to suppose a prolepsis in reference to the one as the other. The truth is, there is not the slightest ground for such an hypothesis in either case. We are compelled to view this proleptical construction as a groundless, unwarranted, and gratuitous subterfuge, invented to sustain the theory which denies the perpetuity of the Sabbath; but a construction so unnatural and far-fetched can never be rendered plausible, even by the sanction of such authority as that of Dr. Paley. The plain truth is, the six days of work connect immediately with the seventh day of rest, and that day of rest connects as closely with its consecration, as such, as the cause with the effect.
If then, as we are bound to conclude, the Sabbath originated at the birth of creation, when as yet none but the then happy pair existed — and if it be farther remembered that, as our Saviour says, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” — are we not driven to the conclusion that it is a duty of permanent and universal obligation? It was given to him who was the great federal head and representative of his race. In him were then included his entire progeny. Not a single reason then existed, rendering this institution appropriate and beneficial to him, that does not exist as fully in reference to the entire race, in all ages and in all dispensations. If it be commemorative of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God, shown in the works of his hand, in what part, or in what age, of the world can a human being be found not equally bound with Adam to adore and “praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men”? If it be needed as a period of respite from the toils of life, what nation or people, at any period in the world’s history, has not needed this day of rest as much as the original dresser of the garden of Eden? If it be considered a day sacred to the performance of religious devotion, is it not alike appropriate to all mankind at all times and places? Again, if the observance of the Sabbath be not of universal and perpetual obligation, with what propriety could our Saviour have said, “The Sabbath was made for man”? He did not say it was made for the patriarch, nor for the Jew, nor for the Greek, but “for MAN” — that is, for the entire race.
3. Its recognition in the wilderness furnishes additional evidence of its prior existence and of its perpetuity. The account is thus recorded: “And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.” Exodus 16:22-30.
Some who favor the theory that the observance of the Sabbath is not a duty of universal and perpetual obligation, in order to neutralize the force of the argument against their view of the subject, arising from the fact that the Sabbath originated at the birth of creation, contend that the passage just quoted is a record of the origin of the institution. This is the ground taken by Dr. Paley, and, we believe, by all who view the Sabbath as a local and temporary institution; but we think their theory most obviously untenable.
(1) It is inconsistent with the record of the origin of the Sabbath as detailed in the second chapter of Genesis. This has already been shown; and no proleptical construction can relieve the theory of its antagonism to the Mosaic history of creation.
(2) It is irreconcilable with the most natural interpretation of the language just cited, as used by Moses in the wilderness. Observe, Moses does not here speak of the Sabbath as of a new arrangement unheard of till that hour. He does not say, “Behold, I have now authority from God to ordain and establish the Sabbath;” but he refers to it as a matter with which they were familiar. His language is: “This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath.” He does not say, “This accords with what the Lord now says;” but his words are, “hath said,” as of something past, to which he was calling their attention by way of remembrance. He does not say, “Tomorrow shall be the Sabbath,” as if he was issuing a new order; but, “To-morrow is the Sabbath,” as though speaking of an institution already existing.
Again he repeats, “On the seventh day, which is (not shall be) the Sabbath.” But again, the Lord reproves the people, through Moses, for having long neglected to keep his commandments, and gives their neglect of the Sabbath as an illustration. How can the supposition, that the law of the Sabbath was then for the first time enjoined, be reconciled with this charge of long neglect? The language of God to Moses was: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath,” etc.
The position taken by Dr. Paley and others, that the Sabbath was not instituted at the creation, is not only encumbered by all the difficulties to which we have referred, but it has no solid basis for its support. It is true Dr. Paley asserts that in the passage just quoted from the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, there is no “intimation that the Sabbath, when appointed to be observed, was only the revival of an ancient institution which had been neglected, forgotten, or suspended.” In reply to this, we remark, that it is not admitted that the “ancient institution” had been either “forgotten or suspended;” but is it not plain that there is an express charge here preferred against the people, as we have already shown, of long neglect of God’s commandments respecting the Sabbath? We think the passage in question, notwithstanding the assertion of Dr. Paley, does contain very clear evidence that the transaction in the wilderness referred to, was not the setting up of a new, but the recognition of an old, institution, which had been partially neglected.
Dr. Paley farther urges his plea against the origin of the Sabbath at the creation, from the fact that there is no express mention of the Sabbath during the patriarchal age. Admit his premises, and his conclusion will not follow. Is it a necessary consequence, that, because the Sabbath was not expressly named during the patriarchal age, therefore it did not exist? Surely not. The Sabbath is not named in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, or the first book of Kings; yet no one doubts its existence during all the period embraced in these histories. No one doubts that circumcision was regularly practiced by the Jews from Abraham to Christ; and yet there is not an instance of it on record, from their first settlement in Canaan till the days of John the Baptist. Dr. Paley’s argument would prove that during this long period that institution was extinct. It proves too much, and therefore nothing at all. But if there is no express mention of the Sabbath during the patriarchal age, we find in that period several allusions to the division of time into weeks. Unless this division of days into weeks originated, and was perpetuated, in connection with the Sabbath, how can we account for its origin? The division of time into days, months, and years, finds the analogy upon which it is founded in the phenomena pertaining to the heavenly bodies; but, in all nature, what is there to suggest the idea of dividing days by the number seven? The most natural conclusion is, that it originated in the beginning by the appointment of God in connection with the Sabbath; and as the reckoning of time by weeks was common during the patriarchal age, we cannot, without adopting an arbitrary mode of construction, suppose that the Sabbath was not also remembered as the seventh day of the week.
4. The fact that the observance of the Sabbath was recorded as one of the commandments of the Decalogue, furnishes the most conclusive evidence of the perpetuity and universality of this obligation.
As the fourth and last commandment on the first of the two tables of stone, we find, written by the finger of God. the following words: “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:8-11.
The proof of the point in hand, arising from the fact here unfolded, is overwhelmingly conclusive.
(1) The observance of the Sabbath is here plainly shown to be a moral duty. If not, why should it thus be embraced as one of the Ten Commandments, when the other nine are all admitted to be moral precepts of perpetual and universal obligation? Is not the fact that these ten precepts were engraven by “the finger of God” upon “the tables of stone,” when no other portion of the Mosaic system was thus recorded, an indication, in that typical dispensation, that they were all to be viewed as of more permanent and universal obligation than the other portions of the Jewish economy? And if so, how can we suppose that one of these precepts was only a positive enactment, destined to pass away with the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy?
(2) The terms here used in recording this commandment show that it, especially, was no new statute, now for the first time revealed. Moses does not write, “There shall be a Sabbath-day,” but, “Remember the Sabbath-day” — implying that he was reiterating and placing in a new and permanent form, and enforcing, under circumstances of a more awful solemnity, a precept with which that people were already familiar. If it be said that the allusion to the previous existence of the Sabbath, here implied in the word “remember,” was to the transaction in connection with the manna referred to in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, we reply, that any such hypothesis is contradicted by the language of the Decalogue itself. That record connects the Sabbath, not with the transaction in the wilderness, but with the origin of the institution at the creation. The reason here given for the remembrance and observance of the Sabbath, is the same given at the creation for its original appointment — “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.” Observe, it is not here said, “The Lord now blesseth, or, in the wilderness, blessed the Sabbath-day;” but, “The Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it” — that is, in connection with his resting, and for that reason he “blessed,” sanctified, hallowed, or set apart, the Sabbath or seventh day to a sacred use. And as the consecration of the day, both in the second chapter of Genesis and the twentieth chapter of Exodus, is immediately connected with God’s resting, as though simultaneous, for us, without authority, to tear them asunder, by interposing between them some thousands of years, is not to expound, but to pervert the Scriptures.
(3) We think our Saviour’s comment on the Decalogue, with all who are disposed to submit to the decision of the great Teacher, must set this question at rest.
The question was asked our Saviour, with evident reference to the Decalogue, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment” — that is, this comprehends the first table, and, of course, the Sabbath. Then, after having comprised the second table in the words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” he adds: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40.
Now let it be admitted, which, we think, none will dispute —
1. That the Ten Commandments are the law here referred to;
2. That our Saviour here intended to give an epitome of the Decalogue — admit these two positions, then the argument here furnished for the perpetuity and universality of the obligations of the Sabbath is plain and short.
It runs thus: The obligation to “love God with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the mind,” is perpetual and universal; but this includes the observance of the Sabbath — therefore the obligation to observe the Sabbath is perpetual and universal. To the same effect we may reason from our premises, thus: To “love God with all the heart,” etc., is a moral, and not a positive, duty; but the observance of the Sabbath is included in “loving God with all the heart,” etc. — therefore the observance of the Sabbath is a moral, and not a positive, duty. Again, the obligation of all moral duty is perpetual and universal; but the observance of the Sabbath is a moral duty — therefore the obligation to observe the Sabbath is perpetual and universal.
(4) Our Saviour and his apostles have given testimony in favor of the perpetuity and universality of the obligation of the Sabbath, by teaching the perpetuity of the moral law.
In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ says: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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.” Matthew 5:17,
18. Now, to suppose that any portion of the moral law, as given by Moses, is abrogated by the gospel, is not only to assume a position gratuitously without a syllable of authority, but in direct opposition to these words of the Saviour. Let the law here be taken in its widest sense, embracing both the ceremonial and moral departments, which is unquestionably the true interpretation, and how can the abrogation of the Sabbath be consistent with our Saviour’s declaration? Types, shadows, and ceremonies, may pass away — yea, they did pass away — by receiving their fulfillment in Christ; but how could the Sabbath thus pass away? If we say that any one of the Ten Commandments passed away by being fulfilled in Christ, why not another? Why not the whole Decalogue? If Christ has wholly fulfilled the fourth commandment, why not all the rest? Did he not fulfill the whole moral law as really and fully as he did any portion of it? A type may be completely fulfilled by the coming of the antitype — a shadow by the revealment of the substance, a ceremony by the manifestation of “some better thing” — but a moral law call only be completely fulfilled by its perpetual and universal observance. Hence, as the moral law, of which the