AN ARGUMENT ‘FOR THE PERPETUITY OF THE SABBATH.
REVIEW AND HERALD
BY REV. A. A. PHELPS.
PUBLISHED BY D. S. KING, 32 Washington Street. 1841. 15844 Pag 84-95
THE ARGUMENT RECAPITULATED AND CLOSED.
Suppose we now briefly review the ground over which we have passed. We have shown that in the first mention of the Sabbath, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) theie is every thing to prove that it was instituted at creation, the time specified, and was as truly one of the great permanent arrangements established for the race, as was the marriage institution, or any of the other arrangements then first brought into being. We have shown that the argument from geology is without force; that from Adam to Moses, there is every allusion to, and mention of, its existence and observance, which, in such and so short a history, ought to be expected ; that in the deliverance from Egypt, considered as a means to its appropriate end, it, with its connected privileges and rights, was the great question at issue, and the very reason of the deliverance; that it was not originally given as a memorial of that deliverance, nor in the wilderness; that the fact of God’s not having made the same covenant with the fathers, as with those he brought out of Egypt, no more proves that the fathers had not the Sabbath, with the law of its observance, than that they were without every other command of the decalogue; and, finally, that the observance of the Sabbath, as a standing ordinance, became a sign between Jehovah and the Hebrews only by virtue of its connection with creation, as a memorial of that event; and, therefore, that the fact of its being such a sign only proves it to have existed from the first, and to have come down, from age to age, as, every where and at all times, the same great distinctive badge of the worshippers of Jehovah. In prosecuting the argument, I remark,
2. The Sabbath is spoken of in the decalogue as an institution previously existing, and is there, as well as in the prophets, incorporated with other laws admitted to be of original and ceaseless obligation. Without expanding the argument, I observe, (1.) It is the only law of the ten, that is claimed to be merely Jewish. (2.) It is a part of that code which the Savior declared (Matt. v. 17, 18) should never pass away. (3.) It is coupled often (e. g. Is. Iviii.) with the doing of justice and judgment, and letting the oppressed go free — duties which all admit to be of unchanging and ceaseless obligation. (4.) The term “Remember” is indicative of its preexistence. But without laying stress upon the mere phraseology, if the law, “Thou shalt not steal,” was evidence of preexisting rights of property, and not of the original institution of those rights; if the law, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” argued with equal clearness a preexisting marriage institution, with its conjugal and filial relations, and not their original establishment; and so of the other laws of the decalogue, if their grand object was, as is admitted, not to institute their respective rights and institutions as new, but only to guard them as old and permanent ones, why must not the same be true of the law of the Sabbath ?
3. Ancient testimony confirms the doctrine of the institution of the Sabbath at creation. Writers, some of whom lived more than a thousand years before the Christian era, speak of the division of time into weeks, and of the special observance of the seventh day of the week, as a season for diversions or the offering of sacrifices to their gods, as facts existing among various heathen nations. The following is a specimen of their testimony: —
Homer says, “ Afterwards came the seventh, the sacred day.”
Hesiod says, “The seventh day is holy.”
Callimachus speak3 of the seventh day as holy.
Lucian says, “ The seventh day is given to school-boys as a holiday.”
Porphyry says, “ The Phenicians consecrated one day in seven as holy.”
Josephus says, “ There is no city, either of Greeks or barbarians, or any other nation, where the religion of the
Sabbath is not known.”
Grotius says, “ That the memory of the creation being performed in seven days, was preserved not only among the Greeks and Italians, but among the Celts and Indians, all of whom divided their time into weeks.”
Eusebius says, “ Almost all the philosophers and poets acknowledge the seventh day as holy.”
Similar testimonies might be added, showing that a division of time into weeks obtained also among the Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Gauls, Britons, and Germans. Now, situated as many of these nations were in respect to the Jews, and prevailing as the customs in question did at so early a period among them, it is manifest that they could not have been derived from the Jews after the time of Moses. They must have had an earlier origin. Besides, is it supposable that all these nations, if they had the opportunity, would have copied the custom from the hated Jews? Never. The only rational solution is this —that the Sabbath was instituted at creation; that with it began the division of time into weeks; that as men multiplied, and fell off to the worship of idols, they still carried with them, from age to age, this septenary division of time, and, to a greater or less extent, a perverted observance of the seventh day itself! When, therefore, we find this division of time among the nations, and the seventh day itself in some cases a special holiday for the children, and in others a season for offerings and feasts to idols, we have in these facts the relics and the perverted observances of an institution established at creation, observed by the patriarchs, transmitted by them to the nations, and, in its unperverted observance, designed to be a badge in all time of the worshippers of Jehovah as the only true God.
4. The original design of the Sabbath makes it equally manifest that it was instituted at creation, and is perpetually binding. This design is threefold (1.) to commemorate the fact of creation by Jehovah ; (2.) to afford a period of needful rest to man and beast from the ordinary labors of life; and, (3.) to afford an opportunity for spiritual instruction, improvement, and worship. That these three elements entered originally into the very nature and design of the Sabbath, is obvious from what has already been said. It was (Gen. ii. 2, 3, and Ex. xx. 11) because the Lord made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, that he blessed and hallowed, or set it apart as a season of religious rest and worship. It was that their children, strangers, servants, and beasts, (Deut. v. 14,) “might rest as well as they,” and (Ex. xxiii. 12) “be refreshed,” that the Hebrews were strictly enjoined to keep the Sabbath, and (Ex. xx. 10) “not do any work” thereon. And the whole arrangement together was, that parent, child, servant, and stranger, might alike enjoy a season of religious rest, improvement, and worship. As a memorial oj creation by Jehovah, its standing observance was a standing testimony that the world was made by him, and not by idols; that he, therefore, was the only true God, and that those who observed the day were his worshippers. It thus chronicled the true origin of the world, and was, in its very nature, a distinctive badge of the worshippers of Jehovah. As affording a period of rest from the ordinary labors of life, the standing observance of the Sabbath was a standing provision to meet those physical necessities of man and beast, which are not met by the return of day and night. As affording a period, set apart, sacredly, to spiritual instruction, improvement, and worship, it was just such a standing provision as the case requited to meet the demands of man’s spiritual being. In either aspect of its design, then, that design proves conclusively that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, and that, in all its sacredness of obligation, it is to live and be binding on man while man lives on earth. If, as a chronicler of creation, and a badge of faith to distinguish the worshippers of Jehovah from those of idols, there was a reason for the Sabbath in the time of Moses, that reason is equally valid for its establishment at creation, and its continuance, as an institution, to the end of time. If, as a season of rest and worship, to meet the demands of man’s physical and spiritual being, there was a reason for it then, that reason had equal force from the beginning, and will have to the end of time —as long as man remains man. Take which aspect of its design you will, and in each and all of them you can find no period of man’s existence, from the creation onward, in which the reason for the Sabbath, growing out of its design, has not existed, and will not continue to exist, in full and unabated force. What, then, is the inference? Just what it is in respect to the marriage institution and the laws of its observance. Just what it is in respect to the rights of property, person, and life, and the laws of their observance — manente ratione, manet ipsa lex — the reason of the law remaining, the law itself remains. Or, to suit the maxim to the case, the reason for the law existing always, the law itself exists always, and, beginning therefore with the race, exists for the race, and is to end only with the race, in its present state of being. Such is the conclusion of sound philosophy and common sense.
5. I observe, then, finally, that there is a permanent demand for the Sabbath, in the nature, relations, and necessities of man; and, therefore, a demand for its institution at creation, and its continuance to the end of time. The argument might be expanded at great length. My design, however, requires brevity. I remark, then,
(1.) Experience shows that the Sabbath is demanded by the physical necessities of man. It proves that men, and all laboring animals, whether their labor be mental or bodily, or both, need at least one day in seven for rest from their ordinary labors — that they will live longer and do more, in the same period, with it than without it. Two testimonies, as specimens of a thousand similar ones, must suffice.
On the 22d of June, 1839, A Committee on Vice and Immorality, of the Pennsylvania Legislature, made a report relative to the suspension of labor on the public improvements in that state, on the Sabbath. The committee refer to certain petitions that had been received on the subject, and say, —
“They (the petitioners) assert, as the result of their own experience, that both man and beast can do more work by resting one day in seven, than by working the whole seven; and your committee feel free to confess that their experience as farmers, business men, or legislators, corresponds with the assertion.
In the year 1838, Dr. Parre, an eminent physician in London, of forty years’ practice, gave the following testimony before a committee of the British parliament : —
“The use of the Sabbath, medically speaking, is that of a day of rest. It is a day of compensation for the inadequate restorative power of the body under continual labor and excitement. A physician always has respect to the restorative power, because, if once this be lost, his healing office is at an end. The ordinary exertions of man run down the circulation every day of his life; and the first general law of nature, by which God prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day with night, that repose may succeed action. But though night apparently equalizes the circulation well, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence one day in seven, by the bounty of Providence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect, by its repose, the animal system. The Sabbatical institution is not simply a precept partaking of the nature of a political institution, but it is to be numbered among the natural duties, if the preservation of life be admitted to be a duty, and the premature destruction of it a suicidal act. This is said simply as a physician, without any respect at all to the theological question. I have found it essential to my own well-being, as a medical man, to abridge my labors on the Sabbath to what is actually necessary. I have frequently observed the premature death of physicians from continued exertion. In warm climates, and in active service, this is painfully apparent. I have advised the clergyman, in lieu of his Sabbath, to rest one day in the week; it forms a continual prescription of mine. I have seen many destroyed by their duties on that day. I would say, further, that, quitting the grosser evils of mere animal living from over-stimulation, and undue exercise of body, the working of the mind in one continual train of thought, is the destruction of life in the most distinguished classes of society, and that senators themselves need reform in that respect. I have seen many of them destroyed by neglecting this economy of life.”
(2.) Experience shows that the Sabbath is demanded, in like manner, by the moral necessities of man. Man is naturally a religious being, and, as such, ever has had, and ever will have, some object of religious respect and reverence. If he do not worship and adore the true God, the very elements of his being drive him to some false god. Skeptics may deny this; but in the very homage they themselves occasionally or annually pay to the bones or the birthday of some sainted unbeliever, they are a proof to themselves, that man was made to reverence and worship some superior; that such homage and worship are among the native elements of his being; and that adore and worship some God, true or false, he always must and will. Of course religious instruction, improvement, and worship, of some kind, are among the permanent and ceaseless demands of his being. I hose he must have, and these, true or false, he will have. But he cannot have them without occasional or stated times for it.
Moreover, man is also naturally a social being. 1 he social in his nature is indeed one of its most powerful elements. You can never instruct, elevate, and fire, the man more effectually than when you take advantage of the social within him. Religious instruction, improvement, and worship, then, to address themselves to the whole man, and be most effective, must be of a public and social character, as well as private. Of course there must be public assemblies— “ not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is.” And these, that people maj know when to come together, must be held at stated and regular times. In the social and the religious of man, then, we have a permanent and ceaseless demand for the regular social opportunities and privileges of the Sabbath. Wherever this demand is met by the existence and due observance of the Sabbath, we ought to expect, as its legitimate result, the highest condition of spiritual improvement and welfare. And, on the other hand, without any such anticipation, if we find, as the result of actual experience, that where the Sabbath does exist, and is truly observed, man’s spiritual welfare is most effectually promoted, we have in that fact the proof that there is such a demand in the very nature and necessities of his being. For if the demand do not exist, — if it do not lie imbedded in the very nature of man, and the laws of his being, — then the Sabbath, with its opportunities and observances, must conflict with that nature, and do violence to those laws, and, doing so, must injure rather than benefit man, and make him worse instead of better.
What, then, are the facts ? Is the moral and spiritual condition of those communities where there is no Sabbath, or only a perverted one, in advance of those where there is one, and one observed according to its true spirit and intent ? Let universal experience answer. Are those individuals who truly keep the Sabbath in a worse spiritual condition than those who do not ? Are they less ready to do good to the bodies and souls of their fellow-men ? When Great Britain gave freedom to eight hundred thousand slaves, was it the Sabbath or the anti-Sabbath men that roused her to that deed of mercy, and compelled her to carry it through ? Was it the Sabbath or the anti-Sabbath men that originated and that now sustain the great work of missions among the heathen, and indeed among the destitute at home ? The mission at the Sandwich Islands has converted a heathen to a Christian people. It is, moreover, so far as the missionaries are concerned, an anti-slavery mission. What no- Sabbath man, since he became such, ever has, or ever intends to lift a finger for its support ? Or, if the plea be, that such support cannot be rendered without lending a sanction to the corrupt channels through which that mission now receives support, then where are the missions, at home or abroad, originated and sustained by no-Sabbath men themselves ? Nay, among all the religious visits ever made, and all the great reforms ever attempted, by no-Sabbath men or women, when or where has one of them ever made a religious visit to a heathen community, or attempted a reform on heathen ground ? And where are the regenerated and disinthralled communities that have sprung into being as the result of such labors of love ? The command of the Savior, “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” has been as distinctly before, and as imperiously, binding on them as on others. Yet when and where have they even begun or attempted to obey it, in respect to the entire heathen world ? The History of Missions, I believe, has yet to chronicle the event.
Or to vary the test, man, according to the Scriptures, is “ dead in trespasses and sins.” To be saved he “must be born again.” Now, whatever may be the views of different individuals in regard to the nature of this new birth, all agree that it is such a spiritual renovation as inspires the man with habitual respect, reverence, and affection for God; such as reclaims the vicious, reforms the intemperate, and makes the indolent industrious, and the dishonest honest. To effect it is therefore the best thing that can be done for the spiritual well-being of man, either here or hereafter. Now, there are not a few of the believers in the Sabbath who can point to their own labors and instructions on that day as the means of thus renovating and reclaiming their fellow-men. They can point you to individuals, in instances not a few, wrko will stand up as “ brands plucked from the burning,” and as “living epistles known and read of all men,” and testify before all to the healthful and reclaiming influence of the Sabbath. Yes, there are thousands on thousands in this land who owe to the Sabbath, with its precious privileges and instructions, all that they are of character and of destiny, both for this world and for that to come, and who, if called upon, would so testify. Where, now, are the individuals that have been so renovated and reclaimed by men of the other views ? Where are the debauchees, and the profligates, and the swearers, and the gamblers, and the thieves, and the liars, and the drunkards, once “ dead in trespasses and sins,” but now “ born again ” and reclaimed, and ready to stand up and testify that they have been plucked from ruin by the no-Sabbath men and the no-Sabbath views? Are the men — is the man so renovated and reclaimed to be found? I, at least, have yet to see him.
Or, passing from their disposition to do good to others, suppose we examine the spiritual condition of the men themselves. Are they who believe in and keep the Sabbath, more disposed than others to evil, more bent upon their own indulgence, more reckless of their neighbors’ rights, reputation, and property, — in a word, more bold and frequent in the commission of crimes, that war upon society, and set human and divine law alike at defiance? Let us hear the witnesses.
Sir Matthew Hale said, “ That of the persons who were convicted of capital crimes while he was on the bench, he found only a few who would not confess that they began their career of wickedness by a neglect of the duties of the Sabbath, and by vicious conduct on that day.”
In 1838, before the committee of the British parliament, the Rev. David Ruel, who had been twenty-eight years chaplain of prisons in London, and who had had, on a low calculation, one hundred thousand prisoners under his care, testified as follows: — “ I do not recollect a single case of capital offence where the party has not been a Sabbath-breaker; and in many cases, they have assured me that Sabbath- breaking was the first step in the course of crime. Indeed, I may say, in reference to prisoners of all classes, that in nineteen cases out of twenty, they are persons who not only neglected the Sabbath, but all the other ordinances of religion.”
Such testimony might be multiplied to any extent. What does it prove ? Obviously, that there is that in the Sabbath and its right observance which just meets the physical and spiritual necessities of man, and which, because it meets these demands of his being, makes it a most effectual promoter of his physical and spiritual welfare. And what is this but saying, in other terms, that there is, in the very nature, relations, and necessities of man, a permanent and ceaseless demand for the Sabbath? And now, with this demand distinctly before him, and with a heart always intent on man’s best good, is it to be believed, that God did not provide for meeting it by the institution of the Sabbath at the outset, or that he does not mean to provide for it in future by its continuance to the end of time ? By no means. The truth is, the Sabbath, as an institution, — not the particular day of its observance, — is as really founded in the nature and relations of man, and grows as naturally out of his physical and moral necessities, as does that of marriage. Both must have had their origin with the race, and must be equally designed to continue, while the race does in its present state of being. Indeed, the laws of their observance, as we have seen, no less than those which guard the rights of conscience, property, person, and life, are equally a part of the common law of man, and, as such, binding on all, in all time. Can it be doubted, then, that the Sabbath, as an institution, is perpetually binding ?