{7} It is the fashion to extol highly the power of man’s mental and
moral perception of what is right and wrong. But from whom do we hear
most on these subjects? From those who, having lighted their torch at
the lamp of God, affect not only to be independent of divine
illumination, but even to eclipse the light of heaven itself. If they
will fairly test their own principles, let them try them by the condition
of that portion of the human family on whom revelation never cast its
direct rays. Let them seek in the records of the heathen nations of
antiquity, or in the principles and practice of modern heathendom, for
proofs of man’s inherent power to think and act aright. They will then
find that their wisdom is folly, their religion the most degrading
idolatry, and that their moral code allows and even commands actions of
the most revolting kind. The moral sense of the New Zealander made him a
cannibal. In the Hindu it is seen in the worship of the Linga, in the
horrid rites of the Suttee, and in the filthy and unnatural crimes that
form a part of what is considered their most acceptable worship. It is
hardly necessary to refer the classical reader to such works as the
Phædrus and Symposium of the greatest philosopher of the most civilized
nation of antiquity.
{12a} Heb. x. 25.
{12b} Vide x. 26, et seq.
{13} After examining all the places in which the word σάββατον and the
defective plural σάββατα occur, both in the New Testament and in the
Septuagint, we are satisfied that the following extract from Bishop
Horsley’s Third Sermon on the Sabbath, gives the proper exposition of the
passage. “I must not quit this part of my subject without briefly taking
notice of a text in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, which has been
supposed to contradict the whole doctrine which I have asserted, and to
prove that the observation of a Sabbath in the Christian church is no
point of duty, but a matter of mere compliance with ancient custom . . .
From this text no less a man than the venerable Calvin drew the
conclusion, in which he has been rashly followed by other considerable
men, that the sanctification of the seventh day is no indispensable duty
in the Christian church—that it is one of those carnal ordinances of the
Jewish religion which our Lord hath blotted out. The truth however is,
that in the apostolical age, the first day of the week, though it was
observed with great reverence, was not called the Sabbath day, but the
Lord’s day . . . and the name of the Sabbath days was appropriated to the
Saturdays, and certain days in the Jewish church, which were likewise
called Sabbaths in the law. The Sabbath days, therefore, of which St.
Paul speaks, were not the Sundays of Christians, but the Saturdays and
other Sabbaths of the Jewish calendar.”
{14} Rom. xiv. 5, 6.
{15} Isaiah i. 13, 14.
{16} We are reminded of certain expressions in some of the Fathers, from
which it is inferred, that they did not deem it necessary to keep the
Lord’s day so strictly as we contend it ought to be kept; and that
Constantine passed a decree permitting persons in the rural districts, to
get in their crops on Sunday, should the weather be such as to threaten
their destruction or serious injury. Without discussing the propriety of
the particular edict in question, we deem it a sufficient answer, that
the Bible, and not the Fathers or Constantine, is our rule of faith and
practice. Many erroneous notions were held by the Fathers; and no one
will pretend that either Constantine or the church generally in his days,
was so correct in practice, as to present a perfect model for us to
follow.
We are also reminded, that there were some in the early church—slaves,
for instance—who could not keep the Lord’s day; and these, it is argued,
would rather have died than have desecrated it, had they considered it of
the same obligation as the command to abstain from idolatry. To this it
may be replied, that the question is not what certain individuals
thought, or what was the practice of certain communities, but what the
word of God teaches. There is, however, a marked distinction between the
two cases here supposed, arising from the difference between the two
commandments. Many instances may occur, in which it is physically
impossible to obey the letter of some of the commandments. Thus,
poverty, sickness, or other providential impediment, may incapacitate the
most obedient child from ministering to the wants of his parents. In
like manner, bodily infirmity, imprisonment, or other providential
restraint, may prevent the observance of the fourth commandment in the
letter, while the heart longs to honour God’s holy day, and to enjoy its
blessings. The Christian slave, therefore, whose body (in the providence
of God) was under the power of his master, might be compelled to work on
the Lord’s day without incurring guilt. But he could not worship an
idol, without an open renunciation of Christianity. Surely there is no
need to insist on the difference between the two cases.
{17} Heb. iv. 9. σαββατισμὸς.
{18} We cannot see the distinction contended for by some, between the
Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s day; namely, that the former was
“_rest_,” while the latter is “_public worship_.” To us they appear
identical. The Jewish Sabbath was not merely “_rest_,” but _holy_ or
_sanctified_ rest. “God _blessed_ the seventh day, and _sanctified_ it.”
Moses calls it “the rest of the _holy_ Sabbath unto the Lord;” and God
frequently declares that it was appointed as a “sign” between himself and
his people, and commands them to keep it _holy_. Now, how could the
Jewish Sabbath answer the description thus given of it, if mere rest, or
cessation from bodily labour, was all that was required in its
observance? We know that the Sunday, as kept by those who only lay aside
their usual worldly employments, is neither “blessed,” nor “sanctified,”
nor “holy,” nor a “sign” between them and God. On the contrary, it is
made the occasion of the most awful immoralities, and is productive of
the greatest misery. Instead of a blessing, it is converted into a
curse. Besides, did not the instructions of the heads of families, and
the teaching and ministrations of the Levites, in the earlier part of the
Jewish history, and the services at the synagogue in after times, afford
means of instruction very similar to those in the Christian church? By
divine appointment the Levites were to teach the people (Lev. x. 11;
Deut. xxxiii. 10), and the people were to teach their children (Deut. vi.
7); and we cannot conceive how this could have been done, or the Sabbath
have been kept _holy_, according to the commandment, without some stated
instruction and worship on the day of rest, from the first settlement of
the Israelites in Canaan. A whole nation keeping _holy_ every seventh
day, without the aids and restraints of public worship, appears to us an
impossibility. Indeed, why is the Sabbath expressly called “a holy
_convocation_” [מקרא קדש] (Levit. xxiii. 3), if no assemblies of the
people for worship took place on that day? But after all, what do the
advocates of the strictest observance of the Sabbath require, more than
was required of the Jews by God himself? (Isa. lviii. 13.) We therefore
consider the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, the same in spirit,
in character, and in their general religious requirements.
{20a} Isaiah, lvi. 6, 7.
{20b} The fourth commandment is in its nature partly _moral_ and partly
_positive_. Reason teaches the duty of devoting a portion of our time to
the worship of God. Revelation determines the amount by a positive
enactment. Now, it is very remarkable, that while _all_ the other
sabbatical institutions (which are peculiar to the Jews) are omitted in
the moral law and inserted in the ceremonial law, that of the seventh day
alone stands in the decalogue. Is not this a tacit indication of its
moral character?
{22} See Appendix.
{23a} How often has the fondest love of parents become destructive to
their offspring, for want of proper regulation in its expression. So,
love to God and man, if mere feeling, without proper intellectual
guidance, might produce results the reverse of its intention. It would
be the propelling power without the regulator.
{23b} “It is a gross mistake to consider the Sabbath as a mere festival
of the Jewish church, deriving its whole sanctity from the Levitical law.
The contrary appears, as well from the evidence of the fact which sacred
history affords, as from the reason of the thing which the same history
declares. The religious observation of the seventh day hath a place in
the decalogue among the very first duties of natural religion. The
reason assigned for the injunction is general, and hath no relation or
regard to the particular circumstances of the Israelites. The creation
of the world was an event equally interesting to the whole human race;
and the acknowledgment of God as our Creator, is a duty in all ages and
in all countries, equally incumbent upon every individual of mankind.”
From _Bishop Horsley’s Second Sermon on the Sabbath_.
Professor Blunt has elaborately demonstrated, that the Sabbath was
observed in the _Patriarchal age_. See _Scriptural Coincidences_, pp.
18–24. The hebdomadal division of time by the Pagan nations of the West,
and by the Hindus and other people in the East, seems to indicate a
traditional recognition of the Sabbath, though the observance of the day,
as a day of rest, passed away with the worship of Him, in whose honour it
was originally instituted.
{27} Matt. xxii. 37–40.
{28a} Rom. xiii. 8–10.
{28b} James ii. 10, 11.
{28c} Ephes. vi. 1–3.
{29a} Matt. v. 17, 18.
{29b} Our Lord refers to some of the moral precepts, and to some of the
civil enactments of the law of Moses; because the meaning and application
of both had been perverted or obscured by the glosses of the Scribes and
Pharisees; and his intention evidently was, to remove those false
glosses, and to teach the legitimate application, meaning, and extent of
the divine commandments. Thus, the civil enactment, “An eye for an eye,”
&c. was perverted by the Pharisees, so as to encourage the notion, that
personal revenge was justifiable by the divine law. This perversion was
met by our Lord’s command, “Resist not evil,” &c. Again, God had
commanded the Jews to love their neighbours as themselves. The Scribes,
it would seem, chose to infer that this command necessarily implied the
inculcation of an opposite feeling towards enemies. They therefore
interpreted the precept to mean “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate
thine enemy.” Our Lord gave the most decided negative to this gloss, by
his injunction, “love your enemies,” &c. Moreover, the Scribes taught
that the mere outward observance of the precept was all that the law
required. Our Lord shewed that God regards the inward feelings and
motives of men—that the unchaste desire was adultery, and that causeless
anger was murder. In this, his object was not to condemn or contradict
the teaching of the law and the prophets, but to free it from human
perversion, to shew its real character, and to point out its moral beauty
and excellency. Hence his solemn assertion, that not one jot or tittle
should pass from the law.