no sect; no sect feels responsible for me; I have rejoiced at good
things which I have seen in all sects; the doctrines which I try to
teach do not rest on tradition, on miracles, or on any man's authority;
only on the nature of man. I seek to preach the natural laws of man. I
appeal to history for illustration, not for authority. I have no fear of
philosophy. I am willing to look a doubt fairly in the face, and think
reason is sacred as conscience, affection, or the religious faculty in
man. I see a profound piety in modern science. I have aimed to set forth
absolute religion, the ideal religion of human nature, free piety, free
goodness, free thought. I call that Christianity, after the greatest man
of the world, one who himself taught it; but I know that this was never
the Christianity of the churches, in any age. I have endeavored to teach
this religion and apply it to the needs of this time. These things
certainly give me some advantages over most other ministers. Of the
disadvantages which are personal to myself, I need not speak in public,
but some which come from my position, ought to be noticed with a word.
The walls of this house, the associations connected with it, furnish
little help to devotion; we must rely on ourselves wholly for that.
Other clergymen, by their occasional exchanges, can present their
hearers with an agreeable variety in substance and in form. A single
man, often heard, becomes wearisome and unprofitable, for "No man can
feed us always." This I feel to be a great disadvantage which I labor
under. Your kindness and affectionate indulgence make me feel it all the
more. But one man cannot be twenty men.
When I came here I knew I should hurt men's feelings. My theology would
prove more offensive and radical than men thought; the freedom of speech
which men liked at a distance would not be pleasing when near at hand;
my doctrines of morality I knew could not be pleasing to all men; not to
all good men. I saw by your looks that in my abstractions I did not go
too far for your sympathy, or too fast for your following. I soon found
that my highest thought and most pious sentiment were most warmly
welcomed as such; but when I came to put abstract thought and mystical
piety into concrete goodness, and translate what you had accepted as
Christian faith into daily life; when I came to apply piety to trade,
politics, life in general, I knew that I should hurt men's feelings. It
could not be otherwise. Yet I have had a most patient and faithful
hearing. One thing I must do in my preaching: I must be in earnest. I
cannot stand here before you and before God, attempting to teach piety
and goodness, and not feel the fire and show the fire. The greater the
wrong, the more popular, the more must I oppose it, and with the
clearer, abler speech. It is not necessary for me to be popular, to be
acceptable, even to be loved. It is necessary that I should tell the
truth. But let that pass. You come hither week after week, it is now
year after year that you come, to listen to one humble man. Do you get
poor in your souls? Does your religion become poor and low? Are you
getting less in the qualities of a man? If so, then leave me, to empty
seats, to cold and voiceless walls; go elsewhere, and feed your souls
with a wise passiveness, or an activity wiser yet. Such is your duty;
let no affection for me hinder you from performing it. The same
theology, the same form suits not all men. But if it is not so, if I do
you good, if you grow in mind and conscience, heart and soul, then I ask
one thing--Let your piety become natural life, your divinity become
humanity.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Synod declared: "That God hath a controversie with his New
England people is undeniable." "There are visible manifest evils, which
without doubt the Lord is provoked by." 1. "A great and visible decay of
the power of Godliness amongst many professors in these churches." 2.
"Pride doth abound in New England. Many have offended God by strange
apparel." 3. "Church fellowship and other divine institutions are
grossly neglected." "Quakers are false worshippers," "and Anabaptists
... do no better than set up an Altar against the Lord's Altar." 4. "The
holy and glorious name of God hath been polluted;" "because of swearing
the land mourns." "It is a frequent thing for men to sit in prayer-time
... and to give way to their own sloth and sleepiness." "We read of but
one man in Scripture that slept at a sermon, and that sin had like to
have cost him his life." 5. "There is much Sabbath-breaking; since there
are multitudes that do profanely absent themselves from the public
worship of God,... walking abroad and travelling ... being a common
practice on the Sabbath Day." "Worldly unsuitable discourses are very
common upon the Lord's Day." "This brings wrath, fires, and other
judgments upon a professing people." 6. "As to what concerns families
and Government thereof, there is much amiss." "Children and servants ...
are not kept in due subjection." "This is a sin which brings great
judgments, as we see in Eli's and David's family." 7. "Inordinate
passions, sinful heats and hatreds, and that amongst church members." 8.
"There is much intemperance:" "it is a common practice for
town-dwellers, yea, and church members, to frequent public houses, and
there to misspend precious time." 9. "There is much want of truth
amongst men." "The Lord is not wont to suffer such an iniquity to pass
unpunished." 10. "Inordinate affection unto the world." "There hath been
in many professors an insatiable desire after land and worldly
accommodations; yea, so as to forsake churches and ordinances, and to
live like heathen, only so that they might have elbow-room in the world.
Farms and merchandisings have been preferred before the things of God."
"Such iniquity causeth war to be in the gate, and cities to be burned
up." "When Lot did forsake the land of Canaan and the church which was
in Abraham's family, that so he might have better worldly accommodations
in Sodom, God fired him out of all." "There are some traders that sell
their goods at excessive rates; day-laborers and mechanics are
unreasonable in their demands." 11. "There hath been opposition to the
work of reformation." 12. "A public spirit is greatly wanting in the
most of men." 13. "There are sins against the gospel, whereby the Lord
has been provoked." "Christ is not prized and embraced in all his
offices and ordinances as ought to be."
[2] In 1646, Mr. Samuel Symonds wrote to Governor Winthrop, as follows:
"I will also mention the text preached upon at our last fast, and the
propositions raised thereupon, because it was so seasonable to New
England's condition. Jeremiah 30:17; For I will restore health to thee,
and heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord; because they called thee an
outcast, saying, This is Zion, whom noe man careth for.
"1. Prop. That sick tymes doe passe over Zion.
"2. That sad and bitter neglect is the portion, aggravation and
affliction of Zion in the tyme of his sicknesse and wounds, but
especially in the neglect of those that doe neglect it, and yet,
notwithstanding, doe acknowledge it to be Zion.
"3. That the season of penitent Zion's passion, is the season of God's
compassion.
"This sermon tended much to the settling of Godly minds here in God's
way, and to raise their spirits, and, as I conceive, hath suitable
effects."
II.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE MOST CHRISTIAN USE OF THE SUNDAY.--A SERMON
PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 1848.
MARK II. 27.
The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
From past ages we have received many valuable institutions, that have
grown out of the transient wants or the permanent nature of man. Amongst
these are two which have done a great service in promoting the
civilization of mankind, which still continue amongst us. I speak now of
the institution of Sunday, and that of preaching. By the one, a seventh
part of the time is separated from the common pursuits of life, in order
that it may be devoted to bodily relaxation, and to the culture of the
spiritual powers of man; by the other, a large body of men, in most
countries the best educated class, are devoted to the cultivation of
these spiritual powers. Such at least is the theory of those two
institutions, be their effect in practice what it may. This morning,
let us look at one of them, and so I invite your attention to some
thoughts relative to the Sunday--to the most Christian and profitable
use of that day.
There is a stricter party of Christians amongst us, who speak out their
opinions concerning the Sunday; this comprises what are commonly called
the more "evangelical" sects. There is a party less strict in many
particulars, comprising what are commonly called the more "liberal"
sects. They have hitherto been comparatively silent on this theme. Their
opinions about the Sunday have not usually been so plainly spoken out,
but have been made apparent by their actions, by occasional and passing
words, rather than by full, distinct, and emphatic declarations. The
stricter party, of late years, have been growing a little more strict;
the party less strict likewise advance in the opposite direction.
Recently, a call has been published by a few men, for a convention to
consult and take some steps towards the less rigid course, for the
purpose, as I understand it, of making the Sunday even more valuable
than it is now. I take it for granted that both parties desire to make
the best possible use of the Sunday--the use most conducive to the
highest interests of mankind; that they desire this equally. There are
good men on both sides, the more and the less strict; pious men, in the
best sense of that word, may be found on both sides. There is no need
of imputing bad motives to either party in order to explain the
difference between the two.
Such is the aspect of the two parties in the field, looking opposite
ways, but at one another. It seems likely that there will be a quarrel,
and, as is usual in such cases, hard words on each side, hard thoughts
and unkind feelings on both sides. Before the quarrel begins, and our
eyes are blinded by the dust of controversy; before our blood is fired,
and we become wholly incapable of judgment--let us look coolly at the
matter, and ask, Do we need any change in respect to the observance of
the Sunday? Are the present opinions respecting the origin, nature, and
original design of that institution just and true? Is the present mode
of observing it the most profitable that can be devised? The inquiry is
one of great importance.
To answer these questions, it is necessary to go back a little into the
history of the Hebrew Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. However, it is
not needful to go much into detail, or consume this precious hour in a
learned discussion on antiquarian matters which concern none but
scholars.
With the Hebrews the actual observance of Saturday--the Sabbath--as a
day rest, seems to be of pretty late origin. The first mention of it in
authentic Hebrew history, as actually observed, occurs about two hundred
years after Samuel, and about six hundred after Moses--a little less
than nine hundred before Christ. The passage is found in 2 Kings 4: 23;
a child had died, as the narrative relates--the mother wished to send
for Elisha, "the man of God." Her husband objects, saying, "Wherefore
wilt thou go to him to-day? it is neither new moon nor Sabbath." This
connection with the new moon is significant. In the earlier historical
books of Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, and the first of
Kings, there is no mention of the Sabbath, not the least allusion to it.
This seems to have been the origin of its observance:--The worship of
one God, with the distinctive name Jehovah, gradually got established in
the Hebrew nation; for this they seem largely indebted to Moses.
Gradually this worship of Jehovah became connected with a body of
priests, who were regularly organized at length, and claimed descent
from Levi--some of them from Aaron, his celebrated descendant, the elder
brother of Moses. The rise of the Levitical priesthood is remarkable,
and easily traced in the Old Testament. Some books are entirely
destitute of a Levitical spirit, such as Genesis and Judges; others are
filled with it, as Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the books of Chronicles.
With the priesthood it seems there came the observance of certain days
for religious or festal purposes--New Moon days, Full Moon days, and the
like. These seem to have been derived from the nations about them, with
whom the moon--deified as Astarte, the Queen and Mother of Heaven, and
under other names--was long an object of worship. The observance of
those days points back to the period when Fetichism, the worship of
Nature, was the prominent form of religion. With the other days of
religious observance came the seventh day, called the Sabbath. No one
knows its true historical origin. The statement respecting its origin,
in the fourth commandment, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, can
hardly be accepted as literally true by any one in this century. No
scientific man, in the present stage of philosophic inquiry, will
believe that God created the universe in six days, and then rested on
the seventh. Did other nations observe this day before the Hebrews; was
it also connected with some Fetichistic form of worship; what was the
historical event which led to the selection of that day in special? This
it is easy to ask, but perhaps not possible to answer. These are curious
questions; they are of little practical importance to us at this moment.
After the Hebrew institutions of religion got fixed--the worship of
Jehovah, the Levitical priesthood, and the peculiar forms of
sacrifice--it became common to refer their origin back to the time of
Moses, who lived fourteen or fifteen hundred years before Christ. Since
few memorials from his age have come down to us, it is plain we can know
little of him. But from the impression which his character left on his
nation, and through them on the whole world; from the myths so early
connected with his name, it seems pretty clear that he was one of the
greatest and most extraordinary men that ever lived. Mankind seldom tell
great things of little men. It is difficult to say what share he had in
making the laws of the Hebrew nation which are commonly referred to
him,--and, as it is popularly taught, revealed to him directly by
Jehovah. Perhaps we are not safe in referring to him even the whole of
the ten commandments; surely not in any one of their present forms.[3]
Was the Sabbath observed as a day of rest before Moses? Was its
observance enforced by him? Was it even known to him? These questions
are not easily answered. This is only certain: from the time of Moses to
that of Jehoram, a period of about six hundred years, there is no
historical mention of its observance, not the least allusion to it. Yet
we have documents which treat of that period,--the books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and the Kings,--some of them historical documents, which
go into the minute detail of the national peculiarities, and were
evidently written with a good deal of concern for strict integrity and
truth; they refer to the national rite of circumcision. Now, if the
Sabbath had been observed during that period, it is difficult to believe
it would have received no passing notice in those historical books. But
not only is there no mention of it therein, none even in the times of
David and Solomon, who favored the priesthood so strongly; but in the
book of Chronicles, the most Levitical book in the Bible, at a date more
than two hundred years later than the time of Jehoram, it is distinctly
declared that the Sabbath had not been kept for nearly five hundred
years.[4] But even if this statement is true, which is scarcely
probable, it is plain from the frequent mention of the Sabbath in the
writings of the latter part of that period--Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
others--that the institution was one well known and highly regarded by
religious men. After the return from the Babylonian exile, it seems to
have been kept with considerable rigor; this we learn from the book of
Nehemiah.
The Hebrew law, as it is contained in the Pentateuch, is a singular
mixture of conflicting statutes, evidently belonging to different ages,
many of them wholly unsuitable to the condition of the people when the
laws are alleged to have been given. However, they are all referred back
to the time of Moses in the Pentateuch itself, and by the popular
theology at the present day. In the law the command is given to keep
the seventh day as a day of rest, and that command is referred
distinctly to Jehovah himself. The reason is given for choosing that
day:--"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the
seventh day he rested and was refreshed;" the Sabbath, therefore, was to
be kept in commemoration of the fact, that after Jehovah had spent the
week in creating the world, "he rested and was refreshed." It was to be
a day of rest for master and slave, for man and beast. A special
sacrifice was offered on that day, in addition to the usual ceremonies,
but no provision was made for the religious instruction of the people.
The Sabbath was what its Hebrew name implies, a rest from all labor. The
law, in general terms, forbade all work; but, not content with that, it
descends to minute details, specifically prohibiting by statute the
gathering or preparation of food on the Sabbath, even of food to be
consumed on that day itself; the lighting of a fire, or the removal from
one's place; and, by a decision where the statute did not apply, forbade
the gathering of sticks of wood. The punishment for violating the
Sabbath in general, or in any one of these particulars, was death:
"Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." However, amusement
was not prohibited, nor eating and drinking, only work. The command,
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day," at a later period,
was liberally interpreted, and a man was allowed to go two thousand
cubits, a Sabbath-day's journey.
Long after the time of Moses, some of the Hebrews returned from exile
amongst a more civilized and refined people. It seems probable that only
the stricter portion returned and established themselves in the land of
their fathers. Nehemiah, their leader, enforced the observance of the
Sabbath with a strictness and rigor of which earlier times afford no
evidence. But the nation was not content with making it a day of
idleness. They established synagogues, where the people freely assembled
on the Sabbath and other public days, for religious instruction, and
thus founded an excellent institution which has shown itself fruitful of
good results. So far as I know, that is the earliest instance on record
of provision being made for the regular religious instruction of the
whole people. Experience has shown its value, and now all the most
highly civilized nations of the earth have established similar
institutions. However, in the synagogues the business of religious
instruction was not at all in the hands of the priests, but in those of
the people, acting in their primary character without regard to
Levitical establishments. A priest, as such, is never an instructor of
the people; he is to go through his ritual, not beyond it.
It is easy to learn from the New Testament what were the current
opinions about the Sabbath in the time of Christ. It was unlawful to
gather a head of wheat on the Sabbath, as a man walked through the
fields; it was unlawful to cure a sick man, though that cure could be
effected by a touch or a word; unlawful for a man to walk home and carry
the light cushion on which he had lain. What was unlawful was reckoned
wicked also; for what is a crime in the eyes of the priest, he commonly
pretends is likewise a sin before the eyes of God. Yet it was not
unlawful to eat, drink, and be merry on the Sabbath; nor to lift a sheep
out of the ditch; nor to quarrel with a man who came to deliver mankind
from their worst enemies. It was lawful to perform the rite of
circumcision on the Sabbath, but unlawful to cure a man of any sickness.
Jesus once placed these two, the allowing of that ritual mutilation and
the prohibition of the humane act of curing the sick on the Sabbath, in
ridiculous contrast. In the fourth gospel he goes further, and actually
denies the alleged ground for the original institution of the Sabbath;
he denies that God had ever ceased from his work, or rested: "My father
worketh hitherto."[5] However, in effecting these cures he committed a
capital offence; the Pharisees so regarded it, and took measures to
insure his punishment. It does not appear that they were illegal
measures. It is probable they took regular and legal means to bring him
to condign punishment as a Sabbath-breaker. He escaped by flight.
Such was the Sabbath with the Hebrews, such the recorded opinion of
Jesus concerning it. There were also other days in which labor was
forbidden, but with them we have nothing to do at present. Jesus taught
piety and goodness without the Hebrew limitations; of course, then, the
new wine of Christianity could not be put into the old bottles of the
Jews. Their fast days and Sabbath days, their rites and forms, were not
for him.
* * * * *
Now, not long after the death of Christ, his followers became gradually
divided into two parties. First, there were the Jewish Christians; that
was the oldest portion, the old school of Christians. They are mentioned
in ecclesiastical history as the Ebionites, Nazarines, and under yet
other names. Peter and James were the great men in that division of the
early Christians. Matthew, and the author of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, were their evangelists. The church at Jerusalem was their
strong-hold. They kept the whole Hebrew law; all its burdensome ritual,
its circumcision and its sacrifices, its new-moon days and its full-moon
days, Sabbath, fasts, and feasts; the first fifteen bishops of the
church at Jerusalem were circumcised Jews. It seems to me they
misunderstood Jesus fatally; counting him nothing but the Messiah of the
Old Testament, and Christianity, therefore, nothing but Judaism
brightened up and restored to its original purity.
I have often mentioned how strongly Matthew, taking him for the author
of the first gospel, favors this way of thinking. He represents Jesus as
commanding his disciples to observe all the Mosaic law, as the Pharisees
interpreted that law,[6] though such a command is utterly inconsistent
with the general spirit of Christ's teachings, and even with his plain
declaration, as preserved in other parts of the same gospel. It is
worthy of note, that this command is peculiar to Matthew. But there is
another instance of the same Jewish tendency, though not so obvious at
first sight. Matthew represents Jesus as saying, "The Son of man," that
is, the Messiah, "is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Accordingly, he is
competent to expound the law correctly, and determine what is lawful to
do on that day. In Matthew, therefore, Jesus, in his character of
Messiah, is represented as giving a judicial opinion, and ruling that it
"is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Now, Mark and Luke represent
it a little different. In Mark, Jesus himself declares that "The Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Matthew entirely omits
that remarkable saying. According to Mark, Jesus declares in general
terms, that man is of more consequence than the observance of the
Sabbath, while Matthew only considers that the Messiah is "Lord of the
Sabbath day." The cause of this diversity is quite plain. Matthew was a
Jewish Christian, and thought Christianity was nothing but restored
Judaism.
* * * * *