THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.
By W. H. Littlejohn
There is a legal maxim which says, “Ignorance of the law excuses no man.” The offender who pleads a want of knowledge in extenuation of his crime, invariably meets in courts of justice with a response like this: “The State has been at the pains to publish its statutes; and if you have failed to inform yourself as to their contents, you must suffer the consequences.” Nor is this an idle or arbitrary practice. Its wisdom is attested by the experience of ages. Should we ignore the principle upon which it rests, the life and property of every individual would at once become insecure. Thus far, reader, we are doubtless agreed. But has it ever occurred to you that there might be another law, the heedless violator of which will meet with no more favor at the hands of the Judge of all the earth, than does the careless transgressor of a human enactment from an earthly court. You cannot be ignorant of the fact that God has once given a law to man; for this was done in the presence of a multitude of people, estimated at over three millions, and under circumstances the most solemn and impressive. If the result shall prove that the law is still binding, and that you are breaking it from the fact that you have neglected to look into its requirements, how shall you escape condemnation? For by your acquiescence in the justice of the maxim above quoted, you have virtually admitted that you are without excuse; since the same rule must govern in both cases. In other words, if you defend the practice of the courts above alluded to, it must be upon the ground of the necessity of the case. But if that necessity exists, it is because mankind have discovered a disposition to close their eyes to the demands of the law in order that they may thereby obtain license to violate it. Now, then, the same individuals who in the aggregate make up the State, are also subjects of God’s moral government. If, therefore, they are so corrupt as to attempt the evasion of a human law, based upon right37reason, by refusing to inquire into its just demands, it is highly probable, nay certain, that they would make the same attempt upon the law of God. Hence the necessity of a similar regulation on his part. But the need of such a provision, is in this case positive proof of its existence. For God possesses both the wisdom to see, and the capacity to provide for, such an emergency. Then, since we cannot escape from the responsibility of the situation, would it not be the part of wisdom to give our best abilities, and earliest moments to the consideration of the following interrogatories: - Are the commandments of God still binding upon any?
- What relation do we sustain to them?
- Are we living according to their requirements?
If so, let us take them up in the order in which they occur, giving to each as much attention as our limited space will admit of, and its relative importance may seem to demand. ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD STILL BINDING UPON ANY?
There is no fact better understood among men than that a rule of action, whose duration is not limited by its own terms, proceeding from a competent authority, does not require re-enactment, but remains in full force so long as its author fails to express a desire that it should be repeated or amended, and so long as he retains the right to legislate for those to whom it was originally given. As the commandments of God proceed from a source whose authority the most daring impiety will not venture to question, and as they contain no word which intimates that they were limited as to the time for which they should stand, it follows that we should require the most direct and positive testimony before we give our consent to the doctrine that they have been abolished. This will be the more manifest when we remember the circumstances under which they were given. For as its promulgation was attended by the most astounding display of divine power in order that the people might be profoundly impressed with the fact that it emanated from the Deity, it would not be unreasonable that, having witnessed the shaking of the mountain, the flashing of the lightning, and having heard the sound of the thunder, and the roaring of God’s voice, the blessing pronounced upon those who should keep the law, and the denunciations upon those who should break it, they should refuse to disregard it, in whole or in part, until convinced that it was the will of God as expressed in the most unequivocal manner. That this has never been done is rendered at least probable by the fact that those who claim that it has, differ very widely as to the time when, and the manner in which, it was brought about; one class insisting that it was accomplished during the life time of Christ, another at the cross, and still another not until after the day of Pentecost; and these being again subdivided into three classes, one claiming that the law has been abolished altogether, the second that it has been amended, and the third, that it has neither been abolished nor amended, but simply relaxed. Turning, therefore, from these discordant theories, whose respective partisans have, in a war of words which has lasted for centuries, each in turn, shown themselves able to overthrow the tenets of their adversaries, and never capable of establishing their own, we beg leave to offer a few reasons for believing that their failure has been attributable to the fact that they have been engaged in a vain endeavor to prove by argument that which was neither philosophically nor scripturally sound. To this end we submit, 1. That the nature of the commandments is such as to preclude the possibility of their passing away while the world stands. To this proposition, when applied to nine out of the ten, you will readily give your assent; that is, you will agree with me that the time will never come during the present order of things when we can with impunity have any God but Jehovah—when we can make unto ourselves any graven image of anything that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, or when we may bow down ourselves to them or serve them—when we may take the name of the Lord our God in vain—when we may dishonor our father and our mother—when we may kill—when we may commit adultery—when we may steal—when we may bear false witness against our neighbor—or when we may covet anything which is our neighbor’s. Then, since you are willing to accord perpetuity to nine of the commandments with which the remaining one stands associated, we may enter upon the examination of this, impressed with the possibility, if not the probability, that it, too, was designed to endure while time lasted. Nor shall we find anything in its wording which will contradict this hypothesis. On the contrary, we think that a careful examination of its phraseology will bring our minds to regard that which was before considered possible as a fixed fact. In order to do this intelligently, you will allow us to quote the commandment verbatim: “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 which 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.”
Bear in mind that we are not now endeavoring to determine which day we should keep in order to fulfill the law. Leaving this for consideration further on, we are simply to examine the commandment in order to discover whether it furnishes any reasons for believing that the Sabbatic institution was designed to be co-existent with the present order of things. As we enter upon this investigation, we at once perceive that though this commandment is one of the longest of the ten, the duty which it imposes is expressed in the following seven words: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” the balance being devoted to an explanation of what was to be considered as the Sabbath-day—the manner in which it was to be kept, and the reason why it was instituted. Now, then, as it is not to be presumed that the Lord would perform a work of supererogation, it follows that there is somewhere to be found good and sufficient reasons for the extraordinary care with which this little precept was guarded and explained. The first which naturally presents itself, and from which all others must derive their strength, is the fact that the Sabbatic institution was considered a matter of paramount importance to the race. The second was an evident determination to leave the people without excuse should they persist in their early determination to regard the strict observance of the rest-day as a matter of indifference. As it is certain, therefore, that the Lord did not look upon the fourth commandment as secondary in its nature to any other when he placed it in the decalogue, let us examine the reasons upon which it rests in order that we may determine whether the disposition now manifested to move it out of its proper place does not spring from a desire to evade its requirements rather than from any warrant found in the Scriptures. Confining ourselves strictly to the text, we find, First. That the Lord rested on the seventh day, after six days of labor in which he had made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. Second. That as a consequence of the foregoing, he blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. These two considerations are assigned as reasons why we are to “remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” To doubt their sufficiency at that time, would be to question the wisdom of God. But inasmuch as there is in him “no variableness neither shadow of turning,” the Sabbath can never cease to be the object of his especial care until the reasons which gave it being have lost their significance. This can never be until the fact of his having made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh becomes to him a matter of no interest. But this is impossible; “for God is not a man that he should repent.” He knoweth the end from the beginning. When he had perfected the creation and pronounced it “good,” it was done with a full knowledge of all the consequences which should flow from that stupendous act. The apostasy of man, the birth, death and resurrection of Christ as a necessary result, the purification of the earth by fire and its final restoration to Edenic beauty, were as real to his mind as though they had actually transpired. How idle, then, to reason as though some unlooked-for contingency had arisen whereby the Lord had come to regard the creation of the world as a work of doubtful merit. No; nothing will dim the glory of that work in the eyes of the Creator. That the fall did not do this, is proved by the fact that the commandments which were given at Sinai nearly twenty-five hundred years after this occurred, imposed the observance of the Sabbath in order to a suitable commemoration of this event. That the plan of redemption did not, is evident, first, because it was the declared purpose of God long before the tables of the law were delivered to Moses; and second, because if it affects this question at all, it would make the great transaction of creation week more memorable than otherwise; for by complying with its conditions, this life ultimately becomes the first link in an endless chain of being. In fine, look at this subject from whatever standpoint we may, we shall be compelled to admit that there is to be found no good reason for believing that the labor and rest of the Deity at the creation are by him considered as less worthy of celebration to-day, than they ever have been. This being true, and as he is not capricious, but is always affected in the same manner by like considerations, it must be that he is still desirous that they should have a proper memento. And as he has once provided one which was every way calculated to answer this end, it would be strange indeed if he should remove it, so long as the demand for it continued to be imperative.