Morality of the Sabbath.
By D. M. Canright
AND
Its Importance.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. I. All moral principles are discoverable by the light of nature; but the keeping of the seventh day holy is not discoverable by the light of nature or reason without a direct revelation from God; therefore it is not moral. WE will further consider this objection in the light of undisputed facts, still comparing the Sabbath with other precepts which are confessed by all to be moral. Take the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. We would suppose that the light of nature alone, without a revelation from God, would teach men that these things were wrong. But the history of the world proves that this is not the case. All these crimes have been tolerated, taught, practiced, and legalized in many of the wisest heathen nations. I have before me “Horne’s Introduction,” and “Leland’s Revelation,” in both which these learned men conclusively show the necessity of a divine revelation concerning the plainest moral principles. They show that suicide, abortion, killing of weak or deformed infants, offering human beings in sacrifice to the gods, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, stealing, lying, &c., have all been generally practiced by the most enlightened heathen nations, and by their wisest philosophers and lawgivers; defended as right, and according to nature and reason. The first of these eminent authors says:— “Prostitution, in all its deformity, was systematically annexed to various pagan temples, was often a principal source of their revenues, and was, in some countries, even compulsory upon the female population. Other impurities were solemnly practiced by them in their temples, and in public, from the very thought of which our minds revolt. Besides the numbers of men who were killed in the bloody sports and spectacles instituted in honor of their deities, human sacrifices were offered to propitiate them. Boys were whipped on the alter of Diana, sometimes till they died. How many lovely infants did the Carthaginians sacrifice to their implacable god, Moloch! What numbers of human victims, in times of public danger, did they immolate to appease the resentment of the offended deities!” Horne’s Introduction, Vol. I. pp. 16, 17. “Thus theft, as is well known, was permitted in Egypt and in Sparta. Plato taught the expediency and lawfulness of exposing children in particular cases; and Aristotle, also of abortion. The exposure of infants, and the putting to death of children who were weak or imperfect in form, was allowed at Sparta by Lycurgus. At Athens, the great seat and nursery of philosophers, the women were treated and disposed of as slaves, and it was enacted that infants which appeared to be maimed, should either be killed or exposed.” Ibid. p. 19. “Truth was but of small account among many, even of the best heathens; for they taught that on many occasions, a lie was to be preferred to the truth itself.” “Dr. Whitby has collected many maxims of the most eminent heathen sages, in corroboration of the fact above stated. The following examples are taken from his note on Eph. 4:25:— “‘A lie is better than a hurtful truth.’ Meander. “‘Good is better than truth.’—Proclus. “‘When telling a lie will be profitable, let it be told.’ Darius in Herodotus, lib. III c. 62. “‘He may lie who knows how to do it in a suitable time.’—Plato apud Stobæum. Serm. 12. “‘There is nothing decorous in truth, but when it is profitable. Yea, sometimes truth is hurtful, and lying is profitable to men.’—Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 3. p. 29.” Ibid. p. 20. To the same purpose Mr. Leland remarks:— “The custom of exposing weak and helpless children, which, one should think, is contrary to the most intimate feelings of humanity obtained very generally among the most civilized nations; and yet they do not appear to have been sensible that in this they acted a wrong and inhuman part, but looked upon it to be a prudent and justifiable practice.” Leland’s Revelation, Vol. 2, p. 7. Of the laws of Lycurgus, the wisest and best of all heathen lawgivers, the same author says:— “There were common baths in which the men and women bathed together. And it was ordered, that the young maidens should appear naked in the public exercises, as well as the young men, and that they should dance naked with them at the solemn festivals.” Ibid. p. 46. Plato the prince of heathen philosophers, endorsed and recommended this custom! Upon this the above writer remarks:— “A remarkable proof this, that the greatest men among the pagans, when left to their own judgments in matters of morality, were apt to form wrong notions concerning it, even in instances where one should think the dictates of nature and reason might have given them better directions.” Note, p. 47. John Locke, the great Christian philosopher, says:— “Whatever was the cause, it is evident in fact, that human reason, unassisted failed in its great and proper business of morality.” Reasonableness of Christianity; in his Works, Vol. 2, p. 532. “Man appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral agent, and designed to be governed by a law. Accordingly, God hath given him a law to be the rule of his duty. The scheme of those who pretend that this law is naturally and necessarily known to all men without instruction, (is) contrary to fact and experience. * When men fell from the right knowledge of God, they fell also in important instances from the right knowledge of moral duty.” “It appears, therefore, that what is called the moral sense was not designed to be an adequate guide in morals; nor is it alone considered, and left merely to itself, fit to have the supreme direction as to the moral conduct.” Vol. 2 pp. 8, 15. The Christian Union of Dec. 16, 1874, says:— “Prof. Julius H. Seelye, of Amherst College, has been lecturing the past week before the Yale Divinity School on Missions. The course comprises six lectures, three of which remain to be given this week. The first lecture was upon the condition and needs of the unchristian world. He presented a vivid picture of the degradation of these nations, based not merely on his own observation, which has been extensive, but supporting his statements by reference to authorities accessible to all. China, as one of the most promising of pagan nations, and whose civilization has been so widely lauded, was shown to be most shockingly corrupt in its social and private life. Lying, insincerity, licentiousness, and almost every vice mentioned in Scripture, is practiced without restraint. Their virtue is entirely external. India is in a similar condition. Before the establishment of the English in that country not less than 10,000 infants were put to death by their parents per month in the single province of Bengal. This condition is true not only of modern half-civilized pagans, but it is found where civilization has shown some of its most renowned trophies. In Greece and Rome society was all pollution. The most classic writings reveal it. Even their philosophers taught the most unmentionable vices. The first chapter of Romans is not an untrue portraiture of pagan corruption.” The foregoing arguments and facts do conclusively show that it is no evidence that a precept is not moral simply because the light of nature alone does not clearly point it out. It further shows that when we do appeal to the common consent of mankind, we find just as general a recognition of the principle of the Sabbath precept as we do of any of the other moral precepts. Hence this objection is not a valid one. II. All moral duties and precepts are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept makes an act wrong if done upon one day which would be right if done upon any other day. Therefore it is not a moral precept. Our opponents ask, “Would adultery, lying, stealing, &c., be wrong upon one day but allowable all the rest of the week? Can an act be morally wrong at one time which would not be at another? What is there in the nature of the day itself which makes the seventh day any different from other days? Is it not naturally just like other days?” In answer we affirm that there are many acts which are morally wrong at one time but right at another. A works for B at ten shillings per day for ten hours. At noon A has one hour during which he can eat, rest, sleep, or do what he pleases. But if A should idle around one hour during working hours he would be defrauding B and thus committing a moral wrong. Again, D borrows $100 of E and pledges his word and gives his note to pay that money to E one year from date. Now D has a moral right to keep and use that money through the whole year till the last day, pay day, comes. But if he keeps it beyond that day, then he is guilty of a moral wrong. So innumerable cases might be cited where it would be morally wrong to do a thing at one time which would be right at another time. A couple are engaged to be married upon a set day. Now, entering upon certain relations before they are married would be grossly immoral; but the same relations after marriage would not be wrong. Is it said that the morality or immorality of the act is not because of anything inherent in the nature of the time itself, but because of a violation of an arbitrary agreement or law made concerning the time? Thus: A’s act of resting during working hours would not be wrong if he had not agreed to work at that hour. Nor would D do wrong in not paying the $100 at the end of the year, if he had not promised to do it then. Very well; then an agreement or law can make an act immoral at one time which is moral at another time. This is sufficient to overthrow the objection. But the seventh day is different from all other days. The other six days of the week came into being as working days, the Creator working upon them. But the seventh day first came into being under very different circumstances. All the earth and every thing upon it was finished. All was beautiful, peaceful, and quiet. God then honored that day by resting upon it in celebration of creation finished. He then blessed and sanctified it. Gen. 2:1-3. Thus from its very birth this day did differ from all other days. A man has seven sons. Six were born in England, the seventh in America. The first six are Englishmen, the seventh is an American. In one sense they are all alike; but in another they are not. The last is honored with being eligible to the highest office in our government, while the others never can be. So the first six days were born working days, Eze. 46:1; Ex. 20:11; but the seventh was born a Sabbath day. Gen. 2:1-3. This difference between the days does exist in the nature of things and must always continue to exist. But another fact which we have purposely passed over until now, fully answers the objection we are considering. Moral precepts, it is said, are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept applies to only one day in seven. This is a mistake. That precept, like all moral laws, covers all the time. It directs what we shall do upon the first six days as plainly as it does what we shall do upon the seventh day. “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.” It will be seen that this commandment does cover the whole week, regulating what we shall do each day, how we shall use the time which God has given us. So it is not true that it applies only to one day out of seven. Seeing that the Creator has given to us all our time, “life, breath, and all things,” Acts 17:25, has he not a moral right to direct how we shall use this time? Is it not highly reasonable that he should? Does nature teach us that we should fear and serve our Creator? So all claim, and so we believe. Does it not, then, also teach us that our Maker would care as to how we use our time? This is just as natural as that we should serve him at all. Indeed, it is implied in it. For serving God is an act, and it takes time to perform an act. Therefore, if nature teaches that men should serve God, it teaches that God is interested as to how men use their time. Hence, it is naturally to be expected that God would give directions concerning it. This is just what he has done in the fourth commandment. Therefore that precept, like all moral laws, is reasonable and natural, and hence moral. III. The seventh day cannot be kept in all parts of the world, therefore it is not a moral institution. 1. It is claimed that at the north pole there are several weeks when the sun does not set at all; and again there are weeks when it is dark all the time. How can the seventh day be distinguished and kept there? If nature in this case proves any thing, it proves that God never designed men to live there. First, there is nothing for men to do there, nothing to call them there but the love of adventure. Secondly, nature has made no provision to sustain a population there. At the nearest point to the north pole at which men have been able to get, all is a dreary, barren field of solid ice, except for a few weeks, and then only a few berries grow. Thirdly, most of those who have endeavored to reach the north pole have perished in the attempt. So an appeal to nature does not help the objector in this case. But frequently those who raise this objection are strict observers of Sunday, the first day of the week. If there is any force in this objection, it comes with equal weight against Sunday keeping. How can they keep the first day up there? If they can find the first day, can not we find the seventh? If they can keep Sunday cannot we keep the Sabbath? But there is no trouble in either case. The days of the week are plainly marked there as well as here. Read the travels of Dr. Cane, Hall, and others who have been there. Did they experience any difficulty in keeping the reckoning of the days? None, whatever. The days are marked off by the revolutions of the earth which are there as well as here indicated by the position of the sun. The most of the year the sun rises and sets there the same as here, that is, as far north as men have ever penetrated. So far there is no difficulty, of course. In mid summer, for a short time, the sun is above the horizon all the time. Being so far north, a person can see the sun in its circuit clear around the earth, day and night. But it is easy to tell when it is overhead at noon, when it is going down in the west, when it is directly underneath at midnight, or when it is rising in the east in the morning. Can we not tell the time of day here by the position of the sun in the heavens without seeing it rise or set? Certainly. Then if we could see it all the way around, could we not tell just as well as when we see it only part of the way around? Of course, and so those testify who have been in the Arctic regions. The following is from the description of a scene witnessed in the north of Norway, from a cliff one thousand feet above the sea:— “The ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet; the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy lookout; away in the north the huge old sun swung low along the horizon. We stood silent, looking at our watches. When both hands came together at twelve, midnight, the full round orb hung triumphantly above the wave; a bridge of gold running due north spanned the water between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty that knew no setting. * In half an hour the sun had swung by perceptibly, the colors changed to those of morning, a fresh breeze rippled over the flood, one songster after another piped up in the grove behind us—we had slid into another day.” The change of the day, then, can be discerned even though the sun can be seen all the time. But how is it in the winter when it is night for weeks together? I believe there is no time but what rays of light can be seen in the south at noon of each day. This would be sufficient to mark each day. But the revolution of the earth can be as plainly and as easily told by the position of the stars at night as it can be by the sun at day. Any one accustomed to observing the stars knows this. They appear to rise and set and to go around the earth the same as the sun. Indeed, astronomers always reckon the day by the stars. Read the following letter which I received from an eminent astronomer touching this point:— Ogden, Utah, Sept. 24, 1878. “ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT: By observations of the stars the time can be found out at any time, day or night. Knowing the time at which any star ought to be in the meridian, we find the difference between noon and the observing time, or the local time. Stars being visible in the daytime and at night, on all places of the earth, it is possible to determine the time without seeing the sun. (Signed,) DR. F. KAMPF, Astronomer of the U. S. corps of Engineers.” So then the exact time of day can be told by the stars and they can be seen in the absence of the sun. Hence this objection is without foundation.