The Necessity of a Sabbath.
By L. D. Santee
Many who profess to be teachers of the word, when driven by the truth to abandon the sanctity of Sunday, boldly adopt the theory that there is no holy time in the gospel dispensation. “True, it is, and pity ’tis ’tis true,” that there is a carnal mind in man that prefers to seek out new inventions instead of accepting as truth the perfect law of righteousness; but so it is, and so it has been ever since death found an entrance into Eden through the transgression of Adam. When Naaman the Syrian was told to wash in the river Jordan that he might be healed, he asked, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean?” And he would have retained his leprosy rather than obey the prophet’s command, had it not been for the wise words of his servants. In these days when we see men diseased and unclean through the contamination of sin, and we say to them, “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it, that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil,” they will say to us, “Is not the Christian Sabbath better than the Sabbath given by the Most High from the summit of the flaming mount?” and, Naaman-like, they are unwilling to be cleansed in the Lord’s appointed way. When shown from history that the observance of sunday, first as a festival, and afterward as a Sabbath, was compelled by papal edicts, and after searching the Bible in vain for divine authority, they will then change front, and declare that the gospel dispensation is without a Sabbath; and yet, they claim that this is a better dispensation than was the Jewish. The word Sabbath signifies rest. Have we as a race improved so wonderfully since creation, that for the last 2000 years we have been impervious to fatigue, and have not needed rest? Such is by no means the case. It is conceded by all men of learning that about one day in seven is necessary to recuperate the exhausted powers of nature. On this point we will adduce only two or three testimonies out of a great mass that lies before us. Dr. Willard Parker, of New York city, says: “The Sabbath must be observed as a day of rest. This I do not state as an opinion, but knowing that it has its foundation upon a law in man’s nature, as fixed as that he must take food or die.” John R. Farre, M. D., of London, says: “As a day of rest I view the Sabbath as a day of compensation for the inadequate restorative power of the body under continued labor and excitement.” John C. Warren, M. D., Professor in the medical college of Harvard University, says: “I have a firm belief that such persons (Sabbath-keepers) are able to do more work, and do it in a better manner, in six days than if they worked the whole seven.” Thus we see that if the Sabbath has been abolished, we are physically the losers by it; for it was adapted to our wants. How is it morally? The opposer says that the Christian is required to live holy every day. So was the Jew. In the New Testament we have many exhortations to lay up treasure in Heaven; not to have our hearts overcharged with the cares of this life; and many similar passages. It is truly a great aid to us religiously to have one day’s freedom from the toils and cares of earth; a day to draw near to God and increase our knowledge of his word. If there were no Sabbath in the gospel age, then we should say that in that respect it was not as good as the Jewish dispensation.
L. D. SANTEE.