PRES. ASA MAHAN ON THE SABBATH.
By Wm. Penniman.
Mr. Mahan was formerly President of Oberlin College, Ohio, and is now President of Adrian College, Mich. He is author of “A System of Intellectual Philosophy,” “Doctrine of the Will,” “Science of Moral Philosophy,” &c. The following quotations are embraced between pages 246 and 267, of his “Moral Philosophy”:— “The question in respect to the keeping of a Sabbath is one of special revelation. It is only, as such, that its observance can be regarded as morally binding. It is in this light, therefore, that I shall regard and treat the subject in the present chapter.” “‘The Sabbath,’ says our Saviour, ‘was made for man;’ that is, it was instituted to meet the demands of our nature. As it was originally given, not to any one particular people or age, but to the race, we are bound to conclude that the keeping of the day in accordance with the divine requisitions respecting it is demanded by the fundamental laws of our being. The same principle applies to all particular precepts respecting the day. In the Scriptures, the account of its establishment is connected with that of the creation, and of the first origin of the race. ‘Thus the heavens and earth were finished, and all the hosts of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.’ Gen. 2:1–3. The term blessed, as here used, can mean nothing less than this, that God ordained the institution of the Sabbath as a day of special blessings to all who would duly observe it. To sanctify the day, means to set it apart from secular to religious uses. This is the fixed and exclusive meaning of the term sanctify, when connected with any common object. “‘The fact that the account of the origin of the institution is connected with that of the creation itself, is sufficient evidence that its origin is coeval with that of the race, and of the fact that it was designed, not for any one people alone, but for the entire race of man. How strange this account appears, when placed in the light of the idea entertained by some, that the Sabbath was designed only for one people, and merely as an institution of temporary obligation relatively to them. To connect the account of the origin of such an institution with that of the creation itself without any intimation whatever of its real subsequent date, would be absurd even in an author uninspired. “‘Then the reason assigned for the institution marks it as designed for the race. What if the Most High had said, I finished the work of creation in six days, and rested on the seventh. For this reason, I now, thousands of years after the creation, sanctify this day, as an institution of temporary obligation for one, the least almost of all the branches of the human race!’ No man, having any proper respect for the Scriptures, can put such a construction upon such a passage, yet the idea under consideration compels us to do it. “‘The day also was introduced by Moses to the children of Israel, not as a new, but as an institution already existing. ‘And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.’ Ex. 16:22, 23. This was a considerable period before the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai, where the Sabbath was formally prescribed to the people. Yet it was presented to them as a day, the observance of which had previously been commanded to the Jews, as a people. It must have been given to the race, and to them only as a part of it. We might, then, with the same propriety argue that any of the other of the ten commandments was given to the Jews alone, and given as precepts of temporary obligation even unto them, as to affirm that the Sabbath was thus given. “‘The almost universal division of time into weeks of seven days among the ancients, and the equally extensive observance of the seventh as a sacred day, clearly evinces also that the Sabbath, with the division of time which it implies, was not originally given to one people, but to the race. ‘Sacred,’ says Hesiod, ‘in the first place, is the day of the new moon; sacred also are the fourth and the seventh days.’ ‘Again came the seventh day, the illustrious light of the sun.’ ‘The seventh day then arrived,’ says Homer, ‘a sacred day.’ Again he says, ‘The seventh (day) is among good things. The seventh is the birth (day). The seventh is among the chief things. The seventh is perfect.’ Hesiod and Homer, as the reader is well aware, are among the most ancient of the Greek writers. Philo, the Jew who was contemporary with our Saviour, says of the Sabbath, ‘For it is a holy day, not of one city, or place only, but of all the world, a holy day which alone can be described as universal, the birthday of the world.’ ‘Neither is there any city of the Greeks or among foreigners,’ says Josephus, ‘not even one nation in which the custom of observing the seventh day, on which we rest has not found its way.’ I might adduce many other testimonies equally to the purpose. But this is sufficient. Such coincidences must have had a common origin—the giving of the Sabbath originally, not to any one people, but to the race. “‘The reason originally assigned for the institution requires to be specially noticed. ‘And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.’ The reason here assigned, as well as that assigned by our Saviour, designates the institution as of changeless obligation. As long as creation should stand before the creatures of God, as his grand work, the reason for observing the institution on the seventh instead of any other day would remain unchanged. If, on the other hand, the time should come when God should perform a work infinitely more important than the creation, such an occurrence would demand, not a destruction of the institution, but a change from the seventh to the day on which this last and crowning work of God was completed. Such an occurrence as the above, however, instead of being a reason for the abrogation of the Sabbath itself, would be an additional reason of infinite weight for its continued observance, on a different day. “‘Another consideration of considerable weight to my mind is this, the fact that the precept requiring the observance of the institution is placed among nine other precepts of changeless obligation, and which are separate from all other laws, precepts, and institutions, given at the time, as of fundamental importance.’” We have quoted the preceding as it is nearly all good testimony in favor of the Sabbath. As the views set forth on the Sabbath by writers on moral science generally have weight with the people, we have noticed this writer principally to show some of his inconsistencies and erroneous positions, hoping some may see how difficult it is to uphold error or to attempt to reason from a false foundation. The president makes a wrong beginning when he says, “The question in respect to the keeping of a Sabbath is one of special revelation.” The Bible says nothing about the keeping of a Sabbath; for if a Sabbath is all that the word of God requires, then any day will do. Who cannot see that this leads to the absurd seventh-part-of-time position? Again, “The keeping of a Sabbath is contrary to the law and to the teaching of our Saviour (whom he quoted) who says, ‘The Sabbath [not a Sabbath] was made for man.’” Notwithstanding the position is so ably defended that the Sabbath was given to no one people, “but to the race,” yet on page 255, we notice that the author, speaking of Rev. 1:10, says, “This could not have been the seventh day of the week, or the Jewish Sabbath.” Again, on page 261, in attempting to set up the claims of the so-called “Christian Sabbath,” he again terms it the Jewish Sabbath. This is a dilemma into which all are thrown who attempt to set up a counterfeit day. Just as well might the law of God, in which the Sabbath is found, be called a Jewish law, or even God a Jewish God, as to call the Sabbath Jewish. “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.” Mr. Mahan thinks “the reason here assigned, as well as that assigned by our Saviour, designates the institution as of changeless obligation.” If the “institution” is “changeless,” then why attempt to change it? It was not an institution setting apart any day, but the seventh day because that in it God had rested. Creation yet stands; therefore, “the reason for observing the institution on the seventh instead of any other day” must stand also. Certainly this is a strong proposition and cannot be overthrown; for it will not only stand as long as creation, but even in the new earth. Isa. 66:22. But hear him again: “If the time should come when God should perform a work infinitely more important than the creation,” &c. It is assumed that the time has come (although the conjunction of if implies doubt in regard to it) when God has performed this work; but who says so? God does not; granting even that the work is greater, does this give sufficient authority for the change? We think not, inasmuch as we have positive proof that the institution is “changeless.” Here we find something remarkable when this noted author attempts to overthrow his own reasoning; for after making a proposition firmer than the rocks of Gibraltar, to avoid a dilemma he unwittingly attempts to overthrow his own position. From the very fact that the institution is of changeless obligation it must stand forever. It is a moral institution, since it is founded upon moral law, and moral principle, that principle which implies love to God. It is not an institution which makes holy any day or every day, but the day on which God rested, the day which he blessed and made holy. The moral principle is to keep the day which was made holy, the day which was blessed. No other day has been thus set apart to a sacred use; therefore it can no more be changed than any other part of the law. Again, “Another consideration of considerable weight to any mind is this, the fact that the precept requiring the observance of the institution is placed among nine other precepts of changeless obligation.” Here the president has given a clincher. It is no wonder he thinks this “fact” of “considerable weight.” “Facts are stubborn things.” Yes, it is a fact that this precept is in the very center of the law and binds it together with a moral chain, so strong that it cannot be broken. The Sabbath precept is just as much a moral precept as the other nine. Who cannot see but that there is just as much morality in a precept which requires love to God as there is in one which requires love to man? In fact, both are inseparably connected. The eighth command reads, “Thou shalt not steal;” yet in this degenerate age men do not seem to think they steal when they rob God of his time. Our author seems anxious to prove that the institution is changeless, yet he does not seem to think it matters in regard to the change of day. If the institution (which makes the seventh day and no other day the Sabbath) is changeless, then how can the day be changed, and the institution remain the same? Impossible! Col. 2:16, is quoted to prove that the Sabbath has been abolished. For an able and full exposition of this text the reader is referred to J. N. Andrews’ “History of the Sabbath.” Suffice it to say that Edwards, Barnes, and other able commentators differ with Mahan on this text, and hold the same position with S. D. Adventists. We notice but one more position, as it may be novel to some, and that is, that Eze. 43:27, is prophetic of first-day observance. The “Comprehensive Commentary” comments briefly upon verses 16–27 as follows: “The instruction seems to be the same as has been deduced from these types and shadows of the ceremonial law in the books of Exodus, Genesis, and Numbers, and the same evangelical truths are here prophetically proposed as were those exhibited in the way of positive instruction.” I have examined several commentaries on these texts, and there is not in one of them the least allusion to the idea that it is prophetic of first-day observance. If the eighth day, spoken of in the 27th verse, refers to first-day observance in the new dispensation, it must have a literal fulfillment; then why should not those who claim this text for their support make their literal burnt offerings upon a literal altar, for it says the priests shall thus do on the eighth day, &c. Again, seven days they were to purge the altar. To prove that the eighth day is the first, they must begin to count on the first. Can it be shown that the days of purification commenced on the first? Admitting that these days do thus commence, it is far from making a Christian Sabbath of the eighth. The kind of reasoning which Mahan has used to sustain a counterfeit day proves that when the position is false, the reasoning must be. Although an able reasoner when he has the truth on his side, yet when he tries to uphold error he becomes inconsistent, and, like a drowning man, will “catch at a straw.” May the Lord open the eyes of the people that they may see the truth, and incline their hearts to obey it.