Perpetual Observance of the Sabbath.
By Uriah Smith
[We extract the following from an article in the American Theological Review, of April, 1862. It is an argument in favor of the institution of the Sabbath in Eden, and its primeval observance, in reply to Dr. Hessey, of England, who, in a recent publication, has taken opposite ground.—U. S.] The Sabbatical value of the declarations made in Gen. ii, 2, 3—using the term Sabbatical merely as descriptive of a weekly day of hallowed rest—is not dependent upon the decision of the questions, whether or not the patriarchs kept a Sabbath, or whether the Mosaic cosmogony was in any form disclosed to mankind before Genesis was written. The passage has an intrinsic weight which is sometimes lost sight of in attending to subordinate questions. Experience shows that periodic seasons of rest and devotion are a human necessity. That certain periods are too long, and others too short, may also be determined by the light of nature. What is the best cycle, in the absence of conclusive natural proofs, may well be made matter of divine revelation. We claim that the passage before us affords perpetual light upon this subject; and since the light is that of the divine example and promise, it has not only illuminating, but directing, power. It reveals to men, as long as the present natural economy lasts, the path of duty and happiness. The fact of the divine rest upon the seventh day, whenever disclosed to mankind, and to whatsoever subordinate uses appropriated, must ever remain one of universal interest. It stands in the record of the creation, not of Palestine, but of the world; not of Jews, but of man. It speaks not of the rest of Jehovah, but of Elohim. It announces not merely the divine cessation from creating, but distinguishes a period, gives to it a distinctive character, and sets apart one day for special duties and the communication of special favors. Though such a cycle is beyond clear and certain discovery by man as the one best fitted to his complex nature and doubly related life, still experience is competent to affirm its wisdom and worth. As really, if not as obviously, do mankind need the Sabbath rest, as that of night. Its physical benefits, moreover, which candid men universally admit, are best secured when it is most sacredly kept in accordance with its higher ends. As piety is conducive to morality, so is the spiritual Sabbath to the physical. The better we become acquainted with human nature, the more significant are the words, "the Sabbath was made for man." We can accept the declaration in Genesis as meaning no less than that a weekly day of hallowed rest enters into the plan of creation. The idea of such a day is shadowed forth in divine acts, which, no matter when revealed, themselves are of universal interest and susceptible of universal application. And what meaning can naturally be obtained from these words, "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," in the connection in which they stand, but this: that the divine example teaches men, all to whom it is revealed, that such a day is one on which it may be expected that Heaven's choicest favors will be bestowed, and grateful, holy worship will ascend in return? What less can be understood, than that it is a day incumbent upon man as a sanctified day? In what sense can God be said to bless the day, save that of blessing it to man? or to sanctify it, save that of setting it apart for hallowed and holy observances? Much of the religious instruction communicated to the old-world fathers (as Dr. Fairbairn has shown in a work characterized by sound learning and good judgment) was in all probability made known by divine acts. The time for full and formal legal institutes was not at the beginning. As we have already remarked, however, for our present purpose it is not necessary that we should be able to show, as matter of fact, the observance of a primeval Sabbath; or the possession by men, before the days of Moses, of the facts he published respecting the creation. All that we claim is, that a declaration like that before us, incorporated into the creation-narrative, and exhibiting the divine example, indicates to man the divine will—the lesson that, in the natural and moral economy which the Creator has established, there is a necessity created, and a provision made, for a Sabbath. The Hebrew word for Sabbath is not found in the texts we have been considering, neither is there any direct proof that it was ever on the lips of the patriarchs. As they may be said not to have known the name of Israel's covenant God, so may they be said not to have had the Sabbath. It does not follow that they had not the promises of Jehovah; nor that they had no stated times of worship; nor that, in some form, the substance of Moses' narrative of the creation, and of the Paradisaic state, may not have been in their possession. There is one fact which favors an affirmative decision of such points. We refer to the fact of the early knowledge possessed by the worshipers of the true God, and by nations with whom they may be supposed to have come in contact, of a septenary division of time. The manner in which this cycle is2referred to, indicates that it was in familiar use long before the days of Moses. There is even a slight suggestion of it in the narrative of the offerings of Cain and Abel. How far and how early it spread over the earth, is involved in deep obscurity. Some have asserted that it was in use with every nation of antiquity. Others, that it was restricted to the Jews, and to the families from whom they claimed descent. Each of these positions is probably equally wide of the truth. The present opinion which, according to Arago, [Popular Astronomy, Eng. Trans. vol. ii, p. 722] "has obtained the greatest number of adherents," is that, besides the Jews, it was in use only among the ancient Chinese, Arabians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians. The question arises, How is the origin of this cycle to be explained? Several attempts have been made without reference to the use of which we have knowledge through the Mosaic cosmogony. The most popular one, at present, is that which Dr. Hessey, we are surprised to see, affirms that he accepts "without hesitation." "The course of the moon," he remarks, "and especially the appearance of the new moon or νουμηνία, would suggest a division, roughly stated, of twenty-eight days. This, perhaps, would be the first and most prevalent division. It certainly was all but a universal one, for it is found even where weeks were unknown, and where they are still unknown—among the aborigines of the New World" [pp. 141, 142]. Having on the two preceding pages affirmed that "it is only in the East that anything like a septenary division is found to prevail," and that "it is not true that it (a septenary division) was ever general in the heathen world," our author, it will be noticed, proceeds to prove that the division of twenty-eight days was all but universal, because found where weeks were unknown! But letting this pass, what does the existence of the lunar division without the weekly, and that down to the present day, show, if not this, that the two are not necessarily, nor even easily, connected? This is evident upon other grounds. The present value of a synodic revolution is more than twenty-nine days and a half. The time between two new moons is not a number of days of which seven is a factor. The hebdomedal cycle is not a natural cycle, like that of years, or months, or days; it is artificial and arbitrary so far as our mere knowledge of natural laws carries us. "The object of the natural divisions," says the distinguished astronomer before referred to, "has been to indicate with convenience and precision the dates of events. ... The week indicates the regular succession of days of labor and rest." This is an established distinction, and we submit that it is much more philosophical to look for the origin of the week in the line of its idea, even if it constrains us to fall back upon divine revelation. It is evident that if, in any form, the fact recorded in Gen. ii, 2, 3, was communicated to mankind at the beginning, the hebdomedal cycle recognized in the subsequent narrative, and also the seemingly symbolical use of the number seven, are facts easily and fully explained. Our author, however, urges, "if the septenary division is found out of Scripture, without the Sabbath, why may it not occur in Scripture without it?" Page 141. The possibility of this we concede. We are not anxious to show that the original idea of the week was always preserved. Once instituted, it might continue, although the world forgot the Creator, and lost all care for the hallowed rest. Dr. H. is at pains to convey the impression that the extension, among the nations, of the hebdomadal period, was not great. He does not seem to be aware that in so doing, he limits the likelihood of this cycle's having had the origin which he unhesitatingly accepts; nor that the fidelity with which the descendants of Shem adhered to this division, when other nations so easily lost it, favors the idea of its religious origin and associations. The more he succeeds in diminishing the evidence of its heathen use, the more closely does he link it with its scriptural explanation and character. That a day holy to the Lord should be lost by those who forgot God altogether, is no marvel. "A highly spiritual ordinance like the Sabbath," Mr. Gladstone has recently well remarked, "was one little likely to survive the rude shocks and necessities of earthly life; while it could not, like sacrifice, derive a sustaining force from appearing to confer upon the gods an absolute gift profitable to them, and likely to draw down their favor in return." But if Noah and Abraham had a Sabbath, it is objected, they, or some of the old-world fathers, would have been noticed as keeping it. We scarcely need remark how unsafe is such a process of reasoning. We may point, in illustration of its inconclusiveness, with the eminent scholar and statesman just quoted, to the designs upon the shield of Achilles, intended to represent the standing occasions of Hellenic life, yet giving no hint of religious observances. Or we may refer, with others, to the silence of the Scriptures respecting the rite of circumcision, from the time of the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan, down to the days of Jeremiah—a shorter period, indeed, yet all the more strong for our purpose, inasmuch as the records are so much more extensive and minute, thus increasing, by a double ratio, the probabilities of allusion. Indeed, the case may be put more strongly, if the statement is correct that no account of the observance of this rite occurs from the days of Joshua to those of John the Baptist. A yet more conclusive reply is, that there is no mention whatsoever in the ante-Mosaic history, of any stated occasions of religious worship. Dr. H. refers approvingly to Hooker's remark that "even nature has taught the heathen, first, that festival solemnities are a part of the exercises of religion; secondly, that praise, liberality, and rest, are as natural elements whereof solemnities consist." Does he suppose, from the silence of Scripture, that the patriarchs had not as clear a knowledge of religion as the heathen? Does he suppose there were no days of praise, liberality, and rest, until the Jews gathered manna in the wilderness, especially when, according to the common interpretation, we are taught that, as early as the days of Enos, there began to be the formal observance of social worship? Further occasion for disconnecting the idea of a day of rest from that of the weekly cycle Dr. H. finds in the record of the giving of manna, in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus. Very different conclusions have been derived from this narrative by competent scholars, and these conflicting results may well suggest a less confident statement than our author gives. The facts in the case are undisputed; their significance is often determined by previously-adopted conclusions. The facts upon which Hengstenberg, as quoted and endorsed by our author, relies in the attempt to derive from this chapter an account of the origination of a weekly day of religious rest, are: 1. The astonishment of the elders at the double portion of manna gathered on the sixth day; 2. The disobedience of some of the people to the command to rest on the day which they had been told was a Sabbath; 3. The absence of any reference by Moses to an existing Sabbatical ordinance. These considerations, it is claimed, leave "no doubt" that the Sabbath, not the Jewish Sabbath, but the sacred observance of the seventh day, was then first instituted. We will examine them in their order. 1. The perplexity of the elders. To render the argument from this fact conclusive, it must appear that no other explanation of the perplexity can be given, save that of entire ignorance of a sacred septenary institution. So far is this from being the truth, that the narrative itself supplies another explanation. Astonishment and perplexity, it should be noticed, are words a little highly colored for the simple statement. The rulers came and told Moses. They came in doubt. They came for information. This they might well need. Explicit command had been given that a prescribed amount of manna should be gathered, and any attempt to preserve it from day to day had been prohibited. "And it came to pass 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." We may suppose them to have come either to inquire if the people had done wrong, or to know what should be done with the surplus, or for both objects. The reply of Moses favors the supposition that they had some knowledge of the seventh-day rest: "This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: take that which ye will bake," &c. There is no record of the communication to Moses of these words. It is possible the verse is to be divided differently from the manner in which it is punctuated by our translators. Moses then would say, "The fact you state has been divinely ordered. I was told there would be given a double portion on the sixth day. The import of this miracle I will explain, and the use to be made of the double portion of the manna." We prefer, however, the common interpretation. Moses, then, is to be understood to communicate, as by divine authority, the fact that the next day was to be kept as a Sabbath. This implies a previously unsettled life; either that, as Philo was of opinion, the Sabbath fell into desuetude in Egypt; or that it was observed there as well as circumstances allowed, but not with entire rest. But what decisive, or even probable, evidence is there that here is an account of the absolute institution of a day of worship? Not a word is said in explanation of the meaning of a Sabbath to the Lord. The term seems to have explained itself. New provisions, stricter regulations, were to be enforced. But there is no evidence that these were wholly strange words to the elders—"the rest of a holy Sabbath unto the Lord; eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there shall be none." 2. The disobedience of the people. This does not prove that the institution was a new one. Sabbath-breaking, we must believe, is not yet extinct, any more than the Sabbath. Notice, also, that some disobeyed the explicit command, "Let no man leave of it till the morning." 3. The silence of Moses respecting any existing ordinance. The fact may be pointed either way. It is at least offset, for our author's use, by Moses' equally striking silence respecting the nature of the remarkable day he is said here to institute. The most probable explanation of both phenomena—the silence respecting a previously-existing sacred day, and respecting the import of the words, the rest of a holy Sabbath—is, that the chapter gives us an account of the revival of a day which had somewhat lost its proper position, and which was to be invested with new guarantees, and enhanced importance. If we are still referred to the statement, "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath," the reply is easy. This is not said to the elders, but to the people, through Moses, after the sin of those who transgressed. It refers to the preceding narrative, and follows its interpretation. That the words intrinsically and necessarily signify no more than the revival, or new and more impressive inculcation, of a custom previously known is clear from Neh. ix, 13, 14: "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath." Yet the day, in the theory of those who quote this and kindred passages, in proof of its exclusive Jewish origin, had been previously made known. The chief difficulties, however, to which Sabbatarian tenets have given rise, it is of some consequence to observe, have sprung from misconceptions of the Sabbath as a religious day. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment has been too much regarded as only a part of a system of Sabbaths, and in its connection with the civil and ceremonial law. It has also been interpreted in the light of Rabbinical and Pharisaic traditions, rather than that of holy Scripture. It should never be forgotten that our Saviour's example is a commentary on the Sabbath of the decalogue. Sufficient allowance has doubtless not always been made for the physical necessities of men in the use of such a day. Much has been said, also, contrary to Christian charity and to Christian liberty. Excesses inevitably lead to reactions. Yet the greatest danger lies at present in a sundering of gospel from law, of the new covenant from the old, of Christianity from principles of righteousness which are the pillars of religion. It cannot be too often insisted, that Christian liberty is freedom in law, and has its fruit in holiness, and that restriction is still a schoolmaster indispensable in the spiritual training of the race.