THE 4th
COMMANDMENT
by
Charles Hodge
1797-1878
PART 1 OF 2
CLICK TO GO TO » PART 2
ON DOCTRINE COMMENT
The author's conclusion is as follows:
1. The Sabbath was instituted prior to the Mosaic law and is perpetual in its obligation.
2. The Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first day but it is a primeval and
immutable law that one day in seven must be kept holy to the Lord.
Both claims are based on assumptions that are not stated in the Scripture. The Scripture makes no
mention of a perpetual obligation to observe the Sabbath or change in the Sabbath, never speaks
about a Christian Sabbath day and never states that Christians are to observe a specific day of
worship, whether it be a Sabbath or otherwise.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Exodus 20:8
PART III. CH. XIX. -- THE LAW
The design of the fourth commandment was,
-
- (1.) To commemorate the work of creation. The people were commanded to remember the
Sabbath-day and to keep it holy, because in six days God had made the heavens and the
earth.
- (2.) To preserve alive the knowledge of the only living and true God. If heaven and earth,
that is, the universe, were created, they must have had a creator; and that creator must be
extramundane, existing before, out of, and independently of the world. He must be almighty, and
infinite in knowledge, wisdom, and goodness; for all these attributes are necessary to account for
the wonders of the heavens and the earth. So long, therefore, as men believe in creation, they
must believe in God. This accounts for the fact that so much stress is laid upon the right
observance of the Sabbath. Far more importance is attributed to that observance than to any
merely ceremonial institution.
- (3.) This command was designed to arrest the current of the outward life of the people and
to turn their thoughts to the unseen and spiritual. Men are so prone to be engrossed by the
things of this world that it was, and is, of the highest importance that there should be one day of
frequent recurrence on which they were forbidden to think of the things of the world, and forced
to think of the things unseen and eternal.
- (4.) It was intended to afford time for the instruction of the people, and for the public and
special worship of God.
- (5.) By the prohibition of all servile labour, whether of man or beast, it was designed to
secure recuperative rest for those on whom the primeval curse had fallen: "In the sweat of
thy face shalt thou eat bread."
- (6.) As a day of rest and as set apart for intercourse with God, it was designed to be a type
of that rest which remains for the people of God, as we learn from Psalms 95:11, as expounded
by
the Apostle in Hebrews 4:1-10.
- (7.) As the observance of the Sabbath had died out among the nations, it was solemnly
reenacted under the Mosaic dispensation to be a sign of the covenant between God and the
children of Israel. They were to be distinguished as the Sabbath-keeping people among all the
nations of the earth, and as such were to be the recipients of God's special blessings. Exodus
31:13, "Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout
your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you." And in
verses 16, 17, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the
Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel forever." And in Ezekiel 20:12, it is said, "Moreover, also, I gave
them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD
that sanctify them."
The Sabbath was instituted from the Beginning and is of Perpetual Obligation.
- This may be inferred from the nature and design of the institution. It is a generally
recognized
principle, that those commands of the Old Testament which were addressed to the Jews as Jews
and were rounded on their peculiar circumstances and relations, passed away when the Mosaic
economy was abolished; but those rounded on the immutable nature of God, or upon the
permanent relations of men, are of permanent obligation. There are many such commands which
bind men as men; fathers as fathers; children as children; and neighbors as neighbors. It is
perfectly apparent that the fourth commandment belongs to this latter class. It is important for all
men to know that God created the world, and therefore is an extramundane personal being,
infinite in all his perfections. All men need to be arrested in their worldly career, and called
upon
to pause and to turn their thoughts Godward. It is of incalculable importance that men should
have time and opportunity for religious instruction and worship. It is necessary for all men and
servile animals to have time to rest and recuperate their strength. The daily nocturnal rest is not
sufficient for that purpose, as physiologists assure us, and as experience has demonstrated. Such
is
obviously the judgment of God.
It appears, therefore, from the nature of this commandment as moral, and not positive or
ceremonial, that it is original and universal in its obligation. No man assumes that the
commands,
"Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal," were first announced
by
Moses, and ceased to be obligatory when the old economy passed away. A moral law is one that
binds from its own nature. It expresses an obligation arising either out of our relations to God or
out of our permanent relations to our fellow-men. It binds whether formally enacted or not.
There
are no doubt positive elements in the fourth commandment as it stands in the Bible. It is positive
that a seventh, and not a sixth or eighth part of our time should be consecrated to the public
service of God. It is positive that the seventh rather than any other day of the week should be
thus
set apart. But it is moral that there should be a day of rest and cessation from worldly avocations.
It is of moral obligation that God and his great works should be statedly remembered. It is a
moral
duty that the people should assemble for religious instruction and for the united worship of God.
All this was obligatory before the time of Moses, and would have been binding had he never
existed. All that the fourth commandment did was to put this natural and universal obligation
into
a definite form.
- The original and universal obligation of the law of the Sabbath may be inferred from its
having found a place in the Decalogue. As all the other commandments in that fundamental
revelation of the duties of men to God and to their neighbor, are moral and permanent in their
obligation, it would be incongruous and unnatural if the fourth should be a solitary exception.
This argument is surely not met by the answer given to it by the advocates of the opposite
doctrine. The argument they say is valid only on the assumption "that the Mosaic law,
because of its divine origin, is of universal and permanent authority." 1 May
it
not be as
well said, If the command, "Thou shalt not steal," be still in force, the whole code of
the Mosaic law must be binding? The fourth commandment is read in all Christian churches,
whenever the Decalogue is read, and the people are taught to say, "Lord, have mercy upon
us, and incline our hearts to keep this law."
[1 Palmer, in Herzog's Real-Encyklop die, art.
"Sonntagsfeier."]
- Another argument is derived from the penalty attached to the violation of this
commandment. "Ye shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy unto you: every one
that
defileth it shall surely be put to death." (Ex. 31:14.) The violation of no merely ceremonial
or positive law was visited with this penalty. Even the neglect of circumcision, although it
involved the rejection of both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenant, and necessarily worked
the forfeiture of all the benefits of the theocracy, was not made a capital offence. The law of the
Sabbath by being thus distinguished was raised far above the level of mere positive enactments.
A
character was given to it, not only of primary importance, but also of special sanctity.
- We accordingly find that in the prophets as well as in the Pentateuch, and the historical
books of the Old Testament, the Sabbath is not only spoken of as "a delight," but
also
its faithful observance is predicted as one of the characteristics of the Messianic period. Thus
Isaiah says, "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my
holy day; and call the Sabbath a Delight, the Holy of the LORD, Honourable; and shalt honour
him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of
the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the LORD hath
spoken it." (Is. 58:13, 14.) Gesenius is very much puzzled at this. The prophets predicted
that under the Messiah the true religion was to be extended to the ends of the earth. But the
public worship of God was by the Jewish law tied to Jerusalem. That law was neither designed
nor adapted for a universal religion. To those, therefore, who believe that the Sabbath was a
temporary Mosaic institution to pass away when the old economy was abolished, it is
altogether incongruous that a prophet should represent the faithful observance of the Sabbath as
one of the chief blessings and glories of the Messiah's reign.
These considerations, apart from historical evidence or the direct assertion of the Scriptures, are
enough to create a strong, if not an invincible presumption, that the Sabbath was instituted from
the beginning, and was designed to be of universal and permanent obligation. Whatever law had
a
temporary ground or reason for its enactment, was temporary in its obligation. Where the reason
of the law is permanent the law itself is permanent.
The greater number of Christian theologians who deny all this, still admit the Sabbath to be a
most
wise and beneficent institution. Nay, many of them go so far as to represent its violation, as a
day
of religious rest, as a sin. This, however, is a concession that the reason for the command is
permanent, and that if God has not required its observance, the Church or State is bound to do
so.
Direct Evidence of the ante-Mosaic institution of the Sabbath.
Presumptive evidence may be strong enough to coerce assent. The advocates of the early
institution of the Sabbath, however, are not limited to that kind of evidence. There is direct proof
of the fact for which they contend,--
- In Genesis 2:3, it is said, "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that
in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." It is indeed easy to say
that this is a prolepsis; that the passage assigns the reason why in the times of Moses, God
selected the seventh, rather than any other day of the week to be the Sabbath. This is indeed
possible, but it is not probable. It is an unnatural interpretation which no one would adopt except
to suit a purpose. The narrative purports to be an account of what God did at the time of the
creation. When the earth was prepared for his reception, God created man on the sixth day, and
rested from the work of creation on the seventh, and set apart that day as a holy day to be a
perpetual memorial of the great work which He had accomplished. 2This is the
natural sense of the passage, from which only the strongest reasons would authorize us to depart.
All collateral reasons, however, are on its side.
[
2The force of this argument does not depend on the supposition that the days of
creation were periods of twenty-four hours. Admitting that they were geologic periods, at the end
of the sixth of which man appeared, and that then followed a period of permanent rest, that
would
be reason enough why every seventh day should be selected as a memorial of the creation, to
teach Adam and his descendants that the earth did not owe its existence to a blind process of
development, but to the fiat of Jehovah.]
In support of this interpretation the authority of the most impartial, as well as the most
competent
interpreters might be quoted. Grotius did not believe in the perpetuity of the Sabbath, yet he
admits that in Genesis 2:3, it is said that the seventh day was set apart as holy from the creation.
He assumes, on the authority, as he says, of many learned Hebrews, that there were two precepts
concerning the Sabbath. The one given at the beginning enjoined that every seventh day should
be
remembered as a memorial of the creation. And in this sense, he says, the Sabbath was doubtless
observed by the patriarchs, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. The second precept was given from
Mount Sinai when the Sabbath was made a memorial of the deliverance of the Israelites from
Egyptian bondage. This latter law enjoined rest from labour on the Sabbath. The Scriptural
argument which he urges in support of this theory, is, that in all the accounts of the journeyings
of
the patriarchs, we never read of their resting on the seventh day; whereas after the law given
from
Mount Sinai, this reference to the resting of the people on the Sabbath is of constant
occurrence.3
[3 De Veritate Religionis Christianoe, v. 10; Works,
London, 1679, vol. iii. p. 79.]
Delitzsch says "Hengstenberg understands Genesis 2:3, as though it were written from the
stand-point of the Mosaic law, as if it were said, God for this reason in after times blessed the
seventh day; which scarcely needs a refutation. God himself, the Creator, celebrated a Sabbath
immediately after the six days' work, and because his sabbatismon could become the
sabbatismon
of his creatures, He made for that purpose the seventh day, by his blessing, to be a perennial
fountain of refreshment, and clothed that day by hallowing it with special glory for all time to
come."4
[4
Die Genesis Ausgelegt, yon Franz Delitzsch, Leipzig, 1852, pp. 84, 85.]
Baumgarten in his comment on this verse says the separation of this day from all others was
made
so that "the return of this blessed and holy day should be to him a memorial, and
participation of the divine rest."5 And Knobel, one of the most pronounced of
the rationalistic commentators, says, "That the author of Genesis makes the distinction of
the seventh day coeval with the creation, although the carrying out of the purpose thus intimated
was deferred to the time of Moses. Nothing is known of any ante-Mosaic celebration of the
Sabbath."6
[5
Theologische Commentar zum Pentateuch, Kiel, 1843, vol i. p. 29.]
[6Die Genesis Erkl„rt, von August Knobel, Leipzig,
1852.
- Apart from the fact that the reason for the Sabbath existed from the beginning, there is
direct historical evidence that the hebdomadal division of time prevailed before the deluge.
Noah
in Genesis 8:10, 12, is said twice to have rested seven days. And again in the time of Jacob, as
appears from Genesis 29:27, 28, the division of time into weeks was recognized as an
established
usage. As seven is not an equal part either of a solar year or of a lunar month, the only
satisfactory account of this fact, is to be found in the institution of the Sabbath. This fact
moreover proves not only the original institution, but also the continued observance of the
seventh day. There must have been something to distinguish that day as the close of one period
or
the commencement of another. It is altogether unnatural to account for this hebdomadal division
by a reference to the worship of the seven planets. There is no evidence that the planets were
objects of worship at that early period of the world, or for a long time afterwards, especially
among the Shemitic races. Besides, this explanation is inconsistent with the account of the
creation. The divine authority of the book of Genesis is here taken for granted. What it asserts,
Christians are bound to believe. It is undeniably taught in this book that God created the heavens
and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. It matters not how the word
"days" may be explained, we have in the history of the creation this hebdomadal
division of time. No earlier cause for the prevalence of that division can be given, and no other is
needed, or can reasonably be assumed.
This division of time into weeks, was not confined to the Hebrew race. It was almost universal.
This fact proves that it must have had its origin in the very earliest period in the history of the
world.7
[7
Of this general prevalence in the ancient world, of a special reverence for the seventh day and of
the division of time into weeks, Grotius gives abundant evidence in his work, De Veritate
Religionis Christianoe, I. 16; Works, vol. iii. p. 16. On this subject, see Winer's
Realw”rterbuch, word "Sabbath." Winer refers, among other authorities
discussing t question of the antiquity of the Sabbath, to Selden, Jus Nat. et Gent.;
Spencer,
Legg. ritual.; Eichborn, Urgesch.; Hebenstreit, De Sabb. ante legg. Mos.
existente; Michaelis, Mos. Recht.]
- That the law of the Sabbath was not first given on Mount Sinai, may also be inferred from
the
fact that it was referred to as a known and familiar institution, before that law was promulgated.
Thus in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus the people were directed to gather on the sixth day of
the
week manna sufficient for the seventh, as on that day none would be provided. And more
particularly in the twenty-third verse, it is said, "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath
unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that
which remaineth over lay up for you, to be kept until morning." And in the twenty-sixth
verse we read, "Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in
it there shall be none." There was therefore a Sabbath before the Mosaic law was given.
Again, the language used in the fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day to
keep
it holy," naturally implies that the Sabbath was not a new institution. It was a law given in
the beginning, that had doubtless in a good measure, especially during their bondage in Egypt,
become obsolete, which the people were henceforth to remember and faithfully observe.
The objection to the pre-Mosaic institution of the Sabbath founded on the silence of Genesis on
the subject in the history of the patriarchs, is of little weight. It is to be remembered that the
book
of Genesis, comprised in some sixty octavo pages, gives us the history of nearly two thousand
years. All details not bearing immediately on the design of the author were of necessity left out.
If
nothing was done but what is there recorded, the antediluvians and patriarchs lived almost
entirely
without religious observances.
The Sabbath does not stand alone. It is well known that Moses adopted and incorporated with his
extended code many of the ancient usages of the chosen people. This was the case with
sacrifices
and circumcision, as well as with all the principles of the Decalogue. That a particular law,
therefore, is found in the Mosaic economy is not sufficient evidence that it had its origin with
the
Hebrew Lawgiver, or that it ceased to be binding when the old dispensation was abrogated. If the
reason for the law remains, the law itself remains; and if given to mankind before the birth of
Moses, it binds mankind. On this point even Dr. Paley says: "If the divine command was
actually delivered at the creation, it was addressed, no doubt, to the whole human species alike,
and continues, unless repealed by some subsequent revelation, binding upon all who come to the
knowledge of it."8 That the law of the Sabbath was thus given is, as has been
shown, the common opinion even of those who deny its perpetual obligation, and therefore its
permanence cannot reasonably be questioned by those who admit the principle that what
was given to mankind was meant for mankind.
[8
Principles, of Moral and Political Philosophy, v. 7; edit. Boston,
1848, vol. ii. p. 48.]
- It is a strong argument in favour of this conclusion, that the law of the Sabbath was taken up
and incorporated in the new dispensation by the Apostles, the infallible founders of the
Christian
Church. All the Mosaic laws founded on the permanent relations of men either to God or to their
fellows, are in like manner adopted in the Christian Code. They are adopted, however, only as to
their essential elements. Every law, ceremonial or typical, or designed only for the Jews, is
discarded. Men are still bound to worship God, but this is not now to be done especially
at Jerusalem, or by sacrifices, or through the ministration of priests. Marriage is as sacred now as
it ever was, but all the special laws regulating its duties, and the penalty for its violation, are
abrogated. Homicide is as great a crime now as under the Mosaic economy, but the old laws
about the avenger of blood and cities of refuge are no longer in force. The rights of property
remain unimpaired under the gospel dispensation, but the Jewish laws regarding its distribution
and protection, are no longer binding. The same is true with regard to the Sabbath. We are as
much bound to keep one day in seven holy unto the Lord, as were the patriarchs or Israelites.
This
law binds all men as men, because given to all mankind, and because it is founded upon the
nature
common to all men, and the relation which all men bear to God. The two essential elements of
the
command are that the Sabbath should be a day of rest, that is, of cessation from worldly
avocations and amusements; and that it should be devoted to the worship of God and the
services
of religion. All else is circumstantial and variable. It is not necessary that it should be observed
with special reference to the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt; nor are the details as to
the
things to be done or avoided, or as to the penalty for transgression obligatory on us. We are not
bound to offer the sacrifices required of the Jews, nor are we bound to abstain from lighting a
fire
on that day. In like manner the day of the week is not essential. The change from the seventh to
the first was circumstantial. If made for sufficient reason and by competent authority, the change
is obligatory. The reason for the Change is patent. If the deliverance of the Hebrew from the
bondage in Egypt should be commemorated, how much more the redemption of the world by the
Son of God. If the creation of the material universe should be kept in perpetual remembrance,
how much more the new creation secured by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If
men wish the knowledge of that event to die out, let them neglect to keep holy the first day of
the
week; if they desire that event to be everywhere known and remembered, let them consecrate
that
day to the worship of the risen Saviour. This is God's method for keeping the resurrection of
Christ, on which our salvation depends, in perpetual remembrance.
This change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was made not only for a
sufficient reason, but also by competent authority. It is a simple historical fact that the Christians
of the apostolic age ceased to observe the seventh, and did observe the first day of the week as
the day for religious worship. Thus from the creation, in unbroken succession, the people of God
have, in obedience to the original command, devoted one day in seven to the worship of the only
living and true God. It is hard to conceive of a stronger argument than this for the perpetual
obligation of the Sabbath as a divine institution. It is not worth while to stop to answer the
objection, that the record of this uninterrupted observance of the Sabbath is incomplete. History
does not record everything. We find the fountain of this river of mercy in paradise; we trace its
course from age to age; we see its broad and beneficent flow before our eyes. If here and there,
in
its course through millenniums, it be lost from view in a morass or cavern, its reappearance
proves
its identity and the divinity of its origin. The Sabbath is to the nations what the Nile is to Egypt,
and you might as well call the one a human device as the other. Nothing but divine authority and
divine power can account for the continued observance of this sacred institution from the
beginning until now.
- It is fair to argue the divine origin of the Sabbath from its supreme importance. As to the
fact
of its importance all Christians are agreed. They may differ as to the ground on which the
obligation to observe it rests, and as to the strictness with which the day should be observed, but
that men are bound to observe it, and that its due observance is of essential importance, there is
no difference of opinion among the churches of Christendom. But if so essential to the interests
of
religion, is it conceivable that God has not enjoined it? He has given the world the Church, the
Bible, the ministry, the sacraments; these are not human devices. And can it be supposed that
the Sabbath, without which all these divine institutions would be measurably inefficient, should
be
left to the will or wisdom of men? This is not to be supposed. That these divinely appointed
means for the illumination and sanctification of men, are in a great measure without effect,
where
the Sabbath is neglected or profaned, is a matter of experience. It is undeniable that the mass of
the people are indebted to the services of the sanctuary on the Lord's Day, for their religious
knowledge. Any community or class of men who ignore the Sabbath and absent themselves from
the sanctuary, as a general thing, become heathen. They have little more true religious
knowledge
than pagans. But without such knowledge morality is impossible. Religion is not only the
life-blood of morality, so that without the former the latter cannot be; but God has revealed his
purpose that it shall not be. If men refuse to retain Him in their knowledge, He declares that He
will give them up to a reprobate mind. (Rom. 1:28.) Men do not know what they are doing, when
by their teaching or example they encourage the neglect or profanation of the Lord's Day. We
have in the French Communists an illustration and a warning of what a community without a
Sabbath, i.e., without religion, must ultimately and inevitably become. Irreligious men
of
course sneer at religion and deny its importance, but the Bible and experience are against
them.
Objections.
- An objection is drawn from the absence of any express command. No such
command was needed. The New Testament has no Decalogue. That code having
been once announced, and never repealed, remains in force. Its injunctions
are not so much categorically repeated, as assumed as still obligatory. We
find no such words as, "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me," or "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
Paul says,
"I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
(Rom. 7:7.) The law which said "Thou shalt not covet," is in the
Decalogue. Paul does not reenact the command, he simply takes for granted
that the Decalogue is now as ever the law of God.
- It is urged not only that there is no positive command on the subject, but
also that there is a total silence in the New Testament respecting any
obligation to keep holy one day in seven. Our Lord in his Sermon on the
Mount, it is said, while correcting the false interpretations of the
Mosaic law given by the Pharisees, and expounding its precepts in their
true sense, says nothing of the fourth commandment. The same is true of
the council in Jerusalem. That council says nothing about the necessity of
the heathen converts observing a Sabbath. But all this may be said of
other precepts the obligation of which no man questions. Neither our Lord
nor the council say anything about the worshipping of graven images.
Besides, our Lord elsewhere does do, with regard to the fourth
commandment, precisely what He did in the Sermon on the Mount with regard
to other precepts of the Decalogue. He reproved the Pharisees for their
false interpretation of that commandment, without the slightest intimation
that the law itself was not to remain in force.
- Appeal is made to such passages as Colossians 2:16, "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or
of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days;" and Romans 14:5, "One
man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Every one knows,
however, that the apostolic churches were greatly troubled by Judaizers,
who insisted that the Mosaic law continued in force, and that Christians
were bound to conform to its prescriptions with regard to the distinction
between clean and unclean meats, and its numerous feast days, on which all
labour was to be intermitted. These were the false teachers and this was
the false doctrine against which so much of St. Paul's epistles was
directed. It is in obvious reference to these men and their doctrines that
such passages as those cited above were written. They have no reference to
the weekly Sabbath, which had been observed from the creation, and which
the Apostles themselves introduced and perpetuated in the Christian
Church.
- It also frequently said that a weekly Sabbath is out of keeping with the
spirit of the Gospel, which requires the consecration of
the whole life and of all our time to God. With the Christian, it is said,
every day is holy, and one day is not more holy than another. It is not
true, however, that the New Testament requires greater consecration to God
than the Old. The Gospel has many advantages over the Mosaic dispensation,
but that is not one of them. It was of old, even from the beginning,
required of all men that they should love God with all the heart, with all
the mind, and with all the strength; and their neighbor as themselves.
More than this the Gospel demands of no man. If it consists with the
spirituality of the Church that believers should not neglect the
assembling themselves together; and that they should have a stated
ministry, sacramental rites, and the power of excommunication, and all
this by Divine appointment; then it is hard to see why the consecration of
one day in seven to the service of God, should be inconsistent with its
spiritual character. So long as we are in the body, religion cannot be
exclusively a matter of the heart. It must have its institutions and
ordinances; and any attempt to dispense with these would be as
unreasonable and as futile as for the soul, in this our present state of
existence, to attempt to do without the body.
- Another ground is often taken on this subject. The importance of the
Sabbath is not denied. The obligation to keep it holy is admitted. It is
declared to be sinful to engage in worldly avocations or amusements on
that day; but it is denied that this obligation to consecrate the day to
God rests upon any divine command. It is denied that the original
sanctification of the seventh day at the creation binds all men to keep
one day in seven holy to the Lord. It is maintained that the fourth
commandment, both as to its essence and as to its accidents is abrogated;
and, therefore, that there is no express command of God now in force
requiring us to keep holy the Sabbath. The obligation is either
self-imposed, or it is imposed by the Church. The Church requires its
members to observe the Lord's Day, as it requires them to observe
Christmas or Good Friday; and Christians, it is said, are bound to obey
the Church, as citizens are bound to obey the state. But Protestants deny
that the Church has power to make laws to bind the conscience. That is the
prerogative of God. If the Church may do it in one case it may in another;
and we should be made the servants of men. It is by this simple principle,
that men are bound to obey the Church, that Rome has effectually despoiled
all who acknowledge her authority of the liberty wherewith Christ has made
his people free.
Most of the modern evangelical theologians in Germany say that the obligation
to observe the Sabbath is self-imposed. That is, that every man, and
especially every Christian, is bound to do all he can to promote the
interests of religion and the good of society. The consecration of the
Lord's Day to the worship of God is eminently conducive to these ends;
therefore men are bound to keep it holy. But an obligation self-imposed is
limited to self. One man thinks it best to devote Sunday to religion;
another that it should be kept as a day of relaxation and amusement. One
man's liberty cannot be judged by another man's conscience. Expediency can
never be the ground of a universal and permanent obligation. The history
of the Church proves that no such views of duty are adequate to coerce the
conscience and govern the lives of men. The Sabbath is not in fact
consecrated to religion, where its divine authority is denied. The
churches may be more or less frequented, but the day is principally
devoted to amusement. A German theologian9 says that the doctrine that the
religious observance of the Sabbath rests on an express divine command,
"prevails throughout the whole English-speaking part of
Christendom," and that in the Evangelical Church in Germany, some
either from a too legal view of Christianity, or from servile subjection
to the letter of the Bible, or impressed by the solemn stillness of an
English Sunday as contrasted with its profanation elsewhere, have ever
been inclined to the same views. Although this writer, the representative
of a large class, asserts his Christian liberty to observe one day above
another, or all days alike, he admits that the religious observance of the
Lord's Day is not a matter of indifference; on the contrary, he says that
"its profanation (Verleztung) is a sin." To make a thing sinful,
however, he says it is not necessary that it should be against an express
divine command. A Christian's conscience, "guided by the word, and
enlightened by the Spirit of God," is his rule of conduct. Conscience
thus guided and enlightened, may enjoin or forbid much for which no
explicit directions can be found in the Scriptures. No man denies all
this; but a man's conscience is a guide for himself, and not for other
people. If we hold fast the fundamental principle of our Protestant faith
and freedom, "that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of
faith and practice," we must be able to plead express divine
authority for the religious observance of the Lord's Day, or allow every
man so to keep it or not as he sees fit. To his own master he stands or falls; to Him alone is
he
accountable for the use which he makes of his Christian liberty. But as no man is at liberty to
steal or not to steal as he sees fit, so all "English speaking"
Christians with one voice say, he is not at liberty to sanctify or profane
the Sabbath, as he sees fit. He is bound by the primal and immutable law
given at the creation, to keep one day in seven holy to the Lord.
[9
Palmer in Herzog's Real-Encyklop dic]
If it be true that it is peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon race to hold this view
of the obligation of the Christian Sabbath, then they have special reason
for profound gratitude to God. God of old said to the Israelites,
"Hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you,
that ye may know that I am the LORD your God." That is, it shall be
for a sign that you are my people. So long as you keep the Sabbath holy I
will bless you; when you neglect and profane it, your blessings shall
depart from you. (Jer. 17:20-27.) If it be then the distinction of
Anglo-Saxon Christians, that they are a Sabbath-keeping people, it is one
to be highly prized and sedulously. guarded; and in this country
especially, we should be watchful lest the influx of immigrants of other
nationalities deprive us of this great distinction and its blessings.
It is a popular objection against the religious observance of the Lord's Day, that the labouring
classes need it as a day of recreation. On this it is obvious to remark,
- (1.) That there are many grievous evils in our modern
civilization, but these are not to be healed by trampling on the laws of
God. If men crowd labourers into narrow premises, and overwork them in
heated factories six days in the week, they cannot atone for that sin by
making the Lord's Day a day for amusement.
- (2.) So far from Sunday, as
generally spent by the labouring class, being a day of refreshment, it is
just the reverse. Monday is commonly with them the worst day in the week
for labour; it is needed as a day for recovery from the effects of a
misspent Sunday.
- (3.) If the labouring classes are provided with healthful places of abode and are not
overworked, then the best restorative is entire rest from ordinary occupations, and directing their
thoughts and feelings into new channels, by the purifying and elevating offices of religion. This
is
the divinely appointed method of preserving the bodies and souls of men in a healthful state, a
method which no human device is likely to improve.
END OF PART 1 of 2
CLICK TO GO TO » PART 2
Taken From Systematic Theology, In Three Volumes,
VOLUME III, pages 321-348 Hodge,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Reprinted, May 1997), Vol. III, pp. 321-348
|
