Читать книгу The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution - Wolcott H. Littlejohn - Страница 5

Table of Contents

Turning from the secular phase of this subject, let us regard it for a moment from the religious stand-point.

Is there anything in the purpose itself which is worthy of the cost at which alone it can be realized? In other words, since the object aimed at is ostensibly that of bringing the nation up to the point of a general regard for the first day of the week as a Sabbath, would such a result be one which should be profoundly desired?

We reply that this will depend altogether upon circumstances. In this case, as in the first, mere cessation from labor on that day, which is not prompted by a regard for the will and approval of Jehovah, could afford no relief to a nation, which is seeking to avert divine displeasure since there is no element in the act itself calculated to recommend it to the favor of Heaven. To illustrate: The individual sentenced to solitary confinement in the State’s Prison is precluded from the possibility of laboring on the Sunday; will any one therefore argue that there is any merit in his inaction on that day? Again: The heathen nations, in common with the majority of the Christian world, have many of them regarded the Sunday as a sacred day; should we presume, therefore, that they are looked upon by the Almighty more complacently on this account? You answer, No; and urge, as a reason for this reply, that they have been engaged in a false worship, and have not been actuated by any regard for the true God. Where, then, is the line? Manifestly, right here: The men who honor God by the keeping of any day must be prompted by the conviction that they are doing it in strict and cheerful obedience to a divine command.

Here, then, is the crucible in which we will try the metal of this modern movement. If, when their grand design shall be accomplished—as the result of many labors and toils—and, even though before their purpose is attained, it shall be found necessary for them to reach their object through a conflict intensely bitter and impassioned on the part of the opposition, we shall witness the spectacle of a nation bowing submissively to the law and will of God in the humble and fervent observance of a weekly rest of divine appointment, it will be the grandest triumph which history has recorded. No treasure of gold—we were about to say no sacrifice of life—would be too great a price to pay for so glorious a victory. Let it be understood, however, that this must be a voluntary and intelligent worship on the part, at least, of the mass of the people.

But will this be true, should our friends compass the great object of their ambition? Let us inquire once more after their intentions. What is it they advocate? The answer is, A universal regard for the first day of the week, as the Sabbath of the Lord.

But what is the authority upon which the majority of them rest their argument for the proposed observance? Is it merely pecuniary advantage? No, say they, it is out of a sincere regard for the God of Heaven, and a conscientious desire to fulfill his law. But this implies religious duty. So far, so good. It also clearly sets forth the fact that God has a law, and a Sabbath which it enforces. The appeal, therefore, must inevitably be to that law, as the proper instrument from which to instruct the people.

To that they must be brought, again and again. Its import must be patiently taught, its sacredness must be thoroughly inculcated. Let them but be satisfied by sound logic that the divine statute is explicit in its demands for a strict observance of the first day of the week, let them be thoroughly educated into the idea that they are under its jurisdiction, and let them be instructed that this whole movement proceeds upon this religious conviction, and you have laid a foundation which will uphold a structure of imposing dimensions and enduring character, the cornerstone whereof is the fear of God, and an acknowledgment of his presence in the affairs of men. But how is it in the case in question? Is the commandment of a nature such as to support, in every particular, the tenets presented by the reform under consideration? This is really the vital point. Let it speak for itself. It is the fourth of the decalogue which is urged: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 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, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” If this is not a Sabbath law, then there is none in existence; for, mark it, this is the only instance in all the Scriptures in which it will be claimed by any one that we have a positive command for the observance of the Sabbath. So far, therefore, as the first day of the week is concerned, its friends have this advantage, that, if they but succeed in resting it upon this commandment, their labor is ended; for it—i. e., the commandment—has no rival. All that is needed, consequently, is a clear, pointed exegesis showing that the day in question is the one, the observance of which the divine Lawgiver has required. But, unfortunately, such an exegesis would be beset with difficulties. To begin with, Who shall be able to harmonize the declaration which the commandment contains in these words, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,” with the utterance of those who, on the contrary, say that the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord, and must be observed as such? The divine Lawgiver—as if determined that there shall be no room for debate in regard to the day which he had in his mind—has identified it in a manner such as to leave no room for dispute. In the first place, he announces his willingness that six days of the week should be devoted to secular employment, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:” then follows the disjunctive, “but—the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” Here it is made plain that it is the “Sabbath of the Lord” upon which we are to rest. Again, passing over the intermediate space, we come to the close of the commandment, in which he sets forth three important transactions by which that was constituted the Sabbath, and by which it may ever be recognized. He says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” That is, the day which we are to keep as the Sabbath of the Lord is the one upon which he rested, which he blessed, and which he hallowed. Therefore, before the first day of the week can, with any show of reason, be kept in fulfillment of this commandment, i. e., before it can be regarded as the “Sabbath of the Lord,” it must be shown that, at some time, God has rested upon it, blessed, and hallowed it. But this would be a difficult task; for not only are the Scriptures silent, so far as the affirmation of this fact is concerned with reference to the first day of the week, but, on the contrary, they positively declare that it was the very day upon which Jehovah entered upon the stupendous undertaking of making a world. Should additional evidence be required on this point, i. e., that the last day of the week, and not the first, is the one which Jehovah intended to sanctify, we have but to cite the intelligent reader to the fact that Moses, the prophets, the Lord himself, the holy women after his death, and the whole Jewish nation—in whose language the decalogue was given—are, and have been, unanimous in placing this construction upon the Sabbatic law.

Should any, however, perceiving the dilemma into which they are thrown by the effort to enforce their view in the use of the law, as it was originally given, seek relief in the position that it was so far amended in the days of Christ as to admit of the substitution of the day of his resurrection for that of God’s rest at the end of creation week, we reply, If such a fact can be clearly made out, it would certainly furnish the very help which is needed just at this juncture, and without which confusion must inevitably characterize the movements of those who feel the necessity of a Sabbatic law for the keeping of Sunday.

Let us, therefore, carefully investigate this most important point. Is it true that the Son of God did so change the phraseology of the commandment of the Father that, from his time forward, its utterances have not only justified the secularizing of the last, but have also enforced, by the penalty of eternal death, a strictly religious regard for the first day of the week, on the part of both the Jewish and the Gentile world? Now this, if accomplished, was no trifling affair, and could not have been done in a corner; since it involved the guilt or innocence, the life or death, of countless millions of men and women, whose condemnation in the day of Judgment for the violation of Sunday sanctity would turn, of necessity, upon the words of one who both had the power to change, and had brought the knowledge of that change clearly before them. Certain it is, therefore—since God does not first judge, and legislate afterward—all the light which is necessary for the proper elucidation of this subject is now to be found in his written word. To this, then, we turn; and with a profound conviction that the language of Christ was true in its largest sense, “If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine,”—we inquire, Where is it stated, in so many words, that God made the amendment in question?

Should the response be returned, as it certainly must be, that such a statement is not to be found within the lids of the Bible, we answer that this is a concession which, most assuredly, will greatly embarrass our friends in the proposed reform. Sagacious men will not be slow in discovering its bearing upon the subject, and it will be very difficult to explain such an omission to the satisfaction of cautious and reflecting minds. Should it be suggested, however, that—notwithstanding the fact the change has not been set forth in so many words—it has nevertheless occurred, and is therefore binding, we answer: Although the transaction upon the face of it, to say the least, would be a singular one, if an alteration has really been made, the next thing to be ascertained is its precise nature. We have already seen that the first law was very explicit in its statements; and all are conversant with the fact that to it was given the greatest publicity, and that it was uttered by the voice, and written by the finger of God, under the most imposing circumstances. Now, if Christ—whose power to do so we shall not question here—has really undertaken the task of adding to, or taking from, this most sacred precept, will some one furnish us with an authentic copy of the statute, as amended? Now this is a reasonable and just request. To declare simply that a change has occurred, without making known precisely what that change is, is but to bewilder and confuse. Conscious of this fact, the State is always extremely careful to give to its citizens—in the most public manner—every variation which is made in its enactments, lest the loyal man should be incapable of proving his fidelity by obedience, or the disloyal justify his violation upon the plea of necessary ignorance. Shall man be more just than his Maker? Shall Christ—who, in every other respect, has, in matters of duty, furnished us with line upon line, and precept upon precept—be found, at last, upon this most important point, to have been unmindful of the highest interests of his followers? Most assuredly not. He that never slumbereth nor sleepeth, He that knoweth the end from the beginning, He who hath said, “Where there is no law there is no transgression,” has certainly never required his people to occupy a position in the face of their enemies so extremely embarrassing as that in which they would be compelled to ignore the plainest dictates of reason and Scripture, by seeking to condemn in the world a practice which is not necessarily immoral in itself, and against which there is no explicit denunciation of the Bible. Who, then, we inquire again, will furnish us from the sacred page the precept so remodeled as to meet the exigences of this case? Is it larger or more condensed than before? Does the first clause read, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy?” If so, it is well. Is the second in order expressed in these words, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work?” This, again, is good. But how is it with the third, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?” Here, unquestionably, the change must begin. Who among us, therefore, can produce the divine warrant for a reading of this passage which shall make it harmonize with the keeping of Sunday? Who dare declare, upon his veracity, that he has ever discovered in the sacred word an instance in which it has been so rewritten as to read, “But the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?”

Furthermore, passing over the instructions in regard to sons, daughters, servants, the stranger, etc., what has the pen of the divine remodeler done with the reason of the commandment as found in the words, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it?” Has that been stricken out altogether? Or, is there a glaring inconsistency in the remodeled statute, by which it is made to state that the first day of the week, instead of the seventh, is now the Sabbath of the Lord our God, because of the fact that, in the creation of the world, God rested upon, blessed, and hallowed, the latter? These are weighty questions. Upon them, virtually, turns the issue of an amended law. For, to amend, is so to change or alter as to vary the duty of a subject; and if no one is capable of informing definitely and particularly in regard to the precise variations of the phraseology, then, of course, no one is able to decide just how far our course of action should deviate from what it has been hitherto, in order to meet the demands of the divine will as now expressed, in a rule which has never been seen, and which no hand would venture to trace with any claim to exactitude. Who, then, we inquire again, is sufficient for this task? Not one among the millions of Protestants who are so earnestly clamoring for the sanctity of the day in question will seriously lay claim to the ability to perform that which would at once elevate him to a position—in view of the relief which it would bring to thousands of troubled minds—more exalted than that of any saint or martyr who has ever lived.

Nor is this all; behind all this pretentious claim for an amended law are very many indications of a wide-spread conviction—though undefined and hardly recognized by the individuals themselves—that the fact upon which they place so much stress is, after all, one in regard to which there are serious doubts in their own minds. As an illustration of this, we have but to call attention to two things. First, on each Lord’s day, so-called, thousands of congregations—after devoutly listening to the reading of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, word for word, syllable for syllable, letter for letter, precisely as it was written upon the table of stone by the finger of God—are in the habit of responding with solemn cadence to the utterances of the preacher, “O Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law.” Now this prayer means something, or nothing. It is either an expression of desire, on the part of those employing it, for grace to enable them rightly to observe the commandment as it reads—seventh day and all—or else it is a solemn mockery, which must inevitably provoke the wrath of Heaven. These people, therefore, judging from the most charitable stand-point, are witnesses—unconscious though they may be of the fact—of a generally pervading opinion that the verbiage of the fourth commandment has not been changed, and that it is as a whole as binding as ever. Second, nor is it simply true that those only who have a liturgy have committed themselves to this idea. It is astonishing to what extent it has crept into creeds, confessions of faith, church disciplines, and documents of a like nature. But among the most striking of all evidences of its universality, when properly understood, is the practice of nearly all religious denominations of printing, for general distribution among the Sunday-school scholars, verbatim copies of the decalogue, as given in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. Yet this practice would be a pernicious one, and worthy of the most severe censure, as calculated to lead astray and deceive the minds of the young, if it were really true that this code, in at least one very important particular, failed to meet the facts in the case, as it regards present duty.

In view of these considerations, a change of the base of operations becomes indispensable. A commandment, altered in its expressions so as to vary its import, and yet no one acquainted with the exact terms in which it is at present couched—and all, in reality, being so skeptical upon the point that even its most ardent advocates reason as if it had never occurred—would certainly furnish a foundation altogether insufficient for the mighty superstructure of a great reform, which proposes, ere the accomplishment of its mission, to revolutionize the State.