Earlier text: SIGNS OF THE ENDMorality of the Sabbath.
By D. M. Canright
AND
Its Importance.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. I. All moral principles are discoverable by the light of nature; but the keeping of the seventh day holy is not discoverable by the light of nature or reason without a direct revelation from God; therefore it is not moral. WE will further consider this objection in the light of undisputed facts, still comparing the Sabbath with other precepts which are confessed by all to be moral. Take the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. We would suppose that the light of nature alone, without a revelation from God, would teach men that these things were wrong. But the history of the world proves that this is not the case. All these crimes have been tolerated, taught, practiced, and legalized in many of the wisest heathen nations. I have before me “Horne’s Introduction,” and “Leland’s Revelation,” in both which these learned men conclusively show the necessity of a divine revelation concerning the plainest moral principles. They show that suicide, abortion, killing of weak or deformed infants, offering human beings in sacrifice to the gods, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, stealing, lying, &c., have all been generally practiced by the most enlightened heathen nations, and by their wisest philosophers and lawgivers; defended as right, and according to nature and reason. The first of these eminent authors says:— “Prostitution, in all its deformity, was systematically annexed to various pagan temples, was often a principal source of their revenues, and was, in some countries, even compulsory upon the female population. Other impurities were solemnly practiced by them in their temples, and in public, from the very thought of which our minds revolt. Besides the numbers of men who were killed in the bloody sports and spectacles instituted in honor of their deities, human sacrifices were offered to propitiate them. Boys were whipped on the alter of Diana, sometimes till they died. How many lovely infants did the Carthaginians sacrifice to their implacable god, Moloch! What numbers of human victims, in times of public danger, did they immolate to appease the resentment of the offended deities!” Horne’s Introduction, Vol. I. pp. 16, 17. “Thus theft, as is well known, was permitted in Egypt and in Sparta. Plato taught the expediency and lawfulness of exposing children in particular cases; and Aristotle, also of abortion. The exposure of infants, and the putting to death of children who were weak or imperfect in form, was allowed at Sparta by Lycurgus. At Athens, the great seat and nursery of philosophers, the women were treated and disposed of as slaves, and it was enacted that infants which appeared to be maimed, should either be killed or exposed.” Ibid. p. 19. “Truth was but of small account among many, even of the best heathens; for they taught that on many occasions, a lie was to be preferred to the truth itself.” “Dr. Whitby has collected many maxims of the most eminent heathen sages, in corroboration of the fact above stated. The following examples are taken from his note on Eph. 4:25:— “‘A lie is better than a hurtful truth.’ Meander. “‘Good is better than truth.’—Proclus. “‘When telling a lie will be profitable, let it be told.’ Darius in Herodotus, lib. III c. 62. “‘He may lie who knows how to do it in a suitable time.’—Plato apud Stobæum. Serm. 12. “‘There is nothing decorous in truth, but when it is profitable. Yea, sometimes truth is hurtful, and lying is profitable to men.’—Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 3. p. 29.” Ibid. p. 20. To the same purpose Mr. Leland remarks:— “The custom of exposing weak and helpless children, which, one should think, is contrary to the most intimate feelings of humanity obtained very generally among the most civilized nations; and yet they do not appear to have been sensible that in this they acted a wrong and inhuman part, but looked upon it to be a prudent and justifiable practice.” Leland’s Revelation, Vol. 2, p. 7. Of the laws of Lycurgus, the wisest and best of all heathen lawgivers, the same author says:— “There were common baths in which the men and women bathed together. And it was ordered, that the young maidens should appear naked in the public exercises, as well as the young men, and that they should dance naked with them at the solemn festivals.” Ibid. p. 46. Plato the prince of heathen philosophers, endorsed and recommended this custom! Upon this the above writer remarks:— “A remarkable proof this, that the greatest men among the pagans, when left to their own judgments in matters of morality, were apt to form wrong notions concerning it, even in instances where one should think the dictates of nature and reason might have given them better directions.” Note, p. 47. John Locke, the great Christian philosopher, says:— “Whatever was the cause, it is evident in fact, that human reason, unassisted failed in its great and proper business of morality.” Reasonableness of Christianity; in his Works, Vol. 2, p. 532. “Man appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral agent, and designed to be governed by a law. Accordingly, God hath given him a law to be the rule of his duty. The scheme of those who pretend that this law is naturally and necessarily known to all men without instruction, (is) contrary to fact and experience. * When men fell from the right knowledge of God, they fell also in important instances from the right knowledge of moral duty.” “It appears, therefore, that what is called the moral sense was not designed to be an adequate guide in morals; nor is it alone considered, and left merely to itself, fit to have the supreme direction as to the moral conduct.” Vol. 2 pp. 8, 15. The Christian Union of Dec. 16, 1874, says:— “Prof. Julius H. Seelye, of Amherst College, has been lecturing the past week before the Yale Divinity School on Missions. The course comprises six lectures, three of which remain to be given this week. The first lecture was upon the condition and needs of the unchristian world. He presented a vivid picture of the degradation of these nations, based not merely on his own observation, which has been extensive, but supporting his statements by reference to authorities accessible to all. China, as one of the most promising of pagan nations, and whose civilization has been so widely lauded, was shown to be most shockingly corrupt in its social and private life. Lying, insincerity, licentiousness, and almost every vice mentioned in Scripture, is practiced without restraint. Their virtue is entirely external. India is in a similar condition. Before the establishment of the English in that country not less than 10,000 infants were put to death by their parents per month in the single province of Bengal. This condition is true not only of modern half-civilized pagans, but it is found where civilization has shown some of its most renowned trophies. In Greece and Rome society was all pollution. The most classic writings reveal it. Even their philosophers taught the most unmentionable vices. The first chapter of Romans is not an untrue portraiture of pagan corruption.” The foregoing arguments and facts do conclusively show that it is no evidence that a precept is not moral simply because the light of nature alone does not clearly point it out. It further shows that when we do appeal to the common consent of mankind, we find just as general a recognition of the principle of the Sabbath precept as we do of any of the other moral precepts. Hence this objection is not a valid one. II. All moral duties and precepts are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept makes an act wrong if done upon one day which would be right if done upon any other day. Therefore it is not a moral precept. Our opponents ask, “Would adultery, lying, stealing, &c., be wrong upon one day but allowable all the rest of the week? Can an act be morally wrong at one time which would not be at another? What is there in the nature of the day itself which makes the seventh day any different from other days? Is it not naturally just like other days?” In answer we affirm that there are many acts which are morally wrong at one time but right at another. A works for B at ten shillings per day for ten hours. At noon A has one hour during which he can eat, rest, sleep, or do what he pleases. But if A should idle around one hour during working hours he would be defrauding B and thus committing a moral wrong. Again, D borrows $100 of E and pledges his word and gives his note to pay that money to E one year from date. Now D has a moral right to keep and use that money through the whole year till the last day, pay day, comes. But if he keeps it beyond that day, then he is guilty of a moral wrong. So innumerable cases might be cited where it would be morally wrong to do a thing at one time which would be right at another time. A couple are engaged to be married upon a set day. Now, entering upon certain relations before they are married would be grossly immoral; but the same relations after marriage would not be wrong. Is it said that the morality or immorality of the act is not because of anything inherent in the nature of the time itself, but because of a violation of an arbitrary agreement or law made concerning the time? Thus: A’s act of resting during working hours would not be wrong if he had not agreed to work at that hour. Nor would D do wrong in not paying the $100 at the end of the year, if he had not promised to do it then. Very well; then an agreement or law can make an act immoral at one time which is moral at another time. This is sufficient to overthrow the objection. But the seventh day is different from all other days. The other six days of the week came into being as working days, the Creator working upon them. But the seventh day first came into being under very different circumstances. All the earth and every thing upon it was finished. All was beautiful, peaceful, and quiet. God then honored that day by resting upon it in celebration of creation finished. He then blessed and sanctified it. Gen. 2:1-3. Thus from its very birth this day did differ from all other days. A man has seven sons. Six were born in England, the seventh in America. The first six are Englishmen, the seventh is an American. In one sense they are all alike; but in another they are not. The last is honored with being eligible to the highest office in our government, while the others never can be. So the first six days were born working days, Eze. 46:1; Ex. 20:11; but the seventh was born a Sabbath day. Gen. 2:1-3. This difference between the days does exist in the nature of things and must always continue to exist. But another fact which we have purposely passed over until now, fully answers the objection we are considering. Moral precepts, it is said, are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept applies to only one day in seven. This is a mistake. That precept, like all moral laws, covers all the time. It directs what we shall do upon the first six days as plainly as it does what we shall do upon the seventh day. “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.” It will be seen that this commandment does cover the whole week, regulating what we shall do each day, how we shall use the time which God has given us. So it is not true that it applies only to one day out of seven. Seeing that the Creator has given to us all our time, “life, breath, and all things,” Acts 17:25, has he not a moral right to direct how we shall use this time? Is it not highly reasonable that he should? Does nature teach us that we should fear and serve our Creator? So all claim, and so we believe. Does it not, then, also teach us that our Maker would care as to how we use our time? This is just as natural as that we should serve him at all. Indeed, it is implied in it. For serving God is an act, and it takes time to perform an act. Therefore, if nature teaches that men should serve God, it teaches that God is interested as to how men use their time. Hence, it is naturally to be expected that God would give directions concerning it. This is just what he has done in the fourth commandment. Therefore that precept, like all moral laws, is reasonable and natural, and hence moral. III. The seventh day cannot be kept in all parts of the world, therefore it is not a moral institution. 1. It is claimed that at the north pole there are several weeks when the sun does not set at all; and again there are weeks when it is dark all the time. How can the seventh day be distinguished and kept there? If nature in this case proves any thing, it proves that God never designed men to live there. First, there is nothing for men to do there, nothing to call them there but the love of adventure. Secondly, nature has made no provision to sustain a population there. At the nearest point to the north pole at which men have been able to get, all is a dreary, barren field of solid ice, except for a few weeks, and then only a few berries grow. Thirdly, most of those who have endeavored to reach the north pole have perished in the attempt. So an appeal to nature does not help the objector in this case. But frequently those who raise this objection are strict observers of Sunday, the first day of the week. If there is any force in this objection, it comes with equal weight against Sunday keeping. How can they keep the first day up there? If they can find the first day, can not we find the seventh? If they can keep Sunday cannot we keep the Sabbath? But there is no trouble in either case. The days of the week are plainly marked there as well as here. Read the travels of Dr. Cane, Hall, and others who have been there. Did they experience any difficulty in keeping the reckoning of the days? None, whatever. The days are marked off by the revolutions of the earth which are there as well as here indicated by the position of the sun. The most of the year the sun rises and sets there the same as here, that is, as far north as men have ever penetrated. So far there is no difficulty, of course. In mid summer, for a short time, the sun is above the horizon all the time. Being so far north, a person can see the sun in its circuit clear around the earth, day and night. But it is easy to tell when it is overhead at noon, when it is going down in the west, when it is directly underneath at midnight, or when it is rising in the east in the morning. Can we not tell the time of day here by the position of the sun in the heavens without seeing it rise or set? Certainly. Then if we could see it all the way around, could we not tell just as well as when we see it only part of the way around? Of course, and so those testify who have been in the Arctic regions. The following is from the description of a scene witnessed in the north of Norway, from a cliff one thousand feet above the sea:— “The ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet; the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy lookout; away in the north the huge old sun swung low along the horizon. We stood silent, looking at our watches. When both hands came together at twelve, midnight, the full round orb hung triumphantly above the wave; a bridge of gold running due north spanned the water between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty that knew no setting. * In half an hour the sun had swung by perceptibly, the colors changed to those of morning, a fresh breeze rippled over the flood, one songster after another piped up in the grove behind us—we had slid into another day.” The change of the day, then, can be discerned even though the sun can be seen all the time. But how is it in the winter when it is night for weeks together? I believe there is no time but what rays of light can be seen in the south at noon of each day. This would be sufficient to mark each day. But the revolution of the earth can be as plainly and as easily told by the position of the stars at night as it can be by the sun at day. Any one accustomed to observing the stars knows this. They appear to rise and set and to go around the earth the same as the sun. Indeed, astronomers always reckon the day by the stars. Read the following letter which I received from an eminent astronomer touching this point:— Ogden, Utah, Sept. 24, 1878. “ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT: By observations of the stars the time can be found out at any time, day or night. Knowing the time at which any star ought to be in the meridian, we find the difference between noon and the observing time, or the local time. Stars being visible in the daytime and at night, on all places of the earth, it is possible to determine the time without seeing the sun. (Signed,) DR. F. KAMPF, Astronomer of the U. S. corps of Engineers.” So then the exact time of day can be told by the stars and they can be seen in the absence of the sun. Hence this objection is without foundation. Sin Against God Cannot Be Hidden
He who sins against man may fear discovery, but he who sins against God is sure of it. The Law and the Gospel.
By J. W.
THE position taken last week was that in carrying out the great unit plan of redemption through Jesus Christ, which covers the entire period of human probation, there is perfect harmony between the law of God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The divine law, however, dates back before the gospel. It existed before the fall, or there could not have been any such thing as the fall. It existed as early as there were created intelligences subject to the government of the Creator; and it extends to the future, running parallel with the eternity of God's moral government. Angels fell, therefore were on probation. They, being on probation, were consequently amenable to law. In the absence of law they could not be on probation, therefore could not fall. The same may be said of Adam and Eve in Eden. The ten commandments, as worded in the Sacred Scriptures, are adapted to fallen beings. As thus worded, they are not adapted to the condition of holy angels, nor to man in his holy estate in Eden. The two grand principles of God's moral government existed before the fall, in the form of law. These are given in the Old Testament, Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, and are quoted by Christ in the New, Matt. 22:37-40, as the two great commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." These two commandments require supreme love to the Creator, and love to fellow-creatures equal to that bestowed upon one's self. Angels could do no more than these require. Adam, before the fall, could do no more. We can do no more. The two great commandments embrace all that is required by the ten precepts of the moral code. No precept and no principle of the book of God extends beyond these. Soon after the fall, we see the two principles of God's moral government guarded by ten precepts, worded to meet man's fallen condition. Love to God is taught in the first four commandments, and love to our fellow-man is taught in the last six. The prophets of the Lord, the Son of God, and the apostles of Jesus, have all spoken in harmony with the ten precepts of the law of God. The whole duty of man, says Solomon, is to fear God and keep his commandments. The ten precepts of the decalogue, so worded as to be adapted to man's fallen condition, were enforced as early as the circumstances demanded them. The first three were applicable to Adam immediately after the fall. And although the Sabbath of the fourth precept was instituted at the close of the first week of time, before the fall, and we have evidence that Adam was directed to observe it as a memorial of creation, yet that portion of the precept adapted to the fallen state, relative to the man-servant, the maid-servant, and the stranger, could not exist till a later period, when such relations existed. The fifth commandment could not be enforced until applicable to Adam's children. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, were enforced as early as the parties existed to whom they could properly apply. There is nothing in the moral condition of man in his fallen state, nor in the nature of the ten commandments themselves, to restrict them to any one dispensation more than another. Man's moral wretchedness is the same, only more deplorable as he advances from the gates of Paradise toward the close of probation. And the law of God, adapted to his fallen state, is applicable and necessary throughout the entire period of his fallen condition, from Paradise lost to Paradise regained. The reign of sin and that of death run parallel from Adam until sin and sinners shall cease to be. And parallel with these, stretching through all dispensations, there has been the knowledge of the principles of the ten commandments, consequently, a knowledge of sin. The means of the knowledge of sin has been the law of God. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20. "I had not known sin, but by the law." Chap. 7:7. As proof that this knowledge did exist immediately after the fall, see Gen. 4:7, 23, 24; 6:5. Noah was righteous before God. Chap. 7:1. He was a preacher of righteousness. 2 Pet. 2:5. By his preaching right-doing, reproving the sins of the people of his time, he condemned the world. Heb. 11:7. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were great sinners, excepting one man. Abraham interceded, saying, Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? Gen. 18:20, 23, 25; 19:7. The blessing of God came upon Abraham, because he kept his commandments. Gen. 26:5. Those who refused obedience experienced the wrath of God for their transgressions. The cities of the plain were condemned for their unlawful deeds. 2 Pet. 2:6-8. As an illustration of this subject, we briefly notice the murder of righteous Abel. Cain killed his brother, and as a sinner received the mark of God's displeasure. Sin, says the apostle, is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4. Cain broke the sixth commandment, hence that precept existed in the time of Cain. Otherwise he did not sin; for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15. The foregoing positions relative to the law of God would not meet with opposition were it not for the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. The proper observance of the Bible Sabbath is not only crossing, but inconvenient with many, and not favorable to the successful prosecution of their worldly plans. The fearful and unbelieving dodge its claims, brand it as a Jewish institution, and frequently assert that it was unknown to men until the Sabbath law was proclaimed from Sinai. Sacred history, however, proves this statement incorrect. The facts connected with the giving of the manna show that the Israelites understood the obligations of the Sabbath, and that some of the people violated them, and were reproved by the Lord, thirty days before they saw Mount Sinai. See Ex. 16-19. The record of setting apart the Sabbath to a holy use is given in Gen. 2:1-3, as an event that occurred at the close of the first week of time. And the fourth precept of the divine law, in giving the grand reason for observing the Sabbath, cites what God did on that first week. The Sabbath was made for man, the entire race, Mark 2:27, by three acts on the part of the Creator. First, he created in six days, and rested from his work of creating on the seventh day. Secondly, he put his blessing upon the day of his rest, which was the last day of the first week of time. Thirdly, he sanctified, or set apart to a sacred use, the day in which he had rested. Hence these words from the divine precept: "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." Then follows the reason. "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." The entire period from creation to the utterance of the moral code at Sinai, a period of twenty-five hundred years, is doubly spanned, first by the sacred record of the institution of the Sabbath at the close of the first week, which looks forward to its observance on the last day of each succeeding week, and, secondly by the law of the Sabbath, which points back to the important facts of the first week of time upon which the institution is based. Here is sufficient evidence that the Sabbath should have been observed during this period. And the absence of distinct mention of Sabbath observance in the brief record of the long period covered by the book of Genesis is no evidence that it was not observed by those who were faithful and obedient from Adam to Moses. God gives the reason why his blessing should come upon the father of the faithful without measure, in these words: "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. 26:5. We call attention to three grand events which have taken place in connection with the sad history of fallen man, either one of which is sufficient to establish the perpetuity of the law of God. First, the fall, with all its terrible consequences. If the law of God was of such a nature that it could be changed in a single particular at any time, why was it not changed when there were but two fallen beings, just before Adam and Eve left Eden. If the plan of God's moral government could be changed, it would then have been changed, so as to set these two sinners free in holy Eden, and save the tide of human wretchedness which has followed. But, no; it could not be changed. The curse must fall upon man, and upon the earth for man's sake. And the blight and mildew of sin must follow everywhere, and moral darkness, like a pall of death, must spread everywhere over a world groaning beneath the weight of transgression. Why? Because God's law that had been transgressed could not be changed. This is the result of sin and the terrible fall. And this has all come about because of the transgression of that law which is as changeless as the throne of Heaven. Every fading flower and falling leaf, since man left Eden, has proclaimed the law of God changeless. If that law could ever be changed in any particular, it would have been altered when there were but two fallen beings. It would then have been changed in such a way as to free them from the sentence of death, raise them from their degradation, and save the race from continued sin, crime, and woe. But for six thousand years the tide has been swelling, and creation has been adding groan to groan. Who can compute the amount of moral wretchedness and agony in consequence of the violation of God's immutable law? The fall, then, with all its accumulated wretchedness, proclaims the divine law changeless. Secondly, the announcement of the ten commandments from Sinai with imposing display. It was not left for Moses to proclaim this law. It was not left to the angel Gabriel to assemble the tribes of Israel, and utter these ten holy precepts in their hearing. The Lord himself descends in awful grandeur, and proclaims them in the hearing of all the people. And do you infer that that was the origin of the law of God? And do you affirm that he has since abolished that code? When did he do this? Where did he do it? Has any prophet foretold that such an event should take place? And has any apostle recorded that it has taken place? Certainly not. It is only by confounding the handwriting of ordinances with the moral code that was spoken from Sinai, and engraven in the tables of stone by the finger of God, that men infer that the divine law is abrogated. Congress enacts laws which are published throughout the Union. The people understand them. Some of these laws are afterward repealed or changed. Is this done in secret, and the people permitted to know nothing about it? No; the same law-making body makes the changes, and the people are apprised of the fact. And has not God manifested as much wisdom and benevolence in the management of the affairs of his moral government in which man has so great an interest—affairs which affect his eternal welfare? He came down upon Sinai, and proclaimed his law under such circumstances as to impress the people with its grandeur, dignity, and perpetuity. Who can suppose that he would change it or abolish it, and say nothing about it? Thirdly, the crucifixion establishes the law of God. If that law was of such a nature that it could be abolished, or any of its precepts changed, why not have this done, and set man free, instead of God's dear Son laying aside his glory, taking our nature, living the sad life he lived here upon the earth, suffering in Gethsemane, and finally expiring upon the cross? Oh! why should the divine Son of God do and suffer all this to save man, if that law which held him a sinner could be changed so that he could be set free? But no change could be made in the divine law. Man had fallen, and was shut up in the prison-house of sin. And his sins were of such a nature that the death of a sinless angel, a being amenable to law, and consequently less in value than law, was not sufficient. No sacrifice was adequate but the sacrifice of One who was higher than law, and not amenable to it. He only who engaged with the Father in the formation of man, could constitute a sufficient sacrifice to open the door of hope by which the sons and daughters of Adam might find pardon, and be saved. "Come, O my soul, to Calvary," and there behold love and agony mingled in the death of the Son of God. Behold him groaning in Gethsemane. His divine soul was in agony as the sins of men were rolled upon him. "My soul," said he, "is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." The weight of man's sin in transgressing God's immutable law was such as to press from his pores as it were great drops of blood. He then bears his cross to Calvary. The nails are driven into his hands and feet. The cross is erected. There the bleeding Lamb hangs six terrible hours. The death of the cross was most agonizing. But there was in his case the additional weight of the sins of the whole world. In his last expiring agony he cries, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and bows his head in death. The sun, the brightest luminary in heaven, can no longer view the scene, and is vailed as with sackcloth. The vail of the temple, the noblest work of man, is rent in twain. Christ, the noblest being in the universe, save one, is dying in agony. Creation feels the shock, and, groaning and heaving, throws open the graves of many of the saints, who come out of their graves after his resurrection. The law must stand as firm as the throne of Heaven, although the earth may shake, and the whole creation tremble, as the Son of God dies for the sins of men.