(Slightly abridged).
By Rev. J. KENNEDY, D.D.
Delivered at Dingwall, September, 16th 1883.
“Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour 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 manservant nor thy maidservant, 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.”—Exodus xx. 8-11.
THE purpose of this lecture is to direct attention to the divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Fourth Commandment; to consider what it requires; and under its light, to inquire how the Sabbath law is regarded in our land and to what extent the Sabbath is sanctified by ourselves.
I. The divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Fourth Commandment.
This commandment is the fourth of the statutes composing the moral law, which, because of the number of commandments that are found in it, is usually called the Decalogue. It is the last of those written on the first table of the law, and which declare the form in which love to God should be expressed in obedience. There could be no doubt in the mind of any who compassed Mount Sinai that the law thence promulgated issued from Jehovah, for “the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire, on the top of the mount, in the eyes of the children of Israel.” Amidst “blackness, and darkness, and tempest,” shone the flame of the “devouring fire.” The awful blast of the trumpet thundered, and “a voice of words” came forth from the fire. The mountain quaked, and all the earth around was shaken. It was no wonder that the people were overwhelmed with terror, when even Moses said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” Who amidst the assembly, before such a scene as Sinai then presented, hearing the awful thunder and the “voice of words,” and feeling the earth quaking beneath them, could doubt that they were in the presence of Jehovah, and that from Him came the law which, on two tables of stone, was delivered to them by Moses. Thus came from God to Israel the Fourth Commandment, with all the other words of the Decalogue.
The words of the law, spoken by Jehovah’s mouth, were engraved by His finger on tables of stone. Surely this suffices to indicate that this summary of duty was intended by Him to be perpetual. The Ten Commandments alone were thus written by God. Not thus did He write the rules prescribing the typical service of Israel, for the binding obligation of these was intended to be but temporary, and must in due season pass away. But the Decalogue was intended to be perpetual, and there was therefore a divine engraving of it on stone.
But it may be said, yea it has often been said, that the observance of the Sabbath was made binding, by the law given forth on Sinai, only on the children of Israel. Not so, for the terms of the commandment bring its obligation to bear on “the stranger,” and godly Nehemiah enforced the observance of it on Gentiles as well as on Jews. True, the revelation of the moral law was given exclusively to Israel in the wilderness. They, and they only, heard “the voice of words” coming from the awful glory of “the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire.” But what was then given to them on tables of stone was placed in their custody for all mankind. It was not because they were God’s peculiar people they were under obligation to obey the moral law, but because, like all other rational beings on the face of the earth, they were bound to keep all the commandments of God. It was not the obligation but the revelation of the Decalogue that was peculiar to Israel.
And as to the Fourth Commandment, it requires only what was required from the beginning. The Sabbath was instituted by God in Eden, and was there both enjoined and observed. The first day of human history was a Sabbath, and those who feared the Lord in the pre-Mosaic times, doubtless, remembered “the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.”
Christ distinctly tells us “that the Sabbath was made for man,” not for the Jew only. There was a Sabbath long before there was a Jew. Man, everywhere, and at all times, needs, and men of all nations are enjoined, to observe it; and all who despise it act not only unwisely but wickedly.
And what reason can be given for representing the Sabbath as a Jewish institution? Why should the Fourth Commandment, rather than any other, be represented as but of limited and temporary obligation? There is certainly nothing in the form of it to give it a peculiarity on account of which it should be so regarded and treated. The tribute which it demands for God must surely always be due to Him; and what reason can be given why the memorial of His rest, after the work of creation, should not be continued? And if the giving of a Sabbath to man be a boon, what but a change, affecting the goodness of God, could account for its being withdrawn? The Fourth Commandment is “good” as well as “just and holy,” and while the goodness of God is unchanged, it cannot cease to require the keeping “holy” of the Sabbath. I could imagine some reason for saying that the Fifth Commandment has a Jewish cast, because the promise subjoined to it refers to “the land which the Lord” their God had given to Israel. This, it might be said, is surely spoken only to the Jews, because of the evident reference to the land of Canaan, which according to the promise of the Lord, was given exclusively to them. But the question of its perpetual obligation is conclusively settled in the New Testament; for Paul, writing to the Ephesians, asserts the binding force of that commandment, and calling it “the first commandment with promise,” insists on the perpetual connection between obedience to it and the promise which is subjoined to the precept: “It is,” not it was, he tells us, “the first commandment with promise.”
The claim of the Fourth Commandment rests on moral, not on positive grounds. It demands for God what is due to Him in His unchanging supremacy, majesty, and glory. Can we conceive of rational beings under the reign of One who is “infinite, eternal and unchangeable” in His being, and in all his attributes, not under obligation to separate themselves, at certain seasons, from all employment besides, in order to do homage in worship to the Most High? Why, even to an earthly sovereign—a fellowcreature—direct homage is due when the sovereign chooses to require it. The time prescribed for this must be remembered, and used for the appointed purpose. And is it to be imagined that men who, because of their lot on earth, are necessarily employed about mere secular things, can be free from an obligation to detach themselves “from their worldly employments and recreations,” in order to render homage to “the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity, and whose name is Holy?” It is inconceivable how any mind, influenced by right views of the greatness of Jehovah, and not forgetful of our entire dependence on His goodness, could approach to think of the obligation of the Fourth Commandment not being moral, and therefore universal and perpetual. And if the homage demanded is due to God, He has the right to determine when and how that homage is to be rendered. Our Queen demands a right to fix when a reception takes place, and how those who are to be presented shall appear in her presence. And surely this right must be conceded to God. He has exercised this right, which rests on His supremacy as Jehovah. He has determined that a seventh of each week shall be devoted as far as possible, in consistency with meeting the claims of necessity and mercy, exclusively to His worship—the ground of that allotment being given as in His own example as creator. Surely, then, not only is the demand for a Sabbath one resting on unchanging moral grounds, but the position of time to be observed as a Sabbath is unalterably fixed.
There are thus two fixed points, which can admit if no change, in the requirements of the Fourth Commandment—the one is that there be a Sabbath devoted exclusively to the service of God, and the other is that one day in each week shall be so devoted. Neither of these is at all affected by the change implied in making the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath instead of the seventh. This change was made by Him who had a right to do so, and who in view of it declared Himself to be “Lord of the Sabbath.” How could He who appointed the Sabbath at the beginning, and who promulgated the Sabbath law from Sinai, be expected to exercise His lordship over it by setting it aside? It was in view of its continuing to be under His administration, as exalted to His throne, the Son of Man proclaimed Himself its Lord. If He discontinued a Pharisaic observance of that day, and was so careful, both by precept and example, to rebuke those who substituted a punctilious formality for the true spiritual observance of the Sabbath, is that a reason for supposing that the Sabbath law was to be abrogated? Nay, is not His care regarding its being rightly observed, a reason why we should be assured of the Lord’s regard for it, and that, under His reign, the Fourth Commandment would be of binding force till time shall be no more.
Was Christ not entitled to effect the change? He was the Creator, in memorial of whose rest the seventh day was appointed to be the Sabbath. In his view all His creation work was good, and He rested, in complacency, His eye on all that He had finished. A memorial of that rest we might expect Him to give, and it was given to man, and the Lord made it man’s interest as well as his duty to observe it. And if He who acted thus in connection with His finished work, as Creator, performed a work still greater—a work in which was manifested, as in no other work besides, the glory of all His name, and to which all creation and providence were subordinated, how could we but expect a memorial of His entering into His rest when that work was finished? Instead of the change of day being inconsistent with the perpetual obligation of the Fourth Commandment, it is the perpetual obligation which makes the change imperative. Just because the seventh day was the Sabbath of old, as a memorial of the rest of God after finishing His work as Creator, the first day must be so now, as a memorial of His rest after finishing the work of redemption. The antecedent action of God demands the change. Of it He owed to Himself, to make the one day a memorial of His rest after creation; all the more does He owe it to Himself, to set apart the other as a memorial of a rest still more glorious. For it is He who appointed the Sabbath of old, who in His resurrection from the dead, began to “enter into His rest,” after the work of redemption was finished. The very instinct of the church would crave the giving of a memorial of that day. And it was given, and that too in such a way, as, while not removing the memorial of the Lord’s rest after creation, gave to His rest, after redemption, the place which was due to it, because of the exceeding greatness of the work which preceded it. Sufficient, in the tribute rendered to God, as a concession to the greatness of creation work, is the retaining of the proportion of time to be observed as a Sabbath holy to the Lord. What kind of mind must be that of a man who imagines that, because of the fallen manifestation of the divine glory, and the glorious commendation of divine love, through Christ crucified, a tribute which Jehovah was wont to claim is no longer exacted, and should no longer be rendered!
And that the day was changed by divine authority from the seventh to the first of the week, is sufficiently proved. The example of Christ and the practice of the Apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, sufficiently prove this to be the case. What can be more authoritative, as a directory to the church, than the example of the church’s Head and the practice and writing of His inspired Apostles? And we have His example in coming once and again to His disciples after His resurrection to countenance their meeting for worship on the first day of the week. And the practice of the pre-Ascension days was continued thereafter by the Apostles; and Paul, writing to the Corinthians, mentions “the first day of the week” as the day of gathering together for worship, as well as of “collection for the saints.”
The very lack of an express enactment making the change imperative is an eloquent tribute to the authoritative action of God bearing on the Sabbath in the days of old, and to the value and authority of Christ’s example. There was no need of a re-enactment of the Sabbath law, for He who enacted it at first sufficiently declared that He intended it to be perpetual, and with Him “is no variableness nor shadow of turning.” And if He countenanced the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first, what can be more authoritative than His example as a rule of duty?
Why then, it may be asked, is there such a desire to get rid of the perpetual obligation of the Fourth Commandment, as requiring the observance of the Christian Sabbath? Not, certainly, because there is any reasonable ground for supposing that the Fourth Commandment has been removed from its place in the Decalogue, nor because the change of day is not only allowable and authoritative, but morally necessary. This desire to be rid of a Sabbath law arises from its being peculiarly testing. It requires the actual surrender of one day in seven to be a holy Sabbath to the Lord. The refusal of such a surrender is a palpable thing, of which even a very slumbering conscience must take note, and regard as sin, and which must be apparent to the eyes of onlookers. It is in order to escape from the strictures of conscience, and to secure boldness to sin before men, that there are such efforts to prove that the Sabbath law is repealed. This is the secret spring of the whole anti-Sabbatarian movement. Ungodly men desire to be free to do as they list on the day of the Lord, and they think they can secure this by an impotent attack on the perpetual authority of the Fourth Commandment. They, forsooth, who are but worms of the dust, are to overthrow the arrangements of the Most High, and over His shattered law are to reach an emancipation from being under responsibility to God! This is their daring behest, and they imagine that by flippant objectioning, which but betrays their ignorance and their profanity, they can secure what they desire, and thus obtain a triumph which entitles them to be mockers of the saints of God.
II. ‘What is required in the Fourth Commandment.’
Looked at in the light of this commandment, the Sabbath is a day which the Lord hath “blessed” and “hallowed.” He hath set it apart from every other day by so blessing it, and it becomes a blessing to all who rightly observe it. No one who has not proved it by a spiritual observance of it can know what a blessing it is, or has a right to pronounce any judgment regarding it. But none ever honestly proved it who did not experience it to be a blessing from the Lord. And the Lord hath “hallowed” it He has done so in setting it apart from other days as specially His own—as a day to be devoted to His worship.
In accordance with the dedication of it by God, the Sabbath is required to be remembered and kept holy. In order to remember it one must think of it as a day which the Lord has blessed, he must be conscious of his need of such a blessing as the Sabbath is intended to be, and be anxious to enjoy it, as well as have the divine authority of the Commandment bearing on his conscience. A fixed place in one’s memory, as a blessed divine institution, without this, the Sabbath will never have. And he must keep it holy. He must act becomingly towards it as a day which the Lord has hallowed. He must heartily call it “a delight,” as it is “holy to the Lord and honourable,” and seek grace to preserve him from devoting any portion of it to any work which accords not with the design of God in hallowing it. The worship of God, private and public, is the work to which the hours of one entire day in seven is to be devoted, except in so far as, in connection with our lot on earth and the course of providence, we are called to engage in “works of necessity and mercy.” From love to God, expressed in regarding His Sabbath as “a delight,” and in seeking the enjoyment of His gracious presence and fellowship on that day, we must be quite willing to withdraw ourselves from “all such employments and recreations as are lawful on other days,” and heartily devote ourselves to the service of God.
According to the terms of the Commandment, not only is the individual bound to keep the Sabbath holy, but each one having influence is bound to exert that influence in endeavouring to secure the observance of the Sabbath by those who are under him. The Parent and the Master are thus bound to use their influence. They are specified in the words of the commandment; but the same obligation rests on all who hold a position of influence to a greater or less extent over their fellow-men. All employers of labour, all judges and magistrates, all employed in connection with the executive government of the nation, the legislature, the Sovereign, are all under obligation, imposed by divine authority, to use all their power in securing that the Sabbath of the Lord is hallowed.
III. How is the Sabbath observed in Scotland, and by each one of ourselves?
It would be far more pleasant to consider the past than the present of our country’s relation to the law of the Sabbath. The time was when the Sabbath law was so observed in Scotland that she was marked, because of this, as singular among all lands; and while her practice was a joy to all lovers of the law of God it won for her the honour of being reproached by all who were enemies of truth and godliness. To some extent that reproach has not been quite removed. Scotland has not yet become such that her distinctive Sabbatarianism is so blotted out by the increase of practical ungodliness that she can no longer favourably compare with other nations. But it is sad to think of how far her departure from the “goodway” of Sabbath-keeping has already gone. What a contrast a Scottish Sabbath now presents to that of earlier times—to that even of the generation which has just passed away! Think of our railway trains rushing over all parts of the country with their thousands of passengers, disturbing the Sabbath quiet and tempting so many to forget that there is a “God in the earth who judgeth righteously”—Think of so many open shops along the streets of our cities, on the day of rest, which is the day of God, and receiving such support as tempts ungodly men to extend the traffic—think of the increasing crowds of those to whom the Sabbath has become a day of amusement, who never think of entering a place of worship, and who by their conduct prove that vice is the ally of ungodliness—think of how even those, who are not prepared utterly to abandon the public worship of God, are beginning to act as if an enforced partial attendance in the courts of God’s house earns for them a right to do what they please on what remains of the Sabbath—think, too, of the easy tolerance of such practices already so apparent in the unfaithful supineness both of the Church and of the State while all this desecration of the Sabbath is in progress—and what a contrast the Scottish Sabbath of to-day presents to that of times gone by! And what unspeakably greater contrast is the present observance of the day of the Lord to ‘what is required in the Fourth Commandment.’
To this sad result, unfaithful discipline, on the part of the churches, has greatly contributed. On a Communion Sabbath members of the church are allowed to come to the table of the Lord, who, on all other Sabbaths of the year care not even to appear to have any regard to the requirements of the law of God, and not a few will leave the table of the Lord to rush to amusements in the evening. And this is endured! and a church pledged to preserve the purity of the house, and the sanctity of the day of the Lord, endures it! In this respect what a contrast church discipline presents to that of other times. There may have been an extremeness in the mode of exercising discipline in earlier times, but it expressed zeal for the honour of God’s law, and for the purity of God’s house. An opposite extreme has now been reached, which expresses no more creditable feeling than indifference as to the claims of God, and as to the welfare of precious souls.
And the action of the State, in relation to the Sabbath law, combines with that of the churches to hasten Scotland’s departure from “the old paths.” All legislation in defence of the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath is refused, and almost all forms and measures of Sabbath desecration are tolerated. Of this we, in this county (Ross-shire) have had a notable example. A wanton and flagrant desecration of the Sabbath, by railway officials and their servants, occurred, and not only was there no interference on the part of the executive to put down the excuseless traffic, but all exertions were put forth, by those who should be “a terror to evil-doers,” to protect it, and arrangements made for shooting down the men whose only crime was a pronounced expression of zeal in behalf of the Sabbath law of heaven and of Scotland, in the event of their persisting in their opposition to what they regarded as defiant transgression of the Fourth Commandment. The civil magistrate thus became a praise to evil-doers and a terror to them that do well. Woe to Scotland when such are those by whom the law is administered! But what was done in connection with the Sabbath desecration at Strone, is, in spirit, in accordance with the rule of all the action, or inaction, bearing on the Sabbath, of the executive throughout the country. An instance so flagrant as that to which I have referred, of a condoning, by those in authority, of the conduct of men who, in their eager thirst for gain, scruple not to trample the law of God under foot, cannot yet be quoted; but the spirit which appeared then in a form so exceptionally pronounced, seems to be that by which our rulers are animated; and, in due time, if the Lord does not graciously interfere, the people of our country will learn tamely to submit to any action in which it may be expressed.
(To be Continued).