Chapter X: Part 10

If order, harmony, and adaptation exist, which were not produced by design, which are therefore not evidence of design, it is unreasonable and illogical to infer designing intelligence from the fact alone that order, harmony, and adaptation exist in nature. Therefore an intelligent Deity cannot be inferred from the order, harmony, and adaptation in nature. If the order, harmony, and adaptation in Deity, to produce his thoughts, and to execute his plans, are eternal, why may not the formation of matter into worlds, and the evolutions of the various forms of vegetable and animal life on this globe be the result of the ceaseless action of self-existent matter in accordance with an inherent eternal principle of adaptation? Is it more reasonable to suppose the universe was created, or constructed by a being in whom exists the most wonderful order and harmony, and the most admirable adaptation to construct a universe (which order, harmony, and adaptation could have had no designing cause), than to suppose that the universe itself in its entirety is eternal, and the self-producing cause of all the manifestations we behold?

Is a God uncaused, and who made everything from nothing, more easy of belief than a universe uncaused and existing according to its own inherent nature? Is it wonderful that matter should be self-existent; that it should possess the power to form suns, planets, and construct that beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the lowest forms of the vegetable kingdom up to man? How much more wonderful that a great being should exist, without any cause, who had no beginning, and who is infinitely more admirable than the universe itself.

Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of intelligence and design as the work which embodies the plan. The plan of a steam engine in the mind of Fitch--the plan of the locomotive in the mind of Stephenson--was as much evidence of design as the piece of machinery after its mechanical construction. If God be an omniscient being--a being who knows everything; to whose knowledge no addition can be made--his plans must be eternal--without beginning, and therefore uncaused. If God's plans are not eternal; if from time to time new plans originate in his mind, there must be an addition to his knowledge, and if his knowledge admits of addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no beginning; if, like himself, they are eternal, they must, like him, be independent of design. Now, the plan of a thing, we have already seen, is as much evidence of design as the object which embodies the plan. Since the plans of Deity are no proof of design that produced them (for they are supposed to be eternal), the plan of this universe, of course, was no evidence of a designing intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of the universe is as much evidence of design as the universe itself, and since the former is no evidence of design, it follows that design cannot be inferred from the existence of the universe.

The absurdity of the a posteriori argument of a God consists in the assumption that what we call order and adaptation in nature are evidence of design, when it is evident that whether there be a God or not, order and adaptation must have existed from eternity, and are not therefore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The reasoning of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in accounting for the position of the earth. "Whatever exists must have some support," said he. The earth exists, and is therefore supported. He imagined it resting on the back of an elephant. The elephant needing some support, he supposed rested on the back of a huge tortoise. He forgot that according to his own premise that whatever exists must have some support, that the tortoise should rest on something. The inconclusiveness of his reasoning is apparent to a child. Whatever exists is supported. The earth exists. Therefore, the earth is supported; it rests on an elephant; the elephant rests on a tortoise; the tortoise exists, but nothing is said about its support.

The theologian says order, harmony, and adaptation are evidence of a designing intelligence that produced them. The earth and its productions show order, harmony, and adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its productions have been produced by an intelligent designer. Just as the Hindoo stopped reasoning when he imagined the earth on an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, so the theologian stops reasoning when he says, God made the world. But as surely as from the premise that whatever exists must have some support, follows the conclusion that the tortoise rests on something, as rests on it the elephant, does it follow from the proposition that order, harmony, and adaptation are proof of an intelligent designer, that the order, harmony, and adaptation in the Deity to produce the effects ascribed to him are evidence of an intelligent designer who made him, as the various parts of nature, adapted to one another, are evidence of an intelligent designer that produced them. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has been an infinite succession of creative and created Gods, which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the creator of the universe. Then why attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe by imagining a God who produced everything but himself, and why argue from the order and fitness in the world the existence of a designer. It reminds me of the ostrich, that having buried its head in the sand, so as to render invisible its pursuers, fancies there is no further need of exertion to escape from the dangers and difficulties which surround it.

"Design represented as a search after final cause, until we come to
a first cause, and then stop," says F. N. Newman, "is an argument I
confess which in itself brings me no satisfaction." "The attempt,"
says Buckle, "which Paley and others have made to solve this
mystery by rising from the laws to the cause are evidently futile,
because to the eye of reason the solution is as incomprehensible
as the problem, and the arguments of the natural theologian,
in so far as they are arguments, must depend on reason."

Design implies the use of means for the attainment of ends. Man designs, plans, contrives and uses secondary agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable to attain his ends directly. But how absurd to speak of contrivance and design in a being of infinite power and knowledge. Man, to build steamships has to fell trees and hew them into various shapes, get iron from the earth and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolts, braces, nails, etc., hundreds of workmen, carpenters, joiners, blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, riggers, etc., labor for months before the vessel can be launched. If man possessed the power to speak into existence a steamship, would he contrive, plan and use means to construct it? On the contrary, would it not come instantly into existence as a complete, perfect whole?

But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means to an end, would be inconsistent with unlimited power in man. If he were able to effect his purposes why should he construct a vessel with which to visit far off lands? Infinite power would enable him to cross the ocean by the mere exercise of his will. It is evident at a glance that the use of means is incompatible with infinite knowledge and infinite power. This argument ... in proving too much proves nothing, and demonstrates its own worthlessness, and therefore we cast it aside. Design implies finiteness; man designs and has to calculate and use means to accomplish his end. If he were all powerful would he use that power to construct ships to cross the ocean, or armies to win battles, when he could accomplish his end without, and by those means demonstrate that he is infinite in power? An infinite being would not have to employ means to complete his works; he would not have to doubt and cogitate before he accomplished his design; that would be the method of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God did all those things. We supposed God infinite in everything, in his power, in his love and kindness. He has power to do everything. And yet the world is so constructed that at every step we take we crush to death creatures as minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill one another in numerous struggles, and life has been such a series of bloody battles, resulting in destruction of life, that the Waterloos and Solferinos of history are nothing in comparison. Where is the design in the volcano that belches forth its fiery billows and buries in ruins a Pompeii and a Herculaneum? Where is the design in the tornado that sends a fleet with its precious freight of humanity beneath the remorseless waves? Where is the design in the suffering and torture that thousands feel this very moment in the chambers of sickness, and in the hospitals full of diseases? Where is the evidence of a great being who has the power to make men happy, and yet allows the world to go on in all its misery--such misery as it makes one's heart ache to see, and which we, imperfect creatures as we are, would gladly stop if we could?

And where is the design in the thousands of facts which science has brought to light, showing that there are organs and parts that serve no purpose at all, but on the contrary, are injurious to their possessors? Why do some animals, like the dugong, have tusks that never cut through the gums? Why has the guinea pig teeth that are shed before it is born? Science tells us these rudimentary structures are the remnants of a former state, in which these parts were of service; but theology, which requires us to believe that a God made all these animals as we now see them, cannot possibly reconcile these facts with infinite wisdom and goodness.

Adaptation in organisms instead of having been produced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of natural selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjustment of objects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be exposed to the weather of a severe climate, those of them having the thinnest wool, affording the least protection from the cold, will perish. Those with the thickest wool and hardiest nature will survive every year, and by the law of heredity, transmit their favorable variations. By this process those best adapted to the climate live, and the others perish. Thus in the struggle for life we have the "survival of the fittest," without any design whatever. But the theologian comes along and looking at the sheep, says: "See how God has adapted these sheep to the climate." He forgets the thousands that have shivered and perished in winter's cold as the condition of this adaptation. So animals change the color of their coverings in accordance with their environments. The bears among the icebergs of the North are white, because in the struggle for life every light variation has been favorable to the animal--has facilitated its escape from the hunter and its preying upon the living things upon which it subsists. Those with darker coverings have gradually become extinct, leaving in undisputed possession of the snow banks and icebergs this species, which in color resembles the general aspect of its surroundings. Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every year; some are brown in the summer and white like the snow in winter. Those with this tendency to change their color during the year, having the most favorable variation, have persisted, and this tendency, by heredity, has been accumulated, until it has become a part of the nature of the animal.

These are but illustrations of a principle discovered by Darwin and Wallace, which explains largely how, not only color and thickness of coverings, but speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness of sight and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organism have been developed in adaptation to their environment, without any special design whatever.

It is said we have no evidence of the eternal existence of the universe, because we have no personal observation of it. But is there any personal observation to prove the existence of an eternal God? Yet it is believed in by our opponents. We believe the universe always has existed in the past, because we see no trace of a beginning; we believe it will always exist in the future, because we see no prospect or possibility of an end. Worlds have their formation and dissolution; but the substance is neither augmented nor diminished. Matter is indestructible and eternal. We are not, therefore, in need of a creator.

B. F. Underwood.

Do the natural affairs of this world show a designer? Is there a conscious intelligence at work guiding all the affairs of this world? We see no evidence of a wise and benevolent design in the creation of wild, ravenous birds and beasts of prey. We fail to see anything like a kind providence in earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tidal-waves, storms at sea, drouth, famine, and pestilence. Is there a supreme intelligence which causes monstrosities, sends epidemics, horrid diseases, plants parasites upon the human body? Are lice, tape-worms, bed-bugs, fleas, flies, grasshoppers, and mosquitoes "blessings in disguise?" Are abject poverty and misery divine blessings? Is ignorance a gracious boon in mercy sent? Pain and misery are not exceptional features of man's life on earth, but they are chief characteristics of it. Are some unconscious of their degradation? Shall we infer therefrom that ignorance is bliss? If this unconsciousness of degradation on the part of some shall be considered as evidence of a benevolent designer, then what shall we say in the case of those who are conscious of their degradation?

"If," says Haeckel, "we contemplate the common life and mutual relations between plants and animals (man included) we shall find everywhere and at all times, the very opposite of that kindly and peaceful social life which the goodness of the creator ought to have prepared for his creatures: we shall rather find everywhere a pitiless, most embittered struggle of all against all." Large fish eat small ones, large birds devour the smaller, and the ferocious beasts of prey live upon the weaker and less fleet animals. In this struggle for existence there is one perpetual battle; the smaller, weaker and less fleet are captured and devoured by the stronger, and man destroys and eats any of them at his pleasure.

Is there a display of intelligence and benevolent design in creating man with strength and wisdom to slaughter his prey at will? Then where is the benevolence of design in creating the animals to be thus slaughtered?

The universe, we shall find, does not exhibit evidence of a conscious intelligent design. Says Shelley: "We must prove design before we can infer a designer."

Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial brain to reason out
a "design" in nature, and in a moment afterward says: "When the
world slew Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal
God if once it could get its hands upon him." Why should a God
of infinite wisdom create people who would gladly murder their
creator? Was there any particular "design" in that? Does the
existence of such people conclusively prove the existence of a
good designer? ("Ingersoll's Interviews," p. 46.)

Providence.

Religious people see Providence in everything. Strange it is, too, that the most marked displays of Providence are seen in shipwrecks, railroad collisions, or in all devastating fires, floods, and plagues. In such appalling calamities as lead most sensible men to say with Æneas, "If there be gods, they certainly take no interest in the affairs of men," the Christian sees proof of a good guardian, a saving God, where nothing but destruction and ruin mark his pathway. There is a strange fatuity manifested by believers in this doctrine. Not long since a young man died very suddenly in Boston. There was a post-mortem examination by regular physicians, and a coroner's jury, who mutually deliberated over the body as to the cause of its death. The doctors found the young man's stomach somewhat irritated. On close inspection the contents of the stomach were found to be a mixture of bread and butter, mince pie and coffee, ham and eggs, buckwheat cakes, oyster stew, plum pudding, pound cake, corned beef, ice cream, more mince pie, and baked beans.

The jury gave the case most grave and deliberate consideration, and in accordance therewith returned the verdict: "Came to his death by a mysterious dispensation of the afflictive hand of Providence." Just so! Anything, however evil, unjust or foolish may be attributed to Providence; yet he remains both wise and good.

Why, if this world is created and controlled by infinite wisdom and benevolence, are not all things beautiful? One of man's noblest endeavors is to beautify. But we see many flowers and plants which are not beautiful.

Many parts of the earth are inhospitable and forbidding. What beauties on the other hand lie buried at the bottom of the ocean, its flora, shells, and corals! But no human eye ever sees them. Wherein is the evidence of design? Where is the evidence of design in the horrid monsters which once filled the oceans? Where is the design in creating such monstrosities as we see among animals?

Did the designer intend that parasites should infest the human body? The creator made the parasites (lice) and their proper dwelling-place seems to be the human body. The human body gives them their proper food. They are so constituted as to reproduce themselves rapidly and thus persist in feeding upon man.

The question is immediately raised: "Were the lice made for man, or man for the lice?" When did it ever occur to a sane mind that bed-bugs and mosquitoes and fleas were created with a benevolent design?

These facts are irreconcileable with the notion of a supreme and beneficent Providence.

Where is the evidence of benevolent design in earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, drouth, famine, and ten thousand ills which flesh is heir to? Where is the moral purpose? Where is the benevolence in peopling the earth with millions of human beings who live lives of poverty and misery?

But it is argued that we cannot see it all now, but by and by it will be made plain to us, that is, when we get into the other world. This is begging the question. The Christian says creation shows a creator, who first created the universe and now presides over it. But when we bring the facts of this world, its abounding evils and human miseries, to show the absence of any benevolent superintendence, he promises to make good his argument in the next world. This is asking a fellow to wait too long. Again, it is argued by the Christian that God ordained pain to work out good; but how comes it that this ordination of working good out of evil does not take place? Sometimes one man is made better by it, and another is brutalized by it. How does this come to pass if pain was ordained to work good? Has the plan of the designer failed? "The evils of this world are ordained for the purpose of developing our souls; only by pain and suffering can we be prepared for heaven." Little children who die, according to this dogma, can never be developed.

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall
not fall to the ground without your Father? (Mat. 10 : 29.)

But sparrows do fall to the ground nevertheless. And if some do not fall to the ground that wicked bird the sparrow-hawk, devours them sometimes before they have an opportunity to fall. It is the same wise and kind Providence who makes the sparrow and the sparrow-hawk, but perhaps the poor sparrow does not recognize the wisdom and mercy of having a destroyer. But our good Christian friends will have it that all things come to pass by the direct control of an all-wise and all-good Providence. The Chicago fire, the Boston fire, and others are all dispensations of Providence, if we may believe the ministers, and they are the only ones who pretend to have positive information of the facts. The bursting of a mill-dam, or a tidal-wave, or anything and everything else that carries the besom of destruction to thousands is to them a well-known intervention of the hand of a wise and merciful Providence. It is the same, with good fortune; if we as a people have great prosperity, large harvests and abundance of trade, it is because of this "All-wise Providence." He brings the evil and the good, miseries and joys, sins and salvation.

How do we know there is a kind Providence watching over this world? "Oh!" says our Christian friend, "we see this manifested in the kindly adaptations of nature to man's conditions, everything seems to have been made for man's comfort." But, this general adaptation of man to nature and of nature to man, proves nothing of a conscious intelligence ruling over the universe. The maggot in the cheese might look around him and say, if he could talk: "All this cheese was made for me, because it's perfectly adapted to my wants and conditions." Man and maggot are adapted to their surroundings, because their surroundings have made them what they are.

After attempting to prove the existence of a special Providence, and failing, the Christian then craw-fishes into absurd talk of a mysterious Providence, a dark dispensation of Providence, an inscrutable Providence, an inexplicable Providence. And when driven from this refuge, he at last exclaims: "Well, if it all seems dark and hidden from our understanding here, it will all be made clear when we pass over to the other side." Yes, but you admit by this statement that you know now positively nothing of a conscious intelligence ruling the universe, why not say so?

The fundamental idea of a special Providence, is that he prevents accidents; but in spite of special Providence, accidents do occur. And even these mishaps, which show that no such thing as Providence exists, are claimed by the superstitious as proof of a mysterious Providence.

Francis Bacon says: "We shall do well to bear in mind the ancient
story of one who in Pagan times was shown a temple with a picture
of all the persons who had been saved from shipwreck, after paying
their vows. When asked whether he did acknowledge the power of
the gods, "Aye," he answered, "but where are they painted who
were drowned after their vows?" (Jevon's "Principles of Science,"
part 2, p. 5.)

We learn from the little care which nature takes of single
individuals. Thousands of them are sacrificed without hesitation
or repentance in the plenty of nature. Even with regard to man
we make the same experience. Not one half of the human race reach
the second year of their age, but die almost without having known
that they ever lived. We learn this very thing also from the
misfortunes and mishaps of all men, the good as well as the bad,
which cannot well be made to agree with the special preservation or
co-operation of the creator. (Feuerbach's "Essence of Religion.")

But with the conception of a supreme beneficence this gratuitous
infliction of misery, in common with other terrestrial creatures
capable of feeling, is also absolutely incompatible.--Spencer.

In short, there can be no hypothesis of a "moral government"
of the world which does not implicitly assert an "immoral
government." (Fisk's "Cosmic Philosophy," vol. 2, p. 407.)

But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to
declare that there was a time when slavery was right--when men
could buy, and women could sell, their babes. He is compelled to
insist that there was a time when Polygamy was the highest form of
virtue; when wars of extermination were waged with the sword of
mercy; when religious toleration was a crime, and when death was
the just penalty for having expressed an honest thought. He must
maintain that Jehovah is just as bad now as he was four thousand
years ago, or that he was just as good then as he is now, but that
human conditions have so changed that slavery, polygamy, religious
persecutions, and wars of conquest are now perfectly devilish. Once
they were right--once they were commanded by God himself; now, they
are prohibited. There has been such a change in the conditions of
man that, at the present time, the Devil is in favor of slavery,
polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That is to
say, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah held
four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained
exactly the same--changeless and incapable of change.... A very
curious thing about these commandments is that their supposed
author violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the
account, he said: "Thou shalt not kill," and yet he ordered the
murder of millions; "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and yet
he gave captured maidens to gratify the lust of captors; "Thou
shalt not steal," and yet he gave to Jewish marauders the flocks
and herds of others; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,
nor his wife," and yet he allowed his chosen people to destroy the
homes of neighbors and to steal their wives; "Honor thy father
and thy mother," and yet this same God had thousands of fathers
butchered, and with the sword of war killed children yet unborn;
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," and
yet he sent abroad "lying spirits" to deceive his own prophets,
and in a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit. So far as we know,
Jehovah kept only one of these commandments--he worshipped no
other God. ("Ingersoll's Reply to Black.")

It is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind and generous,
infinitely merciful because when on earth he cured the sick,
the lame, and the blind. Has he not as much power now as he had
then? If he has and is the God of all worlds, why does he not
now give back to the widow her son? Why does he withhold light
from the blind, and why does one who had the power miraculously
to feed thousands allow millions to die for want of food? Where
is he now? ("Ingersoll's Interviews.")

First Cause.

Assuming then, the existence of a First Cause, let us inquire for a moment into its nature. The First Cause must be infinite. For if we regard it as finite, we regard it as bounded or limited, and are thus compelled to think of a region beyond its limits, which region is uncaused. And if we admit this, we virtually abandon the doctrine of causation altogether. We, therefore, have no alternative but to regard the First Cause an infinite.

We are no less irresistibly compelled to regard the First Cause as independent. For if it be dependent, that on which it depends must be the First Cause. The First Cause can therefore have no necessary relation to any other form of being; since if the presence of any other form of existence is necessary to its completeness, it is partially dependent upon such other form of existence, and cannot be the First Cause. Thus the First Cause, besides being infinite, must be complete in itself, existing independently of all relations,--that is, it must be absolute.

To such conclusions, following the most refined metaphysical philosophy of the day, are we easily led. By the very limitations of our faculties, we are compelled to think of a First Cause of all phenomena; and we are compelled to think of it as both infinite and absolute.

Nevertheless, it will not be difficult to show that such a conclusion is utterly illusive; and that in joining together, the three conceptions of Cause, of Infinite, and of Absolute, we have woven for ourselves a net-work of contradictions, more formidable, more disheartening than any that we have yet been required to contemplate. For, in the first place, that which is a cause cannot at the same time be absolute. For the definition of the Absolute is that which exists out of all relations; whereas a cause not only sustains some definite relation to its effect, but it exists as a cause only by virtue of such relation. Suppress the effect, and the cause has ceased to be a cause. The phrase "absolute cause," therefore, which is equivalent to "non-relative cause," is like the phrase "circular triangle." The two words stand for conceptions which cannot be made to unite. "We attempt," says Mr. Mansel, "to escape from this apparent contradiction by introducing the idea of succession in time. The Absolute exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a cause. But here, we are checkmated by the third conception, that of the Infinite. How can the Infinite become that which it was not from the first? If causation is a possible mode of existence, that which exists without causing is not infinite; that which becomes a cause has passed beyond its former limits.

"But supposing all these obstacles overcome, so that we might frame a valid conception of a cause which is also absolute and infinite: have we then explained the origin of the universe? Have we advanced one step toward explaining how the Absolute can be the source of the Relative, or how the Infinite can give rise to the Finite?" To continue with Mr. Mansel, "if the condition of causal activity is a higher state than that of quiescence, the Absolute ... has passed from a condition of comparative imperfection to one of comparative perfection; and therefore was not originally perfect. If the state of activity is an inferior state to that of quiesence, the Absolute in becoming a cause has lost its original perfection. There remains only the supposition that the two states are equal, and the act of creation one of complete indifference. But this supposition annihilates the unity of the Absolute." (John Fiske, "Cosmic Philosophy.")

THE SUNDAY QUESTION.

It is related that once upon a time, a number of grave and reverend rabbins earnestly disputed among themselves, whether it was lawful or not to eat an egg that was laid upon the Sabbath day. In the minds of some of these grave and wise masters it was held to be a prohibited egg, but in the stomachs of others of their number such eggs were held as too good to be despised.

In the Blue Laws of Connecticut by Rev. Sam Peters, we have Puritan scruples put in rhyme:

"Upon the Sabbath day they'll no physick take, Lest it should worke, and so the Sabbath breake."

There have always been great disputes over this subject which we call in general terms the "Sunday Question." Why do so many misunderstandings arise upon this matter? Simply because people do not understand the question. Millions of devout worshippers use the terms Sunday and Sabbath as if they were synonymous. Millions of superstitious persons cherish obligations to maintain better conduct on Sunday than on any other day in the week. They cannot understand that it is fit and proper to do on Sunday anything that it is fit and proper to do on any other day. The tendency to perform the duties of life correctly on Sunday leaves room and disposition not to perform them so well on the other six days of the week. Such people live cream lives on Sunday and skim-milk lives all the rest of the week. It won't do; because it tends to demoralize rather than establish the noble sentiments of morality and manhood. If we would know how to observe Sunday we must know something more about it than we have unconsciously learned from the nursery stories of our childhood. Let us begin with the names of

The Days of the Week.

We trace these names to our Saxon ancestors. By them the seven
days of the week were called Son-daeg, Moon-daeg, Tuis-daeg,
Woden's-daeg, Thurres-daeg or Thor's-day, Friga's-daeg, and
Seterne's-daeg. These were the names of ancient deities. As
seven planets and seven metals were at that time known--the sun,
the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn being the
planets of astrology--a due allotment was made, gold was held
sacred to the sun, silver to the moon, iron to Mars, etc. Even
the portions of time were in a like manner dedicated; the seven
days of the week were respectively given to the seven planets of
astrology. The names imposed on these days, and the order in which
they occur, are obviously connected with the Ptolemaic hypothesis
of astronomy, each of the planets having an hour assigned to it in
its order of occurrence, and the planet ruling first the hour of
each day giving its name to that day. Thus arranged, the week is a
remarkable instance of the longevity of an institution adapted to
the wants of man. It has survived through many changes of empire
and has forced itself on the ecclesiastical system of Europe,
which, unable to change its idolatrous aspect, has encouraged the
vulgar error that it owes its authenticity to the holy scriptures;
an error too plainly betrayed by the Pagan names that the days
bear, and also by their order of occurrence. ("Intellectual
Development of Europe," by John W. Draper, vol. 1, p. 403.)

It is remarkable that every day of the week is by different nations devoted to the public celebration of religious services:--Sunday by the Christians, Monday by the Greeks, Tuesday by the Persians, Wednesday by the Assyrians, Thursday by the Egyptians, Friday by the Turks, Saturday by the Jews.

From a passage in Genesis, in which the first reference to a
Sabbath occurs, the inference has been drawn (an inference not
warranted by the text) that the first parents of the human
race were taught by God himself to divide time into weeks,
and to set apart a portion as a day of rest, and for religious
purposes. If so, it would of course follow that this institution,
or some traces of it, would be found among all nations; and
the impression, therefore, on the mind of a very large class
of persons, is a very natural one, that however much a Sabbath
may have fallen into disuse, or be now disregarded, the week of
seven days has been kept by all generations of mankind from the
days of creation, and continues to be observed in every part of
the world. ("Westminster Review," October 1850, p. 134.)

It is, however, true that observance of one day in seven as a day of rest, recreation, and pleasure obtains in many countries. How then did it come about if it was not revealed to man, that we keep in a special manner

One Day in Seven?

The observance of a seventh part of the week is no more a revelation than the multiplication table is. It was natural for man to measure the spaces of time. The revolution of the earth, or from sun to sun was a day, and from new moon to new moon was a month of twenty-eight days. It was a most natural thing to have feasts at the full of the moon and at new moon; between these times were the "horned moon," and this marked another division of time. It was easy to divide the full moon into four periods, each of seven days. Hence originated the observance of one day in seven. After the moon time had been divided into four parts each of seven days and the days specifically named, then the old phraseology of "new moon days" was dropped as it was no longer needed.

There are two different reasons given for observing the Sabbath:

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 20 : 11.)

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,
and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a
mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. (Deuteronomy 5 : 15.)

Here are two distinct and contradictory accounts given of the origin of the Sabbath. According to the first, God instituted the Sabbath on the seventh day of time, immediately after his six days of creation. But if we are to believe the writer of Deuteronomy the Sabbath was set up as a memorial day of the Jews' escape from Egyptian bondage; an occurrence that took place something like two thousand five hundred years after the year one, of creation. Both of these statements cannot be correct, as one excludes the other. And in view of the fact that man naturally learned to divide time into days, moons, and quarter moons we are strongly inclined to think that both of these ancient accounts are mythical.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

The word holy has lost its original signification. The Hebrew word kadosh means "to set apart." Parkhurst renders it, "to separate, to set apart from its common and ordinary to some higher use or purpose." It is used in this sense in Genesis 4 : "And God divided [i.e. separated] the light from the darkness."

The vessels of the sanctuary were to be "Holy unto the Lord;" that is, they were to be kept strictly separate from other vessels, for the sanctuary.

The saba or Sabbath was a day of rest, and the command to keep it holy did not mean that it should be observed with solemnity, or kept by offering sacrifices or in the performance of other religious ceremonies. Other days were working days, but the Sabbath was to be a day of rest.

"The word holy," says a modern writer on the Sabbath, "has now become so associated in our minds with Puritanical ideas of self-mortification and with modern religious forms of worship, that we are naturally misled by it from the meaning of the original. Many pious persons suppose that the command to keep the Sabbath day holy was equivalent to an injunction to attend a parish church, hear two or more sermons in the course of the Sunday and during the rest of the day to keep in-doors and read the Bible. The Jews, however, did not do this, for the Bible was not written, and sermons in its exposition (which would have wanted texts) could not well be preached. Nor does it appear from any passage in the books of Moses, that religious admonitions or discourses of any kind formed a part of the tabernacle service."

The Jewish Sabbath was emphatically a day of rest. Work, therefore, was strictly prohibited; for "Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31 : 15.)

This law was not so literal as subsequent interpreters have made it. We have an account of only one person being put to death for this crime. It is recorded in Numbers, 15 : 32-36 that "while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day."

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses
and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should
be done to him.

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;
all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned
him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

This was the only case in all the Hebrew writings, of stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But this single instance has engendered an infinite amount of bitter persecution in the hearts of the over-righteous, who keep the Sabbath holy and try also to make their neighbors observe it in a like manner.

Sir Humphrey Davy relates in his "Salmonia," page 1,345, that he "was walking on Arthur's Seat with some of the most distinguished professors of Edinburgh attached to the geological opinions of the late Dr. Hutton, a discussion took place upon the phenomena presented by the rocks under our feet, and to exemplify a principle, Professor Playfair broke some stones, in which I assisted the venerable and amiable philosopher.

"We had hardly examined the fragments, when a man from the crowd, who had been assisting at field-preaching, came up and warned us off, saying, 'Ye think ye are only stane-breakers; but I ken ye are Sabbath breakers, and ye deserve to be staned with your ain stanes.'"

Accidents which take place on Sunday are looked upon by some people as "Judgments of God."

In Scotland on January 16th, 1603 the citizens were dreadfully
alarmed by an earthquake, on account of which a day of fasting
and humiliation was appointed by the magistrates and clergy. The
particular sin for which this scourge was thought to be sent,
was the custom of salmon-fishing on Sunday.

But this rigid feature of the Jewish Sabbath was of a negative
character, as the day was observed as a day of feasting and joy--a
day something like our Thanksgiving.

A variety of minor regulations referring to bodily indulgences
on that day, abundantly prove, if further proof were needed,
its recognized character as a "feast-day" in the natural and
general sense of the term, in Judaism. It was to be honored by
the wearing of finer garments, by three special meals of the best
cheer the house could afford; and it was considered a particularly
meritorious thing on the part of the master of the house to busy
himself personally as much as possible with the furnishing of
the viands, nay, the fetching of the very wood for the cooking,
so as to do as much honor to the "bride-sabbath" as in him lay.

Fasting, mourning, mortification of all and every kind, even
special supplicatory prayers are strictly prohibited. (Chamber's
Encyclopedia.)

If Sunday takes the place of the Sabbath, then the New Testament would clearly reveal the fact; but it does nothing of the kind. If the new religion was designed to take the place of the old, then we should expect to find Jesus plainly teaching that after his death Sunday should be observed in place of and as the Sabbath. But far from this, we find him repudiating the Jewish Sabbath, and saying nothing at all about a new day of ceremonies and worship.

We give a number of instances where Jesus intentionally repudiates and violates the common usages respecting the Sabbath:

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the
water is troubled to put me into the pool; but while I am coming,
another steppeth down before me.

Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and
walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath.

The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath
day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,
because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. (John 5 :
7, 8, 9, 10 and 16.)

The Jewish law regarding the Sabbath was strict. It was not lawful to carry burdens on that day.

Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no
burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of
Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 17 : 21.)

And it came to pass that he went through the corn fields on the
Sabbath day; and his disciples began as they went to pluck the
ears of corn.

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them,
Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was a
hungered, he and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high
priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat,
but for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?

And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man and not man
for the Sabbath. (Mark 2 : 23-27.)

Jesus had repeated conflicts with the Jews on this question. He would not honor the Jewish Sabbath, and consequently the Jews made war upon him, threatening to take his life.

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal
on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against
him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had
the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he
arose and stood forth.

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful
on the Sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life or to
destroy it?

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man,
Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so; and his hand was restored
whole as the other. (Luke 6 : 7-11.)

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another
what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6 : 11.)

We read in Luke 13 : 11-14, that "there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself."

And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her,
Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

And he laid his hands upon her; and immediately she was made
straight, and glorified God.

And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because
that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people,
There are six days in which man ought to work; in them therefore
come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.

With the commandment before his eyes, saying: "Take heed to yourselves and bear no burdens on the Sabbath day as I commanded your fathers," (Jeremiah 18 : 21), Jesus deliberately bade the cripple take up his bed and walk, on the Sabbath day.

It is remarkable that those people who love to sabbatize so much, and to make others do so too, do not see that while Jesus violated intentionally the Jewish Sabbath, that he never gave his disciples the slightest hint that they should observe Sunday in any manner whatever.

Paul, the founder of the Christian church, rejects the Sabbath.

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath
days. (Colossians 2 : 16.)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every
day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. (Romans
14 : 5, 6.)

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto
ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months and
times and years. (Galatians 4 : 9, 10.)

Bear in mind, reader, that there is not so much as a dot in the New Testament in favor of substituting Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath, or for observing it as a Sabbath day. Jesus and Paul both repudiate it. The history of the church is against the use of Sunday as the Sabbath.

St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 345, says: "Turn thou not out of the way into Samaritanism or Judaism, for Jesus Christ hath redeemed thee; henceforth reject all observance of Sabbaths, and call not meats, which are really matters of indifference, common or unclean."

St. Jerome, in the year 392, says: "On the Lord's day they went to church, and returning from church they would apply themselves to their allotted works and make garments for themselves and others. The day is not a day of fasting, but a day of joy; the church has always considered it a day of joy, and none but heretics have thought otherwise."

Sir William Danville, in his "Six Texts," p. 241, says: "Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321.

The Edict of Constantine.

In the code of Justinian lib. 3, title 12, sec. 2 and 3, we find the first legal edict regulating the Sabbath:

Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all
trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who
are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend
to the business of agriculture, because it often happens that no
other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the
critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities
granted by Heaven.

By a multitude of religious teachers of the present day, this decree of Constantine is recognized as the foundation of all "Sabbath" or "Lord's day" legislation; as the first recognition by the "body politic" of the usages or institutions of Christianity. But nothing can be more easily shown than that this decree was not made in the interest of Christianity; that it did not respect the Sabbath or Lord's day; and that it was not issued by a Christian ruler.

The reader will notice that the decree was partial; that it related only to certain classes, leaving other classes to still pursue their usual avocations; and that it was respecting "the venerable day of the sun." Now we appeal with confidence to every student and reader of the Bible, that in all the scriptures there is no such a day or institution known as "the venerable day of the sun." And we affirm that, in this decree, Constantine not only did not mention any Christian institution, but he had no reference to any Christian institution.

On this point let such a reputable writer as Dr. Schaff testify:

He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as
dies Domini [Lord's day], but as dies solis [day of the sun],
in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with
an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex
(321). ("History of the Christian Church," vol. 2.)

The edict of the sun's day was issued March 7; that for consulting the haruspex was issued the day following, March 8. This edict of March 8 concerned the inspection of the entrails of beasts as a means of foretelling future events. It was a heathen practice, and the decree was a heathen edict, made by a heathen ruler. This of itself is sufficient to show in what light we must regard his edict for honoring "the venerable day of the sun."

Dr. Schaff says that Constantine issued his sun's day decree "in conformity to his worship of Apollo." Who was Apollo, and what relation did his worship bear to reverencing "the day of the sun?" Webster says: "A deity among the Greeks and Romans, and worshiped under the name of Phoebus, the sun."

Noted Men who have Rejected the Observance of Sunday as the Sabbath.

For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of
the observance of Sabbaths, feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses,
no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the
will of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been born without
sin.--Justin Martyr.

They (the patriarchs) did not therefore regard circumcision
nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain
from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses
subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because
such things as these do not belong to Christians.--Eusebius.

As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for
keeping it; but if we do, it ought not to be on account of Moses's
commandment, but because nature teaches us from time to time to
take a day of rest.... If anywhere the day is made holy for the
mere day's sake, then I order you to work on it, to dance on it,
to do anything that will reprove this encroachment on Christian
spirit and liberty.--Martin Luther.

The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular
day of worship has been appointed in its place is evident.--Milton.

They who think that by the authority of the church, the observance
of the Lord's day was appointed instead of the Sabbath, as if
necessary, are greatly deceived.--Melancthon.

And truly we see what such a doctrine has profited; for those who
adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious
observance of the Sabbath.--John Calvin.