As the considerations already touched suffi ciently' show the wisdom of this institution, so they equally prove its beneficence. For it was adapted to the physical and moral nature of man, and aimed at his moral and physical well-being. This being the case, it is hard to conceive how and by what per version it is, that the Jewish Sabbath has been so persistently imagined to be a day of joyless austerity and irksome restraint ; not a feast, but a fast ; not a festival to be thankfully observed, but a day on which a man was to afflict his soul ;' not an invi tation to freedom from toil and a farewell to care, but a part of that yoke of which the apostle Peter says, neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it.' Certainly there is nothing in the documents which prescribe it, and indicate its mode of observ ance (of the penalties for disobedient-ewe shall speak immediately), which can justify any such notions. Its main feature is to inculcate, not any hard task, but abstinence from all tasks. Its main require ment is—and surely it should be welcome to toil worn man—that he should take his rest and ease ; that he should give to himself and all his poor drudges of the inferior creation a holiday ; that he should let thc plough lie idle in the furrow,' and the vine be untorrnented by the pruning-knife ; that the hind should be free from his master, and the master free from his cares 1--' In it tbou shalt not do any work'—any servile or ordinary work— ' thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man -servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates ; that thy man servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.' What is meant by work' is sufficiently evident from the Hebrew terms employed. They are such as we should employ to signify that sort of occupa tion whether of body or of mind, the condition of which is toil and the object gain. They are rIzt6n, by which is denoted pretty nearly what we T T should call business, and Til]3.1., which, as its deri vation implies, signifies servile and menial work. To extend the meaning of work' so as to compre hend every kind of action' was the error of those who invented the traditions ' which our Saviour rebukes, and which, fairly carried out, would be inconsistent with any observance of the Sabbath at all, unless men were to sleep through it ! The references in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, are in general confirmatory of the definitions here given. Men are not to think their own thoughts, nor find their own pleasure,' on that day ; phraseology which, literally interpreted, would turn man into stone, but susceptible of a very natural interpreta tion if it be meant that they are not to pursue the every-clay schemes and projects on which they usually expend their thought' and in which they usually find their pleasure.' The prohibition to carry burdens on the Sabbath-day' Ger. xvii. 21, 22, 27) points to the same thing ; the cessation of the ordinary traffic, of the purchase of merchandise, and the porterage of goods, of all that is implied in buying, selling, and getting gain.
But the ordinary forms of social enjoyment were certainly not forbidden. It was customary to give feasts on that day ; and our Saviour is expressly said to have been a guest at one. It is true, indeed, that cooking' was forbidden on the sacred day ; but the hospitality seems to have been freely (though doubtless in the best days of Judaism modestly) exercised. The collation ' was to be cold ; ' but this in a Syrian climate would be seldom a hardship. For similar reasons, the Jews were for bidden to kindle a fire ; but this prohibition seems to have had reference to culinary purposes : at all events the Rabbis have themselves always had doubts whether it was designed to forbid a fire when kindled to maintain vital warmth in severe weather —which sometimes, though rarely, would be felt in Palestine. Indeed, only a casuist of the Pharisaic order would ever be tempted thus to sacrifice the spirit to the letter : for with a shivering body and benumbed limbs, it would not be possible to make the Sabbath a delight,' or a season of rest,' or anything but a day of torment. So that, on our
Saviour's just principle of interpretation, that the Sabbath was made for man,' we may infer the less rigid is also the more just exposition of this command. Similar observations apply to the general injunction that every one should abide in ! his place' (Exod. xvi. 29). This it is impossible to interpret literally ; indeed, it is so obviously connected with the prohibition to go out to gather manna' on the Sabbath, that it has been reasonably conjectured to have been only a temporary injunc tion.* What were the religious observances of the ancient Jews on this day is not very clear. That there were some, from immemorial periods, is plain ; probably consisting chiefly in the public reading and expounding of the Law—leading on at length to the more definite services of the Synagogue-worship. As far as the Temple-ser vice was concerned, the morning and evening sac rifice were both doubled, the stale shewbread. was removed from the table, and the new substituted for it.
In a word, so far as the original and only authen tic documents go, we can discern nothing which should have imparted so gloomy a tinge to the in terpretation of the Jewish Sabbath as has often been given by Christian writers, both by those who have adduced Jewish precedents for a more shin gent law of the Christian day of rest than they find in the N. T., and by those who, having a very superfluous horror of Sabbatic asceticism in these lax modern times, and foolishly supposing such asceticism the result of a too fond imitation of the primeval Sabbatic practice, have deprecated a re turn to Judaism.
In fact, the character of tbe Jewish Sabbath has been strangely misrepresented. Instead of being the harsh law it has been so often libellously painted, instead of being an institution which specially illus trated the rigour of the elder dispensation, and implied bondage to a hard yoke, it was, if we are to jndge (and we have no othcr light) from the tenor of the sacred documents which describe and enjoin it, designed to be a day of joy and re joicing.* The only thing, that can be plausibly alleged ag,ainst the beneficent character of the original Jewish Sabbath is the penalty attacbed to the viola tion of it ; that was undoubtedly severe, and such as would not be justifiable in a human government. But, then, that is a distinct consideration from that of the character of the institution itself. Whether it was unduly severe, will depend on whether the Jews were really living under a veritable theocracy, miraculously authenticated to them ; and whether the law enjoined was one which. had peculiarly their welfare in view, and which therefore there were few temptations to violate. If these things be granted, as they will be by every one who be lieves the O. T., thcn, though it is easy to repre sent the violation of the law as a trivial thing, it is really impossible to imagine a more audacious defi ance of the supreme legislator, or a more wanton and excuseless disrcgard of his laws. Nor is the severity of the penalty—where the authority that imposes the law is thus plain and the law itself one of beneficence—without abundant analogies in the constitution and laws of nature ; for we too are living under a theocracy,' and God deals in the same summary way with us now, in those cases where his authority is plainly declared, and his laws simply invite us to be happy. He deals with us more indulgently where the law is not so obvi ous, or where there are strong temptations to human weakness to transgress it. But in the case of the more indispensable laws essential to our physical welfare, the more beneficial they are, the more easy to be obeyed, the more designed and adapted to promote our wellbeing, the less excus able and the more wanton the breach of them, the more they prove the goodness of the great legis lator who has imposed them, so much more severe is the punishment exacted. It is a law of our physical nature that we must eat when hungry and drink when thirsty, and rest when weary ; and if a man chooses to disobey that physical law, he is subjected to a punishment to which 'stoning' is a trifle.