To grant that some features of the sabbath indicate an intimate relation to the Jews,' is not sufficient ground for asserting that it was confined to them alone. The Lord of the sabbath was God of Jew and Gentile. Consequently, while He may not have issued any decree pertaining to the observance of a sabbath in primitive times, the example of His own repose "suggested to man a seventh day rest with suitable worship thereon." And then what greater difficulty is there in allowing the necessity of a special revelation here than in the case of many other institutions whose existence is unquestioned, and which could never have been living realities unless God had revealed them to man. Moreover, no one will contend that the obvious meaning of a passage is always correct; yet when the terms are unequivocal and the subject-matter easily understood, to assume the more recondite for the patent sense demands a serious reason. In this chapter of Genesis Moses makes an historical statement. Now, does he describe the work of creation in its chronological order, and then record an event which took place only twenty-five hundred years later? Is it reasonable to presume that he would have added the words in question unless they referred to a fact closely connected with the previous portion of the history? Nor could he have more clearly conveyed the idea that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day than by stating it in close proximity to the Creator's rest, an event which it was destined to commemorate. True, "he assigns the reason of the sanctification, but his purpose is to show that as the reason existed from the beginning so also did the investiture of the day with special prerogatives. Finally, the candor and simplicity of the narrative make this a part of the creation history fully as much as any other, and do away with any theory alleging that the sabbath was an afterthought." Had Moses discredited the idea of a creation sabbath, he would have warned us against misinterpreting the passage. 1 Deuteronomy, V, 12-16. 3 2 8. Eucherius, 1. c. Lapide, 1. c. Philo, Ribera, Catharinus, ap. Synopsis Crit., 1. c. Bonfrerius, Malvendus, ap. Hummelauer, Gen. II 2, 3. Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, III 38. Murphy, 1. c. Taylor Lewis, ap. Lange, op. c., p. 197. Delitzsch, 1. c., Lange, op. c., 177. Bouquillon, op. c., p. 230. 3 Paley, 1. c. Vaughan, Dublin Review, January 1883, p. 43. 5 Bishop Clifford, Dublin Review, 1881, p. 311 sq. This he never did, and consequently he would have us look upon the sabbath of Eden and that of Sinai as different phases of one and the same institution. What strikes one most forcibly in the opposition of modern writers is that they fail to realize the full bearing of their own arguments. Nearly all of them have based arguments on the moral necessity of worship. No matter how freely they combat a pre-Mosaic sabbath they are too clever to deny man's obligation to devote some time, even a periodically recurring portion, to God's service, and inferentially to rest from worldly occupations as a condition necessary to discharge this duty. In spite of this they restrict the sabbath to a particular people. Certainly, if it be necessary among any people, it is, in a measure, necessary for all, because the needs of one nation are but a special form of the needs of all. More striking still is the species of reasoning employed by Hessey when he speaks about the abrogation of the Jewish sabbath. "The political and ceremonial elements may be abolished, the moral remaining and being developed by Christianity." If this reasoning has any value here it is equally strong against him in his position toward the pre-Mosaic sabbath. For once granted that Christianity preserves the moral elements with a variation in the ceremonial there is every reason to believe that the same could have taken place in a less perfect way in the early ages of the world's history. Many grant the one; few admit the other. Furthermore, positive law did not enjoin Sunday observance prior to Constantine. And yet Hessey, amongst many others, is a staunch advocate of an Apostolic Sunday. If Sunday was set aside among early Christians without positive legislation, why deny that the patriarchs kept the sabbath though there was no positive decree to that effect? The same school considers the Creator's rest as exemplary and consolatory. God labored six days; He rested on the seventh. Man, say they, should imitate this example. How strange to reason this way, and, at the same time, to insist that upwards of two thousand years had rolled by before man 1 Hessey, op. c., p. 18; Dale, Ten Commandments, p. 8; Heylin, Works, Part I, c. 4, p. 348. THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT. There is much truth in the saying that one-half of the world does not know how the other half lives. We might recast the phrase to the effect that one social class does not know how another lives. With obvious limitations it thus expresses one of the most interesting phenomena which the sociologist meets. Each social group has its own peculiar traditions, prejudices, practices, points of view, and philosophy of life, the result of a slow evolution or growth, and representing the net product of the experiences through which the group has passed during its continuous life. These traditions are shared in varying degrees by members, understood and appreciated by them in different ways, but always exercising a strange and enduring power over a majority, and by holding them together lending unity and strength to their association. If even a member of a group may misunderstand its traditions and spirit, and he certainly may, an outsider will not often rightly measure or grasp the true meaning and force which they possess. When the group is of little importance, representing no great issue in life, it is less difficult to understand it and thereby do it justice. But when a group includes vast numbers and represents vital interests affecting those outside as well as those within, when its roots are deep and its life intense, the degree to which misunderstanding, partisanship and even frenzy may develop is a puzzle, if not a mystery. A group which reacts upon our own lives and affects our interests adversely is doubly hard to understand, so much can our interests color our views of truth. It has well been said that if the theorems of Euclid affected the distribution of property directly, no one of them would have escaped denial. All that bigotry implies, as far as it is of interest to the sociologist, rests upon the misunderstanding of the points of view and philos ophy entertained by a religious body. a religious body. It is commonplace that a foreigner rarely understands the institutions and spirit of a people that he visits. Only with extreme difficulty can a man of the North understand our negro problem, simply because he does not see it from the point of view of the actors in the conditions where the problem exists. Those not acquainted with what is termed society have not by any means, a correct appreciation of the ideals, prejudices, points of view, and philosophy which reign there. They cannot understand the tragedies due to trifles, the ambitions which would overturn the universe and ignore God to gain mere nothings, the heartaches caused by disappointmentsall trifles in themselves, but of tremendous importance to those who accept the shallow philosophy from which they spring and attempt to shape their lives according to its principles. It is not enough to know literally what is said or written about the views and ideals of any vital social group. One must provisionally accept views, traditions, prejudices—all in fact and set aside from consideration the effect that these may have on the group of which one is a member, if one would correctly understand. They are to the group the sources of being, life, action and inspiration. The laboring class is a social group. In spite of differences of race, religion, profession; in spite of the fact that on all sides it merges into other classes without revealing the practical line of differentiation, it has its philosophy, its spirit, its views all distinctive and probably more clearly defined than those of any other vital group in society. It occupies a central position in our economic life, it includes vast numbers of wage earners; hence it is practically the fundamental group of human society. By common consent it is so regarded. On all sides we are meeting the admission that the next step in human progress must be the uplifting of this class; the introduction of a healthy idealism into its life, the satisfaction of its just demands for a larger share in modern culture. Not alone that. The irresistible trend of things is leading us in that direction, whether or not we wish THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT. There is much truth in the saying that one-half of the world does not know how the other half lives. We might recast the phrase to the effect that one social class does not know how another lives. With obvious limitations it thus expresses one of the most interesting phenomena which the sociologist meets. Each social group has its own peculiar traditions, prejudices, practices, points of view, and philosophy of life, the result of a slow evolution or growth, and representing the net product of the experiences through which the group has passed during its continuous life. These traditions are shared in varying degrees by members, understood and appreciated by them in different ways, but always exercising a strange and enduring power over a majority, and by holding them together lending unity and strength to their association. If even a member of a group may misunderstand its traditions and spirit, and he certainly may, an outsider will not often rightly measure or grasp the true meaning and force which they possess. When the group is of little importance, representing no great issue in life, it is less difficult to understand it and thereby do it justice. But when a group includes vast numbers and represents vital interests affecting those outside as well as those within, when its roots are deep and its life intense, the degree to which misunderstanding, partisanship and even frenzy may develop is a puzzle, if not a mystery. A group which reacts upon our own lives and affects our interests adversely is doubly hard to understand, so much can our interests color our views of truth. It has well been said that if the theorems of Euclid affected the distribution of property directly, no one of them would have escaped denial. All that bigotry implies, as far as it is of interest to the sociologist, rests upon the misunderstanding of the points of view and philos |