COMMUNICATIONS. FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 1845

 COMMUNICATIONS.

FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.

A certain class of persons will continue to importune and harass our (New Jersey) Legislature until it shall be induced to violate one of the most important principles of our blessed constitution, by legislating upon the divine law. Petitions are now inundating that body, asking a law be passed prohibiting tavern keepers from selling liquors on Sunday, improperly called the Sabbath, because no command is to be found in the Scriptures of Truth for any other than the seventh day to be observed as the sabbath. If it is sinful to sell intoxicating drinks on Sunday, is it not equally so on any other day of the week? If so, why this distinction of days? This is one step to abridge, by legislation, the liberty of conscience guaranteed to us by the constitution, and the next may be to revive the ancient laws compelling all to worship God on that day according to their views of the subject. Let public opinion (in accordance with the constitution) regulate this matter; let rail road companies, canal companies, and others, that deem it a duty, observe the first day of the week, but let no legislature give us arbitrary penal laws. What right have they to compel Jew or Gentile, by a legislative act, to adopt their version of God’s law? The same arguments they used 1800 years ago are equally applicable at present: “Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering?” Luke xiii. 15. They occupy the same position, as regards the law, as did the ancient scribes and Pharisees, who said of the disciples of Christ, “This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law;” Acts xviii. 13. “This is the man that teacheth all men, every where, against the people and the law,” [xxi. 28.] “to desecrate the sabbath,” &c., &c.—Paul cautioned the church against this very doctrine. See Col. ii. 16 & 17. They pretend to have a sacred regard for the command to keep the sabbath day holy, yet drive a horse to meeting, have a fire kindled, and a good dinner prepared by their servants, and engage in all schemes and devices to raise money, by forming societies, selling temperance songs and medals, &c., in their houses of worship on the day they regard as the sabbath. But, say they, these are works of necessity and mercy, so may be loosing the ox or the ass. Does the fourth commandment, which is the only authority in God’s word for the observance of the sabbath, admit of any such works? The language is, “in it thou shalt not do any work,” &c. And the Lord has cut off all inferences and implications by saying, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” Deut. iv. 2. Hence you perceive that they cannot add works of necessity and mercy, nor substitute any other day to suit their own convenience, without annulling God’s law, and leaving each one to determine for himself what are works of necessity and mercy. Now if the command either is, or is not in force; if in force why do they not obey it, and be Jews! If bound to observe the sabbath day, they are equally so to let their land rest on the seventh year. “Six years shalt thou sow thy land and

gather in the fruits thereof, but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still.” Ex. xxiii. 10.

The argument that the Lord resting from his labors on the seventh day established a sabbath is not susceptible of scripture proof. It was not commanded until enjoined upon the Jewish nation.—National Israel was a type of spiritual Israel, held in bondage by the Egyptians until God saw fit to release them from that bondage; so the child of God, born in due course of nature partaking of the earthly nature of Adam, is held under sin, until God, by his sovereign power, mercy, and grace, pleases to implant in him spiritual life, and he, being born again, goes to work to patch and piece out a robe of righteousness for himself, until he finds his labor all in vain, and is brought to throw himself at the feet of Jesus, in whom he finds rest. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” Heb. iv. 9 & 10. This is the doctrine set forth by an inspired writer.

Again, the law given to national Israel was to continue until all it was designed to accomplish was fulfilled by the coming of Christ, who says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt. v.

17. And as evidence that he has fulfilled all its requirements, he declares, “It is finished.” John xix. 30. Again, the saints are told, “Ye also are become dead to the law, [Jewish law,] by the body of Christ,” [Rom. vii. 4.] and are under the law to Christ, as found in the New Testament. To illustrate the matter, I will state an analogous case. In 1816, Congress passed a law chartering a U. S. Bank for 20 years; at the end of that time all the purposes contemplated by it were accomplished; will it be contended that that law is still in operation? or have not all its requirements been fulfilled? Like the law commanding the observance of the sabbath, it was instituted for a special purpose, special time, and special people; certainly not for the whole human family. The New Testament furnishes a full, complete, and perfect rule of faith and practice for the children of God, and yet not one word is there found enjoining the observance of the sabbath; though all the moral obligations of the law are embodied therein. As well might we seek there for authority for praying to departed saints.

In every intelligent being is implanted a principle by which he can distinguish between right and wrong. “These having not the (written) law, are a law to themselves;” does this embrace an obligation upon the whole human family to keep the sabbath, when it is recorded in the same verse that the gentiles had not the law, and knew nothing of any such command except by education? Or does it make all amenable in direct contradiction to the positive declaration of Holy Writ, that, where no law is there is no transgression?

That under the gospel dispensation the first day of the week should be observed as a day of worship and rest, I readily admit; but having no connexion with, or reference to the Sinai law, whatever, or any of its prohibitions. No first day is the sabbath of the Lord, thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, &c. The obligation rests not upon the command to the Jewish nation, but the example of the Apostles, who were moved by the Holy Ghost and “upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them;” (Acts. xx. 7) and the direction not to forsake the assembling of themselves together; (Heb. x. 25) with many others. Again not only was the command to keep the sabbath given to national Israel exclusively, but as conclusive evidence of the fact, no other people were ever so situated as to obey it. The Israelites were commanded, “Six days shalt thou labor.” How perfectly adapted to the demands of this law was their peculiar situation; they being a people distinct from all others, placed in a wilderness, dependent upon their obedience to this command for their daily bread. “I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day; on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they shall bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.” (Exod. xvi. 4 & 5.) “Six days ye shall gather it, but on the seventh day which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.” (26) Here we perceive that

disobedience was certain death; if they did not labor daily “six days,” they must starve, for each labored for himself; they gathered, every man according to his own eating, and he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack. (18) “The Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you, on the sixth day, the bread of two days.” (29) “So the people rested on the seventh day.” (30.)—Now supposing that other nations had this command, (which Paul says they had not, “The Gentiles have not the law.” (Rom. ii. 14.) It is preposterous to contend that they could obey it, so long as they were not incorporated with this peculiar people; and still more absurd to substitute another day, which the Lawgiver has nowhere authorised, and apply the requirements of the command to keep the seventh day to that of substitute.

W.