THE SABBATH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2321, 20 February 1892, Page 3

THE SABBATH.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir _I would like to reply to a few assertions made by “ H.G.” on the Sabbath question in a letter to your valuable paper. his object to show that the Sabbath was changed by Christ ? If so, we must agree to differ. The former pait of his letter is contradicted in the latter by the way he tries to alter the real meanings of Scriptures. First, he show ed that the moral law is an ordinance binding on “ all ” men for “ all ” ages—for Jew and Gentile alike. Thus far I agree with him. Then, in fiat contradiction, he tries to disprove his first assertion by Scriptures that I will now deal with. First he quoted Rom., x., 4 : « Christ the £ end ’ of the law of righteousness for everyone that believeth.” In what sense ! Does “ end ” here mean “ abolition !” No ! for He did not come to destroy it—Matt., v., 17 —and it is not made void or abolished. — Rom., iii., 31. In James, v., 11, and I. Peter, i., 9, the same word is used, where sense is “object” or “design.” And its meaning is the same here: Life was the object or design of the law. . Dent., xxx., 15,10 ; Lev., xviii., 5 ; ii., 13. But man, by transgression of the' law, brought himself under condemnation, and Christ now works out the “ object ” or “ design ” of the law by procuring our pardon and giving us “life.”; “Unrighteousness is sin,” says the apostle, and “ sin is the transgression of the law.” If unrighteousness is transgression of the law, its opposite, ~ righteousness, must be the opposite of transgression—“obedience.” If “H.G.’s” version of Rom., x>, 4, be correct, we must remember it is to “everyone that believeth.” Now, I ask, does it affirm the abolition of the law to any but the “believer?” No! Singular! A universal law abolished to some and not to • others! Is it abolished to the believer « before ” he believes ? I would like this answered. Now Heb., x., 9. This sounds very well until we read the preceding eight verses of the chapter. Then one can see at a glance that “ H.G.” is mixing the “ Ceremonial Law ” with the “ Moral J Law.” Of course, Christ did nail these ordinances to the Cross. He came to establish the will of God—(Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy)— taking away the “ law of ceremonies.” —r Born., iii., 31. Paul says we are not justified by the law, but are proved sinners by it. We are justified by faith, but do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law. Are the no-law people so ignorant that they cannot see the connection between verses 9, 19, 20, 31 of Rom., iii. I doubt it. Gal., v., 0, says nothing to contradict the binding nature of the Decalogue, but mentions circumcision as an ordinance of the “ Ceremonial Law.” There is no proof that God has blessed the first day of the week. By the law is the knowledge of sin. If it is sinful to profane the first day of the week where is the law which proves it so ? And how is a law which is utterly “ abolished ” to enforce the keeping of the first day of the week ? When people undertake to weild the sword they should be careful as to which way it cuts. But “ H.G.” says that Christ was at liberty to change the day while retaining its obligations. To prove this he quotes John, xx., 19-20. Strange that “this” Scripture should' sanction our keeping the Sunday when the disciple did not at that time believe that their Lord had risen from the dead. Mark, xvi., 9-14, proves this. See also Mark, iii., 19. The simple facts of the case then are : Jesus appeared to His disciples at their home as they were enjoying a common meal, and that they \ did not, two excepted, believe that He f'had risen from the dead. How could this ■ have been a religious meeting to authorise

Sunday-keeping ! A minister of Tenraka announced from the pulpit that Christ Himself could “not” change the day, and no Scripture “has” or “ can be given to show that Christ “ did do so , therefore allow mo to say that the editor was right when, in reply to “ Mystified,” he showed that the Roman Catholic Church “ was ” the power that instituted first-day worship. If “ H.G.” dissents will he give me the “ law and the testimony ” for keeping Sunday and the controversy ceases at once, As lam not a book agent, nor am I aware that book agents have made any assertions about the: Sabbath in this worthy paper, 1 would ask “H.G,” why ho calls upon . “ them ” more than butchers, bakers, or parsons to be honest and express theii opinions. It is as logical as saying “America is a continent, Australia is a very dry continent, therefore butter ought to be cheap in Now Zealand,” The Roman Catholics “have ” and “do claim ” the power of instituting the first-day worship, and “ho one deny it.”— l am, etc., C.csnu*. j