UPON WHAT IT IS FOUNDED.
By C. P. E.
"The Sabbath," says the Lutheran Observer, "is founded upon the constitution of man. It was ordained at the creation to supply his physical and moral wants, not only during his state of innocence in Eden, but also after the fall and when scattered over the face of the earth. Demanded by the well-being of the family, its institution immediately succeeded that of marriage; and promotive of the best interests of nations, it was enacted as a civil statute, and enforced by moral and legal sanctions, as well as by disciplinary chastisements." So far as physical rest is concerned one day is just as good as another, and very many people manage to get along very well without any stated day of rest at all. But the matter of physical rest is dwelt upon so much for the reason that to say aught of the57memorial character of the Sabbath is to call attention at once to the fact that the day generally observed as the Sabbath has no claims whatever to be regarded as such. The Sabbath was ordained primarily as the memorial of creation, and in this respect no other day can possibly take its place. But the evident intent of the Observer's remarks is to show that Sunday-keeping ought to be enforced by law; and on the surface there is a degree of plausibility in the theory, for under the Jewish theocracy Sabbath-keeping was enforced by legal sanctions, but so was the worship of God. Concerning the day of atonement we read: "For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people." Lev. 23:29. But does the Observer think that people should now be put to death for failing to worship God according to his appointment? If not, why not? Certainly no reason can be urged against the one which could not be with equal force against the other. If, however, such penalties were inflicted in these days, who would decide when they should be inflicted, and upon whom they should be inflicted? Manifestly the strongest party. In Catholic countries Protestants would be punished for alleged violation of the divine law, while in Protestant countries Romanists would suffer like penalties for not doing the same things. And not only so, but the various sects of Protestants would war among themselves, each invoking the powers of the law against the other, all fully believing they were doing God's service. Does not the Observer know that invoking the legal enforcement of any religious duty upon which men differ, as, for instance, as to the binding obligation of the seventh or the first days of the week, and making this or any other religious question a matter of law, is to empower men to decide what is the true faith? Can we afford to do it in this country? C. P. E.