SUNDAY LAWS by Honestus

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 8, 1859

SUNDAY LAWS

By Honestus

From the "Occident."

SUNDAY LAWS.

It is singular how some men are prone to deceive themselves on any matter they may wish, for the furtherance of a favored doctrine to promulgate. In fact they frequently start what has no legitimate foundation in the first instance to rest on, and without investigating, repeat it so often, and in such various guises, that at last they absolutely believe it themselves as an established fact.

I have been led to these remarks by having observed a communication in one of the daily papers, from the joint proprietor of a weekly journal, in reference to the Sunday question, or in his words,—"the Crusade against the Christian Sabbath." He goes on to state, "that an attempt has been made by demagogues, aided by reckless fools and blackguards to identify our adopted German population with this scheme to denounce the Sabbath, and render nugatory the fondest and most cherished hopes of Christianity." Now, I should very much like to know on what grounds these hopes are based; for I defy him to show that Sunday has aught to do with it, or that the standard of sense and respectability is dependent on taking the same view he does of affairs. The Sunday, as a Sabbath, is here spoken of: first, as if it was a matter beyond question, emanating from Divine Authority; and, he then goes on coolly to state that this Sabbath was instituted by our fathers. Whence, I would ask, did our fathers derive their authority for this, and on what principle could they venture to set up aught that would not only clash with the Divine injunction, but also run counter to the professed object in view, by commemorating the commencement, instead of the completion of Creation?

When the legislature of the State enacts a law, it will admit of no alteration but from the power that called it into existence; and we may surely venture to claim for a divine behest the same consideration, extended towards that of mortals. Although it is almost beyond credit, that men with any pretensions to consistency should endorse such a barefaced contradiction as here exists; still, there are those to be found, who are a sort of echo in matters of this description, and never dream of analyzing aught that has been allowed to occupy such ground in connection with religion—think that it must be so. That the Sabbath claims a Divine origin admits of no controversy. It is clearly stated in that book, which these parties profess to regard as the Word of God, that the seventh day is to be the Sabbath; the reason being given, and the command laid down, in language that admits of no alteration, together with the punishment for disobedience. Now that all this should be admitted—regarded as sacred—held up in every Protestant church before the eyes of the congregators, as forming part of the Divine Decalogue, which one would suppose should be in itself sufficient to insure it from the last attempt at change, to be at the very time it is so indorsed, repudiated and transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, in plain contradiction to the command they pretend to uphold, in such a piece of unaccountable inconsistency, that did I not know the fact, I should doubt the possibility of such men so far committing themselves. This sacrilegious theory would level the Godhead down to the standard of human frailty, in altering his mind; for even they could never preach that the children of men were willfully misled on high. When the Supreme gave the Ten Commands to Moses for the children of Israel, there was no statement in regard to one of their number being limited to a certain period of time apart from the rest, which would surely have been the case had it been so intended. And therefore, the only position I see to be occupied by those who exclaim "the Jewish Sabbath has been done away with," is the blasphemous one, of supposing the Divine Will changed.

But allowing, for argument, this to be so; why continue to hold up as holy the Ten Commands, when this would show them to be wanting in that which must be considered the Divine essence of perfection—incapability of change? and as this Jewish Sabbath, which the Fourth Commandment enjoins, has been done away with, why not erase it from its original position? Do not continue the mockery of its presence with the other nine. The Fourth Commandment can have no more claim to the title of Jewish than the fifth or sixth possesses; they must be all equal in this respect. They were given at one time, emanating from one source to one people, and if one be Jewish so is the balance; and as no attempt was ever made to thrust them on any community, why have aught to do with them, particularly in the face of such defects as above discovered? I am sure it would be much more consistent; for as long as the ten commands stand as they do, and are venerated as God's Laws, it is out of the question to tamper with one of their number, by saying it has been done away with. What affects one affects the rest: you cannot separate them without attacking the Divine attributes from which they emanate; they were given to be "observed for all time." The moment you limit one to a certain existence in the face of this, you divest the whole of that Divine quality that renders change impossible— Honestus.