The Sabbath and Lord’s Day
By Editor
THE SABBATH AND LORD'S DAY, BY WM. G. SPRINGER.—Such is the title of a pamphlet which Bro. Cornell has just sent us from Iowa. From the short discussion we had with Wm. G. Springer on the subject of the Moral Law in Review Vol. xiv—a discussion which we felt compelled to close on account of a lack on his part of those qualities which should characterize a fair and honorable disputant—we could easily anticipate the nature and course of his argument in the present effort; and in perusing the pamphlet we find our anticipations too fully realized. We are sorry to say that in beginning, middle and end, in root, trunk and branch, it is founded on perversion—perversion of our position, perversion of Scripture and perversion of matter of fact. Indeed it is only in the baleful and murky atmosphere of misrepresentation and false issues that the no-law system can find matter suited to its taste upon which to feed and fatten. The present effort is only another exemplification of the language of Paul when he says, “For the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. viii, 7. It is only when the carnal mind is taken away by the Spirit of God that we can join in the animated exclamation of the apostle Paul, “I DELIGHT in the law of God after the inward man.” Here is the difficulty of our position, and here only. What we have to do is not merely to show from plain Scripture and fair reasoning the immutability and perpetuity of God’s holy day, it is to overcome the carnal mind, and induce men to resist their natural proclivities to sin, to yield up their hearts in love to God, and to engage in his pure worship, contrary to all the natural inclinations of the fallen sons of Adam. Whoever, with the apostle Paul, delights in the law of God after the inward man, will never put forth such strenuous efforts to show that it is abolished, abrogated, taken out of the way, &c., as are incessant with our antinomian friends. And what is the secret of all this trouble? It is, as we have often shown, the Sabbath, and that only. Every other command of the decalogue is good for this dispensation except the fourth. But that hateful Sabbath, that hateful Sabbath, we cannot endure; away with it, crucify it, nail it to the cross, abrogate it, trample upon, despise, insult, abuse it. Such seems to be the spirit that reigns in their hearts. But do they propose to do without a Sabbath entirely? Oh, no; they want a Sabbath, but they make one of their own; and that suits them better. By their course they say more plainly than they could say it in words, “Lord, we will have a day of rest; that we find to be proper and necessary; but we won’t keep the day you designate!” Let such remember that not every one that saith unto him, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but only such as do the will of their Father in heaven. It is not our object to enter into an extended notice of the work under remark. It contains no new arguments. Its positions are all met in our published works on the Sabbath question. But one can hardly read it without experiencing an almost uncontrollable impatience to correct its misstatements and expose its sophistry; and perhaps, it being a special attack upon us, a direct and counter effort should be made against it. Of this our friends can best judge who will have an opportunity to witness its working with that well-defined class among whom it will have influence.