The Portland daily press., 1878-07-19
THE SUNDAY QUESTION.
Kew. Mr. Days Reply 20 Il Prominent
PhiIanthropist.

Philanthropist is man who reasons the
Bible away and then reasons from the Bible.
"All books are human" Then of course the
scriptures have no divine authority whatever.
The Old Testament is fabulous account"
but the New Testament teaches that it did con-
tain commandments and illustrations which
Christ abolished. Why Christ should have
abolished an old ministration that rested upon
fable simply he doesn't say. As to what CON-
nection there could have been between this old
fable and the gospel so that Christ often quoted
it and appealed to it we are left by the gentle
man to find out as best we can. The simple
fact that the writer denies the divine authority
OF the scriptures is an answer to his position
quite sufficient. The tangled manner in which
he drags through the (un) scrjDtural part of his
argument didposes pretty effectually of his
logic.
We Christians are directed to turn to the
human book, I'd Cor 8. last six verses. Here
we are to find that the apostles taught that
Christ abolished the moral law Notwith-
standing that Christ says 81 came not to de-
stroy Philanthropist compels Paul to teach
that his Saviour did destroy the moral law.
He abolished it, But that the apostle had no
such thought in mind is plain from the chapter
cited and his plain declarations in other places
Compare with this chapter Romans 9TH and
9Th chapters and you get the doctrine here set
forth. His law though glorious minstration,
was not of force to refseao and redeem men, It
was however the greatest moral corrector and
guide men had until Christ came. When He
came men were to look to Him as their Re-
deemer In that sense only that it had been
fulfilled as moral force 10 the coming of hin.
who was the "Law of the spirit of life was it
modified or rather were the people shown a
way The law was provisional dispensation
to prepare the way for the gospel, and was to
remain as rule OF gospel outward conduct
liz was never to lose its place as rule Of life
but found its perfection and highest appica-
ton and was most fully illustrated by the life
and teachings Of Jesus. Paul asked the ques-
ton of minds liable to make the mistake of
Phlanthropist, DO we then make void the
law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we es-
tablish the laao.'' And to doubly guard against
any such perversions of his reasons concerning
the greater glory of grace he repeatedly
holds up the law. Romans. vii, IL, "Where-
fore the law is holy and the command
the law as rule of life he says 1 Cor Z, 10,
"Crcumcsion is nothing and uncrcumcision
is nothing but the keeping of the command
ments of God" That the gospel emphasizes
Matt. 1868, g. Mark 7;S, 8; Luke %; Sc;
James 2; 10; LIST John SO, 8; Rev. %; IA, and
the scriptures quoted; one of these very
strikingly shows that Christ bad not antago-
nized the moral law neither had His disciples
imbibed any such noton.-Luke %; Sc. .And
they returned and prepared spices and ONT
ments and rested the Sabbath day according to
the commandments" Philanthropst says that
there is no condemnation of Sabbath breaking
in the gospel, for the simple reason that the
institution was universally venerated by the
disciples and early Christians. He also teaches
us from the human scriptures that the apostle
rebuked the brethren for observing the Sab.
bath. But the scriptures from which quota
lions are made sustain no such teaching. The
holy days referred to are certain festivals and
national holy days and not the Christian Sab
bath. To suppose that the apostle could have
calmnly condemned the religious observance of
the day on which his Lord arose aud which
the! united in calling the Lords day-or that
he should have stigmatizsd the day itself as
weak and beggarly element is a stretch of
credulity of which ignorance snd infdelity
alone are capable.
If the moral law was abolished then of
course, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not
steal" "Thou shalt not commit adultery.
went with it. That the moral law is abolished
is only the say so of Philanthropist and not
the verdict of Christendom or of the civilized
nations of the earth. All such nations have
taken the decalogue as divine and incorporated
it into their civil jurisprudence and admins
tered it as an invariable rule of equity. In the
scientific argument SO called PhilanthrOpist is
equally unfortunate. He will not claim that
natural religion is an exact science since that
Exact science is complete, like math ematics.
Then the science to which he appeals is mere
theory and hardly deserves the name of
science, being only bundle of theories bound
together with more or less eXactness and
which a fresh discovery may unite any day.
human bible is quite as reliable. This
scientific method as used seems to consist
largely of an attack on the scriptnres-a
glorification of Buddhism and some dogmatism
concerning mature. The moral law exists in
tho n atu of do
special commands or any written book. This
all may be true. The law doesn't depend upon
transcript perhaps though Phlanthropst
may have been no further into the secrets of
God on that thing than the rest of us but
man depends very decidedly on that transcript
for his knowledge of the law-otherwise you
may as we'll argue that the unlettered savage
has revelation quite as reliable and full as
civilized men who hold in their hand the open
book. The law may be contained in nature
but the history of the ages demonstrates that
it is never read there and understood fully
until the written key mas been
furnished. But when the moral
law is found by the Book to be inscribed in
nature, with all her authority nature says obey
the Book! The fact that birds, animals and
plants don't obey moral law, to Which they
are not accountable, ought not to trouble our
friend. But when the animal is taken by ac-
countable man and compelled by moral man to
violate the physical decree on this subject, how
is it? Even PElanthropist admits that the ami
NAL cries out against the man. For he makes
an exception of domestic animals "The day
has never been incorporated into the law be-
cause there ia nothing moral or immoral about
it." "a day is revelation of the earth upon
its axis, and therefore is not sacred" But,
"if you please while all days are in one sense
alike, some days have peculiar sanctity and
significance because of the institutions which
they commemorate or contain. Easter Sunday
is revolution of the earth, but it is venerated
as the d9y of our Lords Resurrection Christ
mas is an axial revolution, but mighty signif-
cant, nevertheless.
Suppose Philanthropist should say on our
anniversary of Independence, This is only
revolution of the earth upon its axisl He
would be told it is not the day we venerate, but
the EVENT.
God sanct6ed the seventh day not BY max
ing it different quality of time, and probably
Philanthropist is the first man who ever
dreamed of such an absurdity but by putting a
Divine inspiration into it; by making it a day
for worship. The Christian Sabbath is sacred
because it contains the "holy convocation;'
because it commentaries the Resurrection;
the Pentecost, the example of Christ and the
disciples; because it contains the original Sab
bath worship and rest sanctifed by the most
signal events of the Gospel.
We have no disposition to impugn the motives
of the gentleman, but wish to suggest that his
statement that the clergymen's motive for their
position on the Sabbath is ito enforce it as
main prop aud support of general scheme
for the maintenance of their domination over
the minds of the people" is uucharitable, if
not silly. He probably made the remark in the
warmth of discussion, and upon reflection will
be heartily ashamed of it.
J.R. DAY.
| THE WATER SUPPLY.-The failure of the
supply the past few days is not as many have
1,r sc = La -