ason
given why we should keep the Sabbath on the seventh day, as directed in
the ninth and tenth verses, then it would be impossible to understand the
simple word of the Lord. Because God has used the words "command _thee_"
to keep the Sabbath, in Deut. v: 15, every other word or form of speech
where God requires the keeping of the Sabbath, is made void by you. What
is the signification of commands? Is it not to appoint, enjoin, and
require by authority? Does it not mean the same as to say "Remember the
Sabbath day and keep it holy."--"_Thou shalt not_ labor or do any work on
the Sabbath day." Exo. xx: 8-10. Once more, God says, "Ye shall keep the
Sabbath." Again, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the
Sabbath--for a perpetual covenant. _For_ in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." xxxi: 14,
16, 17. You see the word command is also used in the 16th verse, for the
fifth commandment, and because it is omitted in Exo. xx: 12, according to
your rule it is not valid. But it is not so--God speaks as positively and
understandingly when he says "_ye shall_," as when he says "I command
you." Again, you say--"If Christ did not virtually annul the fourth
commandment when he began his public ministry, _then the Jews were_ RIGHT
IN KILLING HIM AS A NOTORIOUS SABBATH BREAKER. He travelled about and did
much work on the Sabbath."

In your second article you offer as proof Luke iv: 18-20. There certainly
is no proof of the law's being annulled here. You then quote xvi: 16. "The
law and the prophets were until John," &c. This in your whole argument for
annulling the fourth commandment. Read the next verse, "And it is easier
for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail." Now
don't a law fail when it passes away? Yes. How then can this law fail till
heaven and earth passes? This was virtually showing how impossible it
would be for one tittle of the law of God to fail. Here Jesus reverts to
the seventh commandment, 18th verse, and shows that the law of the
decalogue was what he meant. But he does not say that any law was annulled
here. If you say that any part of the law of Moses was abolished here, you
upset all the foundation that infidelity raises to overthrow the whole law
of God. I wonder that all the second advent editors are not out against
you, for if this be true they have no more foundation for their no-law and
no-commandments of God system