Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

express injunction, and by nothing short of that; since an express divine command can be abrogated or altered only by the same power and the same distinct revelation by which it was delivered. But not only is there no such apostolic injunction, than which nothing less would be sufficient; there is not even any tradition of their having made such a change; nay, more, it is even abundantly plain that they made no such change. There are indeed sufficiently plain marks of the early Christians having observed the Lord's-day as a religious festival, even from the very resurrection. (John xx. 19-26. Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Rev. i. 10.) But so far were they from substituting this for the Jewish sabbath, that all of them who were Jews, actually continued themselves to observe not only the Mosaic sabbath, but the whole of the Levitical law."

And in a note, page 12;—The recurrence of the Christian festival every seven days (rather than once in a decade, or in a month, &c.,) that is, the adoption by Christians of the division of time into weeks, may easily be traced to the circumstance of their having derived their religion from the Jews, who used this mode of reckoning time.'

And once more, page 22;— The Church has not power to ordain anything contrary to God's word: so that, if the precepts relative to the ancient sabbath are acknowledged to remain in force, then the observance of the first day of the week instead of the seventh, becomes an unwarrantable presumption. This, therefore, is a case in which (unless we will consecrate two sabbath-days in each week) we must absolutely make our choice between the law and the gospel.'

On these quotations I shall have many remarks to make: but in the first place must notice the inconsistency of the words last quoted, when compared with the other quotations. We must absolutely make our choice between the law

and the gospel.' This can have no other meaning than that we are to make choice between the sabbath established by the law, and the Lord's-day established by the gospel. Therefore, by this sentence he acknowledges the Lord'sday to have been established by the gospel equally as the sabbath was established by the law, which in the other quotations he strenuously denies: for he denies that the Lord's-day was established either by our Lord or his apostles. This shows the carelessness and want of due consideration with which his Grace has endeavoured to overturn the sabbath, which most Christians consider a main support of the Christian religion.

His Grace, in the above quotations, leaves the sabbath no support whatever, and the Lord's-day none but the weak support of the church. But what support has the Lord'sday from the church? gated, we must suppose weeks is abrogated also. the church might as well have fixed the observance of the resurrection once in every decade, or in every month, as in every week. And I And I may also add, that if his Grace's principles be correct, (which I deny,) the church may do so still.

If we suppose the sabbath abroalso that the division of time into

And as his Grace well observes,

In answer to the apostles not having left any injunction as to the change of the day, I have first to observe, that if the observance had been, by any command, invariably fixed to that very day, upon which the Jews observed it, then we might have expected an express injunction. But I have already proved that there was no such command; but, that not only the spirit, but even the letter of the law, allowed of the observance of a seventh, and did not bind to the observance of the seventh: therefore, such an injunction was unnecessary. And now, having shown that it was unnecessary, I proceed in a few words to say that it would

have been highly imprudent. While the Jewish state and religion lasted, it was the duty of the apostles and disciples to make use of every opportunity of preaching to the Jews. Instead of giving up those opportunities which their religion afforded, they were to endeavour to make new opportunities, and preach both in season and out of season. Now if they had immediately proclaimed, that the Lord'sday, on the first day of the week, had superseded the sabbath, and that Christians were to consider the latter abrogated, then the opportunity of meeting the Jews at the time of divine worship, and of preaching to them, would have been altogether lost: and, as it was not necessary that they should do so, they did not adopt a course which would have been highly imprudent, and very absurd: which would not only have lost the best opportunity, but would have so offended the prejudices of the Jews, (may I be pardoned the expression when I say,) their best prejudices, and have prevented them from listening on any other occasion; and would thus have closed the door against their conversion. Surely if it were ever allowable to be "all things to all men, that by all means they might gain some," the attending the synagogues on the sabbath-days stood pre-eminently forward in the list of such allowed occasions. It was, therefore, necessary that the transfer of the sabbath should be gradually introduced among Christians after their conversion without any public injunction or proclamation; and that the Jewish sabbath should be allowed to continue so long as the Jewish state and polity continued: and, indeed, so long as these did continue, any attempt to oppose, what was considered so essential a part of that polity, would have been an idle attempt, would have produced much evil, and no good: would even have had a bad effect upon Christians, and have led them to suppose that the sabbath was to have been abrogated altogether. But as it was also to make

an essential part of Christianity, and the particular day of observance being (with all due deference to our English article) a matter of secondary consideration, the complete and open transfer was deferred until all means should have been tried for the conversion of the Jews,-until after the destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the incorrigible should have been accomplished. The conduct of the apostles in this, and in all their proceedings, was marked by consummate prudence and sound strong sense, holding the sober and even tenor of its way, equally removed from fanaticism and enthusiasm on the one side, or ceremonial formalism on the other. Such conduct can be better interpreted and appreciated when viewed by the clear sight of men possessed of sound common sense and prudence like themselves, than when seen through the magnifying glass of the enthusiast, or the diminishing lens of the near-sighted, philosophic formalist. The reasons of the apostles for making the change gradually are well illustrated by the following facts with which Heylyn has furnished me. 'During the early period of Christianity in the East, on account of the number of the converted Jews of the dispersion, the Jewish sabbath also continued to be observed: but in the Western church, where there were no Jews, the Lord's-day soon superseded the sabbath.' From the various circumstances he mentions, it appears clearly that the observance of one day in seven continued in unbroken succession, gradually gliding from the seventh to the first, when its incorporation with the Lord's-day became complete.

I must here say a few words on part of the above quotation from his Grace's pamphlet. Such a change would certainly have been authorized by their express injunction, and by nothing short of that; since an express divine command can be abrogated or altered only by the same power,

and by the same distinct revelation by which it was dislivered.' In writing this passage, his Grace did not sufficiently consider the great difference between the two dispensations, their laws, their promulgations, and their sanctions. Heb. xii. 18-24;-"We are not come unto the mount that might be touched,* and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words, which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more. (For they could not endure that which was commanded and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned or thrust through with a dart: and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) but we are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the general assembly and church of the first-born,+ which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of the

* There seems to be a contradiction in this passage, which says that the mount might be touched, whereas below, as well as in Exodus, strict injunctions were given that it should not be touched by man or beast; but the Greek words both translated touch in the 18th and 20th verses, are totally different; that in verse 20 means "touched by God, or smoking," as in Psalm civ. 32. “ He toucheth the mountains, and they smoke."

[ocr errors]

† Πρωτοτόκος literally signifies 'first-born," but in Greek, in legal or precise language it signifies, "heir," because the first-born was heir. The sense here, and in some other passages in the New Testament, is injured by the literal translation, most particularly Colos. i. 15, πρωττονικος πασης κτίσεως is translated "first-born of every creature." It ought to be "heir of every created thing," for it is immediately added, "through him were created all things, in heaven, and on earth, visible and invisible." Our translation would make Christ the first-born of his own creation, which is absurd.

« AnteriorContinua »