On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Would " have furnished Lord Clarendon with the power of demanding from that Empire thore than an equivalent fof her recent success . mer remarking that no explanation of the motives of the Generals in jcefusnig Omar Pacha his troops are not explained , Mr . Ohpbaat seems to aa ^ nftthat they must have been jrlghtj we say seems , for these are his words , 4 uad we cannot decide whether they are ironical or not : « When , however , we semember the serious consequences which this refusal involved , and the high military authorities from whom it emanated , we can scarcely allow ourselves to doubt the correctness of the decision at wlich they arrived .
Untitled Article
NEW EDITIONS . Robert Blake , Admiral and General at Sea . Based on Family ami State Papers . By Hepworth Dixon . A new Edition , ( Chapman and Hall ) . — Mkssks . Chapman and Hall , have commenced the publication of a " Select Library of Biography and General Literature , " and a new edition of Mr . Hepworth Dixon ' a Life of Admiral Blake leads oil' the series . The paper , the typography , the bright , elegant , substantial cover , vvo commend aa an exam p le to those publishers who send ua soft volumes of dingy paper , dimly printed , in covers that crack and loosen within half-an-Iiour . The new preface is the only part of this volume offered to criticism . In it Mr . Dixon discusses tho question of the relative power of ships and laud battc-
Untitled Article
ment of our era , and may welTIiavebeen employed * by St . John as a phrase in common , acceptance at the time , as months , towns , countries , are designated by nam « s given to th « m by men . But granted that the apostle ' s called it the Lord's-day , where is a rest appointed by God ? It is further alleged ; that Christ having appeared twice to his disciples on this day , it must have beea consecrated to him , and become a day of rest . But this absolutely proves nothing , and is still further weakened by the fact that the ascension did not take place on a Sunday , but on . a Thursday , according even to the orthodox chronologies of the event ; and as to the third appearance related in John sxi ., if any one , observes M . Mellet , pretends that it took place on the first day , all our discussion will be terminated , for the apostles went a fishing on that day .
" I conclude from these remarks , " continues the pastor of Yvorne , " that the appearances of the Lord , very far from manifesting the intention of making Sunday a day of rest , do not even manifest that of making it a day of worship . But I go further , and say that these appearances are favourable to my thesis . Observe that the first took place in the evening ; and it is most likely that this was also the case with the second , since John observes that then the doors were shut as at the first time . It is not probable , though possible no doubt , that they were shut in during the day . On the other side , the two other appearances took place in the morning , and the other certainly in the day time . Now , if it is only on Sunday tfiat the Lord appeared in the evening to his disciples , this , far from indicating a day of rest , seems rather to indicate a day of labour . " But is it clear that Christ appeared to
his disciples on the first day of the week ? Of this there seexns a doubt . The expression , the same day at evening : in . the evening of the Sabbaths according to the context in the New Testament does not leave this infallibly decided—the day , according to the Jewish calendar , commencing at sunset , and not as with us at midnight . _ , However , the limits of our space forbid us from more than throwing out this objection for the consideration of scholars Two other favourite quotations of the Sablmtists we must briefly notice , the one relating to an assembly held by St . Paul at Troas on this day ; the other , to his injunction to the Corinthians to lay by in store the first day of the week according as they were able . Supposing the allegations of the Sabbatists to be correct , the meeting on that day might be attributed to Paul ' s having to depart on the morrow ; and that the faithful were to lay by in
THE WHOLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SABBATAEIANS . The Sunday and 8 * Sabbath . Translated from the Trench « f Louis VictorMellet , PastorofYvorae . Trubner . HVk have tere the result of a conscientious inquiry on the part of a minister xk the Gospel , to ascertain how far the New Testament warrants the observance of the Jewish sabbath as a day of rest . The conclusion he arrives At , after a patient and thoughtful investigation , is that no day of rest has been divinely ordained for Christians . It is long since we have met with a clearer or more logical exposition of a difficult thesis . Ml . Mellet has approached bis task with the heroism of a great mind determined to search out the truth , cost what it would ; and , when he had found it , fearlessly to publish it . " I remember the time when I was a blind Sabbatist , and dared mot allow myself between my duties , sufficiently numerous , a walk for
recreation , or the perusal of a newspaper . I was incessantly haunted by Moses armed with the scourge of the law . " Let not the reader imagine , however , that M . Mellet is a scoffer or an apostate . " I love , I honour the Sunday ; I think it indispensable , ' * be writes , " and I desire with all my lieait that it may be generally employed according to . the spirit of its institution . " With these prefatory remarks , we address ourselves to the argument . ¦ M . Mellet adduces fivearguments to prove that , to a Christian , people , the Sabbath is abolished . Firstly , he shows that it is a ceremonial ordinance ; secondly , that it was given specially to the Children of Israel ; thirdly , that it is abolished with the Decalogue of which it constituted apart 3 fourthly , that nxithe ^ NewTestament not a single passage speaks of aday of rest ; that not one exists which contains the least threat against those who should not observe it , or which makes the smallest allusion to this duty ; and , fifthly , that
the Gospel expressly declares the ancient Sabbath abolished . It would be impossible to go throug . h all the quotations and passages brought forward in Support of each position . The reader must be satisfied with the principal and most convincing . With regard to the Sabbath being a ceremonial ordinance , and given specially to the Jews , it is clearly proved in Exodus , where God is reported to say , "It is a sign between me and the Children of Israel for ? ever ; " and that it was as a ceremony inferior to the' rite of circumcision is clearly manifest from the passage in the New Testament wherein it is Stated that , if the eighth day , the day for circumcising a child , fall on the Sabbath , the Sabbath should be violated rather than the rite should be neglected : " If then a man receive circumcision on the Sabbath day that the law of Moses should not be broken , 8 fc . " If then the superior rite—and were not both established as signs of a covenant ?—be abolished , and no one disputes that it is with respect to Christians , why iaay not the inferior ordinance also cease ?
To suppose that the Law and the Prophets have passed away , and that the Decalogue remains ia ^ force , is essentially irrational . Wherever the law is alluded to in the New Testament , it is as something greater than the Itea Commandments ; this might easily be shown by substituting the word Decalogue in its place . It may be objected , that if the Decalogue be abolished , what becomes of the moral precepts it enjoins ? To this it is easily answered that , of the Ten Commandments , nine are repeated , though not la the same language , several times in the New Testament ; it is only the fourth which is not . There are some who , taking an inferior position with respect to the obligations of this day , imagine that the divine Founder of Christianity , so far from abolishing , has modified the Sabbath : this is nowhere shown in his acts or Ms declarations . He has mot modified it in his declaration that they might do good on the Sabbath-day ; for the strictest Pharisee led his ox and
his ass to water , or drew them out of the pit into which they might have fallen . TRfaen he asserts , The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath , he only declares his authority to allow his disciples to violate the Sabbath , and the words are not addressed to them , but to thecavilling Pharisees , Again , The Sabbath was made for man , and not man for the Sabbath , receives , according to M . Mellet , a very different interpretation to that given to it by scholastic divines . The latter think tliat Christ , by saying for man and not for Jew , wished to show that the Sabbath was instituted for man in general—for all mankind . Now , as the object of Jesus in these words is evidently to justify in the . eyes of the Pharisees his granting this liberty to liis disciples , we cause him ( by the above interpretation ) to make this singular reasoning : It is because the Sabbath is imposed on all men , on the whole of mankind , that Inow authorise my disciples to violate it . The real meaning of the text is evidently that man , who was created a living soul in the image of God , was , in the order of
beings , far more important than the Sabbath , a transient institution which was onl y founded for the good of man . Now Christ having said Man instead of Jew , proves absolutely nothing for the thesis of the Sabbatists ; for though the Sabbath was only given to the Jew , it is not his quality of Jew , it jjs his quality of a human creature , which is regarded in the reasoning of tlw > . passage of the Bible . ^ Another important question connected with this subject is , whether the obligation to observe the first day of th « week is founded either upon scriptural or apostolic authority . The Sabbatists assert that «* the first day of tne ^ cek Jm » g called in the Apocaly pse the Lord ' s-day , it belongs to Jesus aathe Sabbath Uolonga to God , and that , consequently , the ordinance of a jjjg ' Oifest upottthefleventh , w « s transferred for Christiana to this day . " ** T i ** ^ 1 ^ BP ° . ^' on > » wd as such can be of little weight in a question 5 J& T ^ J » . *" « ° nptural ordination of tho Sunday . It may further be ™ i & $ ^ Y ^ *** 2 * *** Lord ' s-day" occurs only once in the New Testament , mtKVfQtk professedly dating nearly a century nfter the
commencestore on the first day of the week , does not explain that they attended any public meeting on that day 3 whereas the interpretation of the passage allowed by such eminent men as Osterwald and Martin , admits the introduction of the words " at home , " lay by " at / home . " The greater number Of the disciples at ' Corinth probably lived from hand to mouth , and the only means they had of forming a collection was by amassing gradually the mites of their earnings . The last point , that the Sabbath is expressly abolished in the New Testament , we must still more summarily dispose of . It will be difficult for the Sabbatists to explain away satisfactorily the following passage from St . Paul ' s Epistle to tie Corinthians : Jesws blotted out the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us .. ... Let no man , therefore , judge you in meat or in drink , or in respect of a holy-day , or of the new moon , or of Sabbaths , which are a shadow of the things to come . " The Sabbath is here expressly inserted , and named amongst the Levitical ordinances abolished ; all the Jesuitry of dogmatism cannot except or restore it . The subject may "well be closed by asking the simple question , if so much importance is to be attached to tliis subject , why is not scripture more explicit , more clear , more indubitable in its declarations ? It is only by distorting passages and inverting their obvious meaning , that the Sabbatists can maintain their ground .
Not content with establishing his position , M . Mellet proceeds to probe two general assertions made by the Sabbatists—namely , that the Sabbath was celebrated from the creation of the world to the time of Jesus Christ ; and , secondly , that it has likewise been so from , the apostles to our day . Is it true that the Sabbath , was celebrated before Moses by the patriarchs ? The frequent explanations which Moses is obliged to make to the Israelites with regard to this ordinance militate directly against the supposition ; and the idea of Adam ' s resting before the fall is preposterous , for if labour was imposed on him as a punishment for liis disobedience , he could previously have had no need of rest : nor is it easily understood why if a positive commandment on the point of the Sabbath had been given him , a second should be enjoined . But granting that Adam and the Patriarchs observed the Sabbath , the idea of our obligation to do so is a mere
assumption ; and that they did so is an idea founded on a series of valueless conjectures . The second assertion—namely , that Sunday has been celebrated as a day of rest from the time of the apostles , is equally well answered and disproved from tho writings of the earl y Fathers . It is clearly shown that they have no passages directly to the point to show that a day of rest was observed ; and it is not till the last quarter of the fourth century that a decided Sabbatist is to be met with . Why , then , it may be asked , do we , who threw off the yoke of tradition at the Reformation , still allow ourselves to be bound by such a poor rag of it ? Into the merits of the institution as a human institution we have not entered ; we have only attempted to show that there is no divine authority for a special day of rest . The fair deduction , then , is that those Christians who , thinking the Scriptures support them , add this n « w burden upon the conscience of themselves and others , are acting in violation of the law of liberty which they profess to enjoy .
Untitled Article
T £ 78 TME > LEADER , [ No . 31 . 7 , Saturday ,
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 19, 1856, page 378, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2137/page/18/
-