« ForrigeFortsæt »
longer in force. With this the constant practice of the Christian church accords : and every argument, which proves Christianity to be from God, establishes this change in the day of sacred rest. “ This is the day which the Lord hath made; we “ will rejoice and be glad in it:” for “ the Stone, " which the builders refused,” on this day arose, that he might, “become the head-stone of the
corner." 2 If indeed God said to the apostles on the mount, as we believe, “ This is my beloved « Son, in whom I am well pleased ; HEAR YE
HIM: and if he, as it is manifest, made known his will to the apostles concerning this change of the day; then the same authority, which appointed the seventh day, for wise and holy reasons substituted the first in its place. But it pleased God that this change, as some others, should be gradually introduced, rather by apostolical example, than by direct injunction; that no needless stumbling block might be thrown in the way of the Jews.
P. 84. 1. 26. “ Type,' &c.—It is no where in scripture said, that' the sabbath is a type of the “millennium :' but, if it were, this would confirm the view which we have of it, namely, that in some respects it was a part of instituted worship. The apostle shews that he considered it as a figure or anticipation of heavenly happiness, when he says, “ There remaineth therefore a rest,” (rabbatiopos, the keeping of a sabbath,) “ for the people of " God."
P. 84. 1. 31. “They have no right to keep holy,' &c.—To have no right to obey, the command of God, seems an uncommon idea or expression.The rest of the paragraph does not require any particular answer. Christians consider the festivals, as well as other parts of the ceremonial law, as abolished; and they judge that the moral part of the fourth commandment is obeyed, by observing the Lord's day, if it be indeed kept as the Lord's day should be.
P. 85. 1. 10. The day of atonement.'—P. 86. 1. 6. ' A little sanctuary.'—It is rather difficult to conceive how many synagogues, widely dispersed through distant countries, could be “a little “ sanctuary." I have no doubt that believing and humble Israelites of old worshipped God by prayer and praise, with acceptance at the synagogues, wherever dispersed: but this was always with a reference to the tabernacle and temple, where alone sacrifices, atoning sacrifices, were appointed to be offered. The NAME and perfections of God, his grace, and providence, and promises, trusted in by a few prudent, pious Jews, was to them as “ a little sanctuary;" when they could not go up to the temple. Their worship was accepted, wherever presented, through the ministrations of the priests, and the atoning sacrifices offered " in the place which God had chosen “ to place his name there." 2 But since the coming of the Messiah, and the rejection of him by the Jews, we Christians must think that the
"Ps. xx. 1. Prov. xviii. 10.
? Is. vi. 13-15.
efficacy of the typical sacrifices has ceased, and that no worship is acceptable from those who reject the substance of all those types.
P. 86. 1. 10. ! Sacrifices.'-We acknowledge that a broken spirit, and some other things, are “ spiritual sacrifices,” of far higher value than any sacrifices of animals burnt on altars, except when these were offered with reference to the great antitype and his atonement: but we consider these spiritual sacrifices as required by the moral law, or as connected with the “gospel of our “salvation.” Indeed, to speak of synagogues, and the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, in answer to the argument that there exists no temple, or any such sacrifices as the ceremonial law prescribed; is merely to evade the conclusion manifestly deducible from the undeniable fact. We simply inquire, Are these the sacrifices appointed by Moses to be offered on the day of atonement ? Are they offered in obedience to the ceremonial law? The answer is, ' In our
dispersions we cannot offer these; and we do what we can.' Be it so: but is not this the very thing that we maintain ; that God, in proof that the ritual law is abolished, has rendered the observance of it, in its most essential requirements, impracticable even to those who would observe it? We allow that the moral law remains in full force: but that the ritual law of Moses, having answered its purpose, is abolished, and in fact cannot be observed. Now to shew that sacrifices required by the moral law, or certainly not appointed in the ritual law, may still be offered
by the Jews, even in their dispersions, confirms instead of answering, our argument.
P. 86. 1. 16. ' Now when,' &c.—It is no part of our present concern, to inquire into the nature of the services, said to be performed by the Jews in the synagogue on the day of atonement: this at least is certain, that they do not, and cannot, perform the sacrifices and ceremonies, instituted in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. The temple, the holy of holies, the high priest; his own sinoffering, the sin-offering for the people; the two goats, and the entrance of the high priest into the holiest, with the blood of the sacrifices, and the burning of incense; these, and other things, essential to the observance of that day, as a part of the ritual law of Moses, and typical of good things to come, have been wholly disused for above seventeen hundred
years. Several parts of the ritual law may be performed by the Jews in their dispersions, and some are attended to: but who can read the books of Moses, especially Leviticus, without a deep conviction, that the priesthood of Aaron's family, the altar, the sacrifices of innocent and clean animals, with the shedding and sprinkling of blood, and the burning of incense; as connected with the tabernacle, the holy of holies, the ark, and the mercyseat; are the most appropriate and central parts of the ritual law ? In fact all the rest had such an intimate connexion with these, that, take away the sanctuary, the priesthood, and the sacrifices; and the whole must appear as broken and scattered fragments of a fabric, once grand, but now
irrecoverably destroyed and shattered to pieces. “ Almost all things were by the law purged with “ blood, and without shedding of blood, there was “ no remission.” From the entrance of sin, till the death of Christ, this principle pervaded every dispensation: but a short time after that event, this was entirely superseded. Christians offer no sacrifices with shedding of blood; and for seventeen hundred years Jews have offered none. This extraordinary change, this sudden cessation of the whole system of blood-shedding, which had continued from the fall of Adam, as connected with acceptable worship of the true God, must surely require some explanation ; and that, however it took place, whether by express divine appointment, as Christians suppose, or by the dispensations of providence, as the Jews must allow: for chance and fortune are out of the question ; in one way or other, “it is the Lord's doing, and it is mar- vellous in our eyes.”
And here, I shall introduce a few remarks on a subject, wholly omitted by Mr. C. namely, the PRIESTHOOD of the promised Messiah. He indeed admits, that priests, as well as kings and prophets, were anointed under the law : (p. 15:) and, if so, they were typically Messiahs; but he waves all further notice of this part of prophecy. Had we. no other evidence of Messiah's priesthood than that to be derived from types, analogy, and intimation of a sacrifice for sin to be offered by the Messiah; the proof might perhaps be rejected as inconclusive. But it is most explicitly predicted of the Messiah, and in a Psalm, which Mr. C. does not deny to belong to him: “ The Lord hath