The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

THE SABBATH

PART I.
Sir,--Although Mr. Bardsley has not conde-
scended to answer me, I am somewhat consoled
by the appearance of Dr. M`Neile's pamphlet,
which I have very carefully read, and which--to
use an expression of Panurge—l have found "very
Pretty, and very strange."
Perhaps I cannot speak more highly of it than
to assure Dr. M`Neile that, in point of style,
argument, and illustration, it is well worth binding
111,1) with that celebrated sermon which compared
"Ince Albert to our Saviour ! And yet I must
"13 thyself disappointed, for when the copia
tierborunt infausta is of no avail, it strikes me that
tit-it:abridge scholars are more powerful than
ablin divines,
nobler and that Mr. Bardsley is the
14 opponent.
::it seriously_dropping all irony, for the
flue is too grave—it is a sad sight to see how
the neY of expression will pass for depth of
°tight, and how scanty learning may take shelter
illider amplitude of pretension. Was a pamphlet
elvellr, be weak than this ? Argument is
Rearii-y`eit Y hypothesis. A theory is tossed
fact- -,' and presently becomes incontrovertible
t '---- Le believe less than Dr. il'Neile is unbelief;
th°ebeelliteve with him, (and there is some truth in
Dr Pitr,res,sicic), " is child-like faith."
• ''''Neill commences his pamphlet by ex
pressn„,
.11tp, 6 UlB " child-like faith" in the literal
1 ---Prettion
of the book of Genesis.—The whole
roatte i
qUestiro 's
SO extremely immaterial to the real
Sabbat-bn at issue (viz.: whether the Jewish
to th '-`ll-aa transferred by the first Christians
to argues day of the week), that I do not care
if , with Dr. M`Neile on this point. Of course
there is any y spiritual edification in ignoring
eli°4lB book of nature in deference to the first
caaPter
A of Genesis—it is right enough to do so. I
rub- ceraPara,tively little about it. Dr. M`Neile
an-ir fight it out with Sedgwick, Lyell, and the
Against
animals.
protes Dr. M`Neile's next assumption I must
ilooliditia Probable "—he is speaking of the world before
kthee
the
4.1 . that,
," amongst their other iniquities which provoked
ond
tile v?„4l;,hutY to anger, and eventually brought a deluge,
1V ow the neglect of this (the Sabbath) was one.
this°,!' in the first place, Dishes`l only thinkds
BeconTbable because he it certain ; an
it
dees-,-,.Y.,.! it is extremely improbable, because.th
Rani,— hat
that (Genesis vi. 1-4) we know,wi
down" neertainty, what sins they were that drew
Sabbath-atre's displeasure, and we also know that
This--urea --
king is not among them.
in th,, Probability of Dr. M'Neile's is strengthened
„,' tn. ost ingenuous manner :
bet_lhis is
rendered only more probable by the contrastof
4;lra the wide spread wickedness and the character
do
read ofdoah was an exception, and in his history we
~
See 11.ecognition of this observance of the seventh day."
for S °vv D_ M'Neile substitutes " seventh day"
abbath-
-114,1t! is in the fact, familiar to us all, of the missionsofena
days.,, Ark Ark after seven days, and a;ain after seven
Sabha Sabb Fn this rests the proof that Noah kept the.
this :In 1 He takes no notice of the fact that 11
Prov-rgatnent prove anything, (which I deny), i 4,, °s that Noah also desecrated the Sabbath.
c alp
PpeCilliar
- forgets that if any number of days has any
forty „, -,llnportance in the history of the Deluge,
Iyu'llu not seven is the number.
Aftlb-nthi this puerile argument is based upon a
"i---'.e mistake.
arise , enoe could this recognition of the seventh day h.av,e,
1.1178 There was nothing in external nature to teach rt.
of ti,its there not 9 Did Dr. M`Neile never hear
thai-e quarters o ? and was he not aware
PletelleY are as distinctly observable as the corn-
lunation
Inla I ••
ree 7 a se inThrro. him that the ancient Hindoos
dn egnised a week of Ye werehatsevthene
kereabie l' -
named' in sSeyaennSeri t days,
afteran themoon,
t
the zghts in in
sun, the and
should planets. This last point I am anxious
f
haven„ he noticed, as I am terribly afraid of
o
tta,.ng, hereafter, to confute some hypothesi.s of
in
thevon or _
1 Pia antediluvian Sabbath lingering i .
8104 "'St, but quite unknown till the present occa
Threquired it.
eeneletisi.,f°llews an argument so remarkable, and so
inestil -"e' against Dr. M`Neile, that I feel
he p Rrateful for the strong emphatic way in which
eceplltttahit• Every one of the ten commandments,
as 130 e observance of the Sabbath, is mentioned
Sabbatr before the time of Moses; therefore,. the
ttriki , was known. Dr. M'Neile's logic is too
48 111% I°' me to dwell upon it—it is best left to
Ile Zherned simplicity !
obsery en asserts—what nobody denies—that the
few at amnee of the Sabbath was enjoined upon the
all
eP• -ennt Sinai• Finally, he modestly makes
tkble ~it 0 tile of the commandments of the "first
tOf theca a Companion to St . Paul's epitome
slble., - commandments of the " second
46 law on these, he adds, " hang all
4: bitt -
c,,and the prophets." Dr. M.Neile
611 eXpere.,";°llol when " a Churchman" attributes
-"steadr-:suan to one part of the New Testament
re teal another. May I venture to suggest, most
I,,,ll;_,_"ndlY, that Dr. M`Neile read the passage
tIleg'114)re"c11148, " On these hang all the law and
kathew°Pbets: —and that he also refer to St.
At thi' "ix, I-7, 18.
entered a Pint a new branch of the question is
Part of the Was the keeping of the Sabbath
or was et moral Was
law, binding upon all the world 9
111,1)°4 thel- 3, Part of the ceremonial law, binding
11410 8 -,wS 01149 The answer appears to us
rartsll;,f ,I:he. moral law is written upon the
1.4%01114n5' ‘rentile as well as Jew. Greeks and
sltirtefil.tha' tn° less than the children of Israel,
,naurder, and robbery, and adultery were
Peeldia
tot observance of the Sabbath was
cini4Pen r he Jews. It lasted while the old
v,hris,.B4tion asted. It was abrogated whin the
law ' Proclaim d - , and
Church instituted the two Sacraments of his
cub ere Dr.r,u"t a ne, finding it necessary for a
111e'callledrgumeent attempts to prove that the,
rai%ed
n'moral observance of the Sabbath, was
ehSence I:: With certain rites which were, in their
ether ' 'erernonal.
tit. must endure.
la roughout The one was transient—the
your " Ye shall kindle no fire
.B_cot.,_ .112 habitations on the Sabbath day,"
4,_chou ;Wart% eat, we learn, no longer binding.bi-
i..4.°,11. resting on no manner of work," is an 0 i
r,re.itrary Er., . us all. Such a distinction isbmogst
4 ApNeir inadmissable. But suppose it e. as
ny 4,1 e States • suppose that without doing
1 cle antler f work', the household-' fire is kindled,
keehilY entirely that
theca' er dream the most rigidSabbatarian
se ao long • •
s Jews. , s of keeping, the moral Sabbath of
as the Sabbatarian employs a
-ertaini Or uses a carriage, or cooks a dinner, so
inent, 0.,,Y does
he violate the Fourth Command-
, It wa-aexPiained in the 20th chapter of Exodus.
t"reaks the moral Sabbath that our Saviour
ued and he tells the sick man to take up his
jlisti-.`nt Walk. It was this moral Sabbath he
the
e`" his
(11SCipieS in breaking, when they pluck
Which" of corn Itthis
fao_rta
ecthe
_randier' oral Sabbath on
was nz
..
authorises works of mercy to be pei
meelaros., .-Lt Was of this moral Sabbath that he
St. 11._ hilt
the Lord.
often hmii a statement from Colossians ii. 16, has
often been quoted in this controversy—" Let no
it 110 r -"ge You in meat or drink, or in respect to
i Y da
fig-4 a. ate Y, °r new moon, or of the Sabbaths." It
urn rebuke to those who do judge, and judge
the kenurn: ercifully, all who differ with them as to
rebuke-Ding of the Sabbath. Dr. M'Neile feels the
aside ~ and endeavours to turn the point of it
her, t.l.l"ecause " Sabbaths" is in the plural num-
eretnc. Apostle was speaking of the Jewish
leann„n4les, and not of the Fourth Commandment.
40 far'f' es
t inyself to stigmatise criticism so false,
Passar, etched. The true interpretation of this
presaP__e is confirmed by Justin Martyr, who ex-
a,,„ V states that the Sabbath,circumcision
h, Mcrine . as
13 •e, was abolished by Christ.
t, But it _ _
..
Rathers " useless to refer Dr. M`Neile to the
observanee, a ' ne
one and all and all they repudiate Sabbath
One and all they repudiate Sabbath
e, atal will they be repudiated

by the Evangelicals of to-day. For the sake,
then, of those benighted folks who care for truth
more than party, I would say that no passage of
the early Christian writers can be tortured into a
belief of the perpetual morality or binding obliga-
tion of the fourth commandment ; they assert
that the Lord's Day is kept (not as a Sabbath,
but) in honour of the resurrection, and they
declare that the Lord's Day is a day of rejoicing
and of festival.

When, therefore, Dr. 111`Neile, after declaring
that the Jewish ceremonial was repealed, goes
on in very strange English to assert that the moral
commandment remained, he simply asserts on his
own responsibility what the early Fathers emphat-
ically denied.* . .

Dr. M'Neile's statement is :
It (the moral commandment) had preceded, and it
now survived the parenthesis, (!) of the Jewish ceremonial ;
and the inspired apostles transferred the observance of it,
from the seventh to the first day of the week.

This is straightforward, and uncompromising.
There is only one little difficulty in the way of
adopting this view,—there is not the slightest
evidence for it. Even our author seems to feel
the ground tremulous beneath him.
We freely grant that we have no direct precept in the
New Testament, totidem verbis (in so many words) for this
transfer, but are left to gather it by fair inference, from
what had been written before concerning the seventh day,
and what we find written concerning the first day of the
week.

We are hardly, perhaps, so grateful for the toti-
dem verbis concession, as we should be. But as for
the "fair inference," totidem verbis we deny it.
Indeed, Dr. I\T•Neile disproves it for us. He
continues :

The first day of the week is a fruitful theme in the new
testament. It is spoken of
I. As the day of Christ's resurrection.
11. As the day of Christ's post-resurrection visits to His
disciples.
111. As the day of Pentecost.
IV. As the day of the assembling of the infant apostolical
church.

V. As the day of money gatherings for the poor.
VI. As the day of the beloved disciples' vision.
Now, remember, we know the moral observance
of the two days to be the same, by what is said of
them both. Will Dr. I\l`Neile show me a single
passage in the Old Testament in which any one of
these distinctive peculiarities of the Lord's Day is
predicated of the Sabbath? And then will Dr.
M`Neile point me out a single passage in the
New Testament in which the Lord's Day is called
" the Sabbath," the " Day of Rest," or the " Day
enjoined by the fourth commandment ?"
When he shall have accomplished this, we will
begin to talk of fair inference.
Of the Lord's Day, and its observance, I need
not speak, though our author, most unnecessarily,
fills up several pages in elaborating the different
heads he had previously given. No Christian, I
suppose, denies that our Lord rose from the dead
upon the Sunday, or that upon it descended the
Holy Spirit, or that the other incidents which are
recorded as happening upon it, are true and
indisputable. All this, however, is nothing to the
main question. Is Dr. M‘Neile—as the plover
draws one from her nest—drawing us away
from too close an examination of that inferential
argument of his ? Or is it that he judges that;
because we do not keep the Jewish Sabbath, we
do not understand the Christian Sunday, and he,
in the plenitude of his goodness, would enlighten
us ?

The first part of the pamphlet here comes to an
end, with some further misinterpretation of St.
Paul, some more inconclusive and illogical reason-
ing; and the declaration that if we believe that
the Sabbath is a permanent moral obligation—and
that if, believing this, we believe that St. Paul
thought the-Sabbath need not be kept, we are
Antimonians !—which is extremely possible.
With one more instance of Dr. I\l'Neile's accurate
biblical knowledge, culled from this part of the
pamphlet, I conclude for the present.
" Had man continued holy as at first, doubtless, after the
example of his Maker, he would have continued in a state
of sir days salubrious labour, followed by one day of
refreshing and devotional rest."

May I commend to Dr. M'Neile the 33rd page
of his own pamphlet ? May I ask him whether
" labour" was not the punishment for Adam's sin—
"in the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread ?"
May I ask him how he dares to venture upon
another perversion of the Bible ?
Before long I hope to review the second part of
this pamphlet. Dr. M'Neile will probably decline
to answer me, and will plead the old excuse
" anonymous." I shall have something to say on
this point when next I write. Meanwhile I
admire the ingenuity of a plea which can cover
so usefully lack of argument and difficulty of
answer.—Au revoir. B.

*Justin Martyr Dia. with Trypho. Ignatius ad. Mag.,
c. ix, ; Tertullian de Idol, xiv., de. Cor. Mil. iii. ; Clemens
Alex. Strom, vii.