It is not unimportant to state farther in regard to the change of day from the last to the first day of the week, that while strong reasons existed for it in the mighty change that had been introduced by the perfected redemption of Christ, no special stress appears, even in the Old Testament Scripture, to have been laid on the precise day. Manifestly the succession of six days of worldly occupation, and one of sacred rest, is the point chiefly contemplated there. So little depended upon the exact day, that on the occasion of renewing the Sabbatical institution in the wilderness, the Lord seems to have made the weekly series run from the first giving of the manna. His example, therefore, in the work of creation, was intended merely to fix the relative proportion between the days of ordinary labour and those of sacred rest-and with that view is appealed to in the law. Nay, even there the correspondence is closer than is generally considered between the Old and the New; for while the original Sabbath was the seventh day, in regard to God's work of creation, it was man's first. He began his course of weekly service upon earth by holding Sabbath with his Creator; much as the church was called to begin her service to Christ on his finishing the work of the new creation. Nor, since redemption is to man a still more important work than creation, can it seem otherwise than befitting, to a sanctified mind, that some slight alteration should have taken place in the relative position of the days, as might serve for a perpetual memorial, that this work also was now finished. By the resurrection of Christ, as the apostle shews, in 1 Cor. xv. 20, sq., a far higher dignity has been won for humanity, than was given to it by the creation of Adam; and one hence feels, as Sartorius has remarked (Cultus, p. 154), that it would be alike unnatural and untrue, if the church now should keep the creation-Sabbath of the Old, and not the resurrection-Sabbath of the New—if for a looser observance of the day, especially in regard to those situated in large towns -but still holds the necessity of a well-spent Sabbath to produce and maintain a due sense of religion, and attributes the low state of religion in Germany very much to their neglect of the Sabbath. He justly says, the strict observance of Sunday "is the application of principle to practice by a whole people; it is the working of their religious sense and knowledge upon their habits; it is the sacrifice of pleasures, in themselves innocent-and these are the most difficult to be sacrificed-to a higher principle than selfindulgence; such a population stands on a much higher moral and intellectual step than the population of the Continent," &c. she should honour, as her holy-day, that day on which Christ was buried, and not rather the one on which he rose again from the dead. It was on the eve of the resurrection-day that he appeared to the company of the disciples, announced to them the completion of his work, gave them his peace, and authorized and commissioned them to preach salvation and dispense forgiveness to all nations in his name (Luke xxiv). So that if Adam's Sabbath was great by the divine blessing and sanctification, Christ's Sabbath was still greater through the divine blessing of peace, grace, and salvation, which he sheds forth upon a lost world, in order to re-establish the divine image in men's souls, in a higher even than its original form, and bring in a better paradise than that which has been lost. In conclusion, we deem the law of the Sabbath, as interpreted in this section, to have been fully entitled to a place in the standing revelation of God's will concerning man's duty, and to have formed no exception to the perfection and completeness of the law: (1.) Because, first, there is in such an institution, when properly observed, a sublime act of holiness. The whole rational creation standing still, as it were, on every seventh day as it returns, and looking up to its God-what could more strikingly proclaim in all men's ears, that they have a common Lord and Master in heaven! It reminds the rich, that what they have is not properly their own-that they hold all of a superior-a superior who demands that on this day the meanest slave shall be as his master -nay, that the very beast of the field shall be loosed from its yoke of service, and stand free to its Creator. No wonder that proud man, who loves to do what he will with his own, and that the busy world, which is bent on prosecuting with restless activity the concerns of time, would fain break asunder the bands of this holy institution. For it speaks aloud of the overruling dominion and rightful supremacy of God, which they would willingly cast behind their backs. But the heart that is really imbued with the principles of the Gospel, how can it fail to call such a day the holy of the Lord and honourable? Loving God, it cannot but love what gives it the opportunity of holding undisturbed communion with him. (2.) Secondly, because it is an institution of mercy. In per to men. fect harmony with the Gospel, it breathes good-will and kindness It brings, as Coleridge well expressed it, fifty-two spring days every year to this toilsome world; and may justly be regarded as a sweet remnant of paradise, mitigating the now inevitable burdens of life, and connecting the region of bliss that has been lost with the still brighter glory that is to come. As in the former aspect there is love to God, so here there is love to man. (3.) Lastly, we uphold its title to a place in the permanent revelation of God's will to man, because of its eminent use and absolute necessity to promote men's higher interests. Religion cannot properly exist without it, and is always found to thrive as the spiritual duties of the day of God are attended to and discharged. It is, when duly improved, the parent and the guardian of every virtue. In this practical aspect of it, all men of serious. piety substantially concur; and as a specimen of thousands, which might be produced, we conclude with simply giving the impressive testimony of Owen: "For my part, I must not only say, but plead, whilst I live in this world, and leave this testimony to the present and future ages, that if ever I have seen anything of the ways and worship of God, wherein the power of religion or godliness hath been expressed,-anything that hath represented the holiness of the Gospel and the Author of it,―anything that looked like a prelude to the everlasting Sabbath and rest with God, which we aim, through grace, to come unto, it hath been there, and with them, where, and among whom, the Lord's day hath been held in highest esteem, and a strict observation of it attended to, as an ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ. The remembrance of their ministry, their walk and conversation, their faith and love, who in this nation have most zealously pleaded for, and have been in their persons, families, parishes, or churches, the most strict observers of this day, will be precious to them that fear the Lord, whilst the sun and moon endure. Let these things be despised by those who are otherwise minded; to me they are of great weight and importance." (On Heb. vol. i. 726, Tegg's ed.) SECTION FOURTH. WHAT THE LAW COULD NOT DO-THE COVENANT-STANDING AND HAVING now considered what the law, properly so called, was in itself, we proceed to inquire into the ends and purposes for which it was given, and the precise place which it was designed to hold in the divine economy. Any misapprehension entertained, or even any obscurity allowed to hang upon these points, would, it is plain, materially affect the result of our future investigations. And there is the more need to be careful and discriminating in our inquiries here, as from the general and deep-rooted carnality of the Jewish people, the effect which the law actually produced upon the character of their religion, was to a considerable extent different from what it ought to have been. This error on their part has also mainly contributed to the first rise and still continued existence of some mistaken views regarding the law among many Christian divines. There can be no doubt, that the law held relatively a different place under the Old dispensation, from what it does under the New. The most superficial acquaintance with the statements of New Testament scripture on the subject, is enough to satisfy us of this. "The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But there is one point-the first that properly meets us in this department of our subject-in regard to which both dispensations are entirely on a footing. This point has respect to the condition of those to whom the law was given, and which, being already possessed, the law could not possibly have been intended to bring. So that an inquiry into the nature of that condition, of necessity carries along with it the consideration of what the law could not do. Now, as the historical element is here of importance, when was 1 it, we ask, that this revelation of law was given to Israel? Somewhere, we are told, about the beginning of the third month after their departure from the land of Egypt. Hence, from the very period of its introduction, the law could not come as a redeemer from evil, or a bestower of life and blessing. Its object could not possibly be to propose any thing which should have the effect of shielding from death, rescuing from bondage, or founding a title to the favour and blessing of heaven-for all that had been already obtained. By God's outstretched arm, working with sovereign freedom and almighty power in behalf of the Israelites, they had been brought into a state of freedom and enlargement, and under the banner of divine protection, were travelling to the land settled on them as an inheritance, before one word had been spoken to them of the law in the proper sense of the term. And whatever purposes the law might have been intended to serve, it could not have been for any of those already accomplished or provided for. It is of great importance to keep distinctly in view this negative side of the law-what it neither could, nor was ever designed to do. For, if we raise it to a position which it was not meant to occupy, and expect from it benefits which it was not fitted to yield, we must be altogether at fault in our reckoning, and can have no clear knowledge of the dispensation to which it belonged. It is in reference to this, that the apostle speaks in Gal. iii. 17, 18: "And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise." The Jews had come in the apostle's time, and most of them, indeed, long before, to look to their deeds of law as constituting their title to the inheritance; and the same leaven of self-righteousness was now beginning to work among the Galatian converts. To check this tendency in them, and convince them of the fundamental error on which it proceeded, he presses on their consideration the nature and design of God's covenant with Abraham, which he represents as having been "confirmed before of God in Christ," because in making promise of a seed of blessing, it had respect pre-eminently to Christ, and might justly be regarded in its lead 1 1 Ex. xix. 1. |