SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5276, 9 January 1879, Page 4

SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Mr Sidey's Sermon.— No. 11. In my lecture last Sabbath evening I stated that in Mr Colenso's papers on the Sabbath there was a deep and studied effort to undermine the whole character of a divine revelation. He could onlyhope to deprive the Christian of his Sabbath, as he destroyed those views of God and cf the universe, with which that sabbath is connected. I now proceed to look at this view of his position, as one of the underlying principles of his letters, by which he seeks to carry his object. Under the heading " Historically" he calls special attention to the reasons given for the <n ement of the fourth commandment •> and Deuteronomy. The one otfot^ °t creation, and the other in Exodu» ""» from E Kypt. He was God's rest .. "« equally said to was their delivers <«nd to have says " both statements a*. ' % a asks, be the very words of God } ». ncbeen engraved by him in stone; au. how this great discrepancy is to be * : counted for. He proceeds to answer his own question— "lt is highly doubtful if the Brßt four were written by Moses ; and it is all but absolutely certain that the sth or Deuteronomy, was never written by him." On the one hand he Buppoaes that Mesea forgot what was previously uttered; or, on the other, that he wilfully altered the worda ; and then asks, in either caße, what becomes of the 80-called inspiration, or entire truthfulness of the story. Proceeding on the supposition that Deuteronomy was penned by another hand, who did not regard the commandments as divine, it could be quite easily understood how the alteration was introduced, but then, securing that point so greatly desired, the utter destruction of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He then proceeds, "Moreover, if such a commandment concerning the Sabbath was ao aiven— amid thunderings and earthquakes and lightnings— and with the penalty of death recorded for doing any work, or even kindling a fire in any house on the Sabbath Day, how comes it to pass that the Sabbath was not observed by the Jews. • • But who can possibly believe that such a command as that ever mo- ■ ceeded from the Ever Blessed God i A Command, too, which would appear to hate been powerless to prevent the evil which it proposed tocure.* On these positions he launches out on the noble woric tkt ritodern Biblical criticism is performing, in leading men to regard the Bible with true reverence, as containing the words of a Divine Revelation, without maintaining that it *«"» been dupernaturally protected from all the defects and faults of human productions. On this statement of the case, which l have fairly laid before you, Mr Colenso proceedß all through the papers, insisting j that the law waa never given from Sinai, and " that it was never really binding on the Jews." In answer to this representation, 1 have to say that it presents us with a specimen of the Bnest sophistical writing it has ever been my lot to read— that it exemplifies a man under dreadful blindness of mind, or of very doubtful intention. As to the reasons given for the keeping of the Fourth Commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the forms of the records are not the same. Through the whole of the latter Moses is appealing to what previously happened, in perfect harmony with his purpose in Deuteronomy, which is purely hoßtatory in its character, and was written with the purpose of carrying the people up into obedience. And, from the manner in which he had learned of God's purpose of redemption, from the giving of the Law, and how it was inwoven with God's order in his plans to our world, there was nothing inconsistent with the perfect integrity of Moses, and the guidance of the Divine Spirit, in the Shange of the reason given for the keeping of the Fourth Commandment, in Deuteronomy. If anyone will take the trouble to look at this matter, as stated by Delitzach, a commentator spoken of by Cox (one of •Mr Colenso's important authorities) as one of the moat scholarly and competent now living, he will find it explained with perfect clearness. But this is not the most objectionable part of Mr Colenso's statement. He will not vouch his reputation on the point that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, and yet he proceeds on the ground that it waß not. He will not openly declare that the law was not given from Sinai, and yet he everywhere afterwards speaks of it as an impossibility. He states that the positive penalty, afterwards associated with the Fourth Commandment by the ceremonial law, formed part of the original commandment, which no one knows better than Mr Oolenso was not the case, and that it occupied a totally different ground. He represents the Divine legislation as if it must and ought to have secured God's purpose, whether men were willing or not, thereby ignoring or destroying man's freedom, which none, again, knows better than Mr Oolenao is a setting aside one of the great factors in the ease, and hecrowns the whole, with his demagoguic propensity of asking, " Who can believe it. " In that short passage, on which I have been commenting, there is more of ignorant or of covert sophism, than it has ever been my lot to meet in ten times the Bpace. The tendency of the whole, and of aU that follows upon it, is to perauade men, that the Law was never given from Sinai, and that it is not now obligatory on men — that it is not probable, or not possible, that God should speak to men from Sinai, and, especially, that he did not do it amid the thunderings and lightnings. So far as anything is proved in Mr Colenso's letters, that these things did not happen, as they are Baid to have occurred in the Sacred Record, it might be enough to add that Moses wrote the five books attributed to him, that the taw was given as it is there said to have been given— that man had power in his freedom to resist the commandments and to set them at nought ; and, I submit, the assertions in the one case would have been as good as those in the other. I do not choose to adopt this course. I know that something else is expected of me, and 1 do not shrink from the task, but fairly come up to the question lying at the root of Mr Colenso's utterances on the Scripturea, " Can it be conceived as possible that God would reveal Himself to man at Sinai and in Christ Jesus 1" I need not remind you that it can only be a very cursory statement of this question that I can now present. In itself, it is one of the largest and most intricate problems now occupying the most philoBOphio minds. Yet I hope so to put it as to enable any serious mind to determine its own proper course of action. Should anyone ■'wish for an exhaustive, a profoundly soholarly, and thorough-going discussion of this whole subject, in its most recent lights, let me direct his attention to Ohristlieb's " Modern Doubt and Christian Belief." Can it be oonceived possible, asks Mr Colenso in spirit, that God should reveal Himself to men, as at Sinai, and in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. To this I answer — It depends entirely on the idea you entertain of God, and the view you take of man. There are five great trunk forms of thought which set themselves to account for the universe. There is first Atheism, which denies that there is any God. Of course, on that system, there can be no special interposition of God with the affairs of men. There is secondly Materialism, a kind of twin-sister to Atheism. This merges God in matter, for, according to it, nothing at all exists but matter. There is no such thing as a separate spiritual substance. On this theory, iV is quite impossible that there can be any interposition of God in men's affairs. Then, thirdly, there is Pantheism, which views God as the universe itself. Beyond and outside the world, he does not exist, but only in the world. He is called the intra-mundane, and not the supra-mun-dane, cause of all things. On this theory , it is equally impossible that there should be any revelation of the Deity, such as is spoken of at Sinai. Then, fourthly, there ia Deism, which views God as a personal i

being, but as taking no present active interest in the affairs of our universe. After creating the world at first by His will, and setting it in operation under those laws which he assigned to it. He interfered no more with its operations. He acted toward it as an artificer would to a finished machine, which ■ mechanically pursues its natural course, according to the laws laid down for it, and no longer requires the immediate assistance or interference of its maker — like the shipbuilder and his ship, who, after finishing his vessel, leaves her to herself and her crew. This view of God, and of man, that is based upon it, as a thinking, living, spiritual power, is very different from either of the three preceding. It admits the personality and supra-mundane nature of the Deity, and the creation of the world, by Him, but it denies any continuous active presence of God in the world, or any living interposition in its affairs. The world is emancipated from divine control, and is left to itself. There is no special Providence. Miracles are ■•npossibility. Everything takes place with natural laws, which are an 1^ the universe, and suffer no mharmov.. -^ r . According to this implanted in . fully carried alteration what©**- -ference with theory of the world, >.. • , n . or in out, there can be no intei. •„ man by God, such as that at BftUu. ' the person or work of Christ, IW. fifthly, there is the Biblical, or the Christian, Theistic view of God, Which regards Him as, a personal being, at once above the world, in virtue of Hia nature and essence ; and within the world, in virtue of His wlil and power. It conceives of God, as essentially distinct from the whole created universe, andfromman; and yet, as the ever-living and working One, in his immediate personal relationship to man and the universe, by the doctrine of a universal Divine Providence. It conceives of him as self-existing, " the lam that I am," as a spirit, or thinking being, whose thoughts are very deep, as knowing all things from the beginning, as upholding all things by the word of his power, as living to all life and breath and all things, as taking such a care of his works ! that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without his knowledge. It conceives of God as the Holy one and the Just, who cannot away with iniquity ; as the Lord God, merciful and gracious, moved by the misery and dignity of his creatureß, as asking who will go, and whom shall I send ; and as replying, in the person of the son, "Here am I, send me," as preparing the world for the approach of the Redeemer, speaking, at sundry times and in divers manners, to the fathers by the prophets, and, in the fulness of the times, revealing himßelf to us by his aon, who gave himself, even unto death, that we might live ; as working hitherto, in his innocence, and as still working, and to whom nothing is impossible, not even a miracle. It conceives of him as love, and therefore as continuously communicating himself the power of his spirit to make us perfect unto all good works. "In short, the Biblical Theistic view of God tells us of one who, in a thousand ways, every moment places himself in mutual relationship and active communication with man; who lives and rules not merely above, but in the world ; from whose throne the current of life flows down to all creation, and lightnings and thunders and voices go forth in every direction." . The Biblical Theistic view of uott is also connected with a distinctive conception of man. It sees in him a living, personal, intelligent, and sympathetic being, who is capable of being moved by lofty thoughts and noble sympathies, and of being brought back again to an inherent dignity by the influence of Jehovah s grace and truth. In this view of the divine character and of our human nature, it is not only perfectly possible, but highly reasonable, and beautiful, and lovely, that God should reveal himself to man, as at Sinai, and in the person and work of Christ Jesus. The tidings whioh tell us of this are described as the good news of the glory of the blessed God— as the highest outcome of the divine glory. The answer to be given to the question with which we started depends entirely on the conceptions we form of God and of man. It is not so much a matter of philosophy or science or figures as it is of personal prepossession. But, then, some say the view we form of these matters should be such as will meet and carry man's intelligence and moral sympathy, and meet the system of things with which he is now connected. True, most true, above all things true. It is here that Mr Colenso comes in, and states that the biblical, theistic conception of God and man does not meet what the divine character requires, and what the mind of man and the order of our world demands. He indicates, pretty plainly, that the principle of dependence does not belong to our world ; that the sense of guilt, or of shortcoming in man, has any power to burden the conscience j or that God did anything by preparation or by actual fact, as in the love, life and death of Christ, to lif t him above it. He talks of man as under the law of nature, and working out his destiny by the inherent power of his own energy, within the world of nature's God. la short, he unequivocally accepts the Deistic position. And as a considerable number of educated laymen, especially those who are accustomed to. read somewhat exclusively in the regions of natural science, have a very considerable sympathy with this view, let me ask you to glance at what it scientifically involves. It implies that every special manifestation of God, no matter what, must be denied. All supernatural elements in the Christian belief, even those involved in the person and work of Christ, must be excluded ; and anything in Scripture bearing on these points must be explained away by a reference to natural causes, What a sad and contradictory view this gives üb, of the character and working of God. While the creative process was going on, God was everything, but afterwards he was nothing to it. While the world was forming, God was interested in the work, down even to the smallest details ; but, after it was finished, he retired into his lone solitude and only looks at it as a whole. During creation he wrought miracle after miracle ; creation itself being the greatest of all miracles ; but no sooner was creation finished, than he tied, as it were, His own hand, and made any subsequent act of miraculous power a thing impossible. He could once call worlds into being, but now he cannot by an act of miraculous healing, restore to health the life of a single invalid. What is to be gained by such inconsistencies as these 1 Do they carry a noble tribute to reason or the contrary 1 They seem to me highly irrational. Nor is that all. This truly involves worse consequences than these ; it makes God to forfeit his own divinity. He is the one perfect being, and must always be consistent with himself. How can we conceive him, then, taking two contradictory attitudes to our world Hke labor and rest. He must be ever active, and he must be faithful to the works of his hands. Then man is a creature endowed with moral freedom. He may disturb, and actually does disturb the divine order, at isolated points, by his conduct. Is it to be supposed that God should quietly look on without using any influence to counteract the evil. As the Holy One, God must be conducting the world towards some kind of holiness at is consummation, and yet man is allowed the freedom of opposing this consummation, with all his powers, if every moment it is being counteracted in some way by sin, in the case of numberless individuals. That would involve the loss of divine holiness. And this repose, so unworthy of him, in the face of the continuous developments of the universe, imposed by Deism, would rob him of all his attributes. As Christleib finely says — " There lies the world with all its sins and sorrows, and God. hjwnaelf. may not stir a finger to come

to its help ! Where, in this case, are his goodness and faithfulness, his mercy and pity ? How am I still to look on him as love, when this love has long since ceased to reveal itself to his creatures'? What is to become of his omnipresence if he can never actively manifest it within the sphere of creation? What does this wisdom profit me, and how should omniscience inspire me with dread, if my human life remains unaffected by either 1 In short, the God of the rationalists ceases to be God ; in ceasing to be truly good and living, He has divested Himself generally of all divine attributes. For all life is activity, and the highest life is the highest activity. Hence, a God who reposes in inaction ceases to be a source of life — ceases, in fact, to be God. The theory of Deism is equally inconsistent with any right view of the world in its relation to God. In illustration of this point, I simply quote a few leading sentences from the masterly argument of Christlieb, as I wish as rapidly as possible to pass on to the appli- ] cation of these thoughts to Mr Oolenso's papers. Of the world's relation to God, he says that as the theory of Deism deprives God of his Godhead, so it robs the creature of its creaturely character. The world did not create itself, and yet is supposed able to maintain itself without its creator. Men are constantly talking about the laws of nature, as if they were independent divinities, each absolute lord :f s own domain, and repudiating all mmm ».. "*• even fr° ra God himself. But terfetenvv, Is ws ? Are they things exWhatare thesa*. " and independent of isting by themelolTe>» Hken by itself, the will of God. A law w \t way or is nothing more than a parMetw O r a rule, in or by which a power work* .. movement which runs its course. >YKnout the impelling power, the law can effect nothing. It is God's power that gives the laws of nature their influence. A world so independent of its creator, as Deism would make this state of things to be, would cease to be a creature, and become itself a part of the absolute, a manifestation of Deity. It is here gat Deism often runs into Pantheism, ftat God never can release any created thing, however perfect, from its condition of creaturely dependence; how much less this present world of sorrow and imperfection. Self-maintaining and self-perfect-ing on the part of the world are just as impossible as its self-creation. Its influence on human morals is utterly ruinous, as Ohristlieb again says, it tends to deprive morality of its chief support and standing ground ; religion of its mainspring and lever, and the history ot mankind of the one key required to disclose its enigmas. If God does not trouble himself about us, is not the inference certain that he cannot require us to trouble ourselves much about him. If there be no providence then there is no place for prayer. Man needs and seeks a personal and immediate union with God, and not through nature or moral order only. Man's soul "thirsts for God, for the living God," and it expects communion with himself, not through some outer manifestation of himself, but through the flowings forth of his own Fatherly heart. In this view of the Deistic position— a view that must impress the thoughtful— may I ask what is gained by its acceptance as distinctive from Christian Theism ? The latter supposes God as ever near, and as personally engaged in every gift and bleasing that reaches us. The former seats the Creator outside the doors of his own house, and will not suffer him to exercise any special intervention in its affairs. Which is the better ? Which is the more* satisfactory to one's reason or heart 1 The Deistic seeraß to give to man a greater independence from control, but it is more in imagination than in fact. It will not sustain man's soul in the seasons of its greatest need, as we ministers of Christ often painfully see. It will not nerve a mans arm for duty. It will not carry him aloft into those Bpheres of lofty anticipation which form a man's highest delight. Fancy a Deist putting up the prayer with assurance, '-'Put thou my tears into thy bottle ; are they not all numbered in thy book;" or saying "Behold he that keepeth Israel neither alumbereth nor sleepeth." Plant the two side by side with each other and let your hearts decide the controversy. And yet, those of you who have good memories will easily remember that this very condition of indifference to a present God, and unconcern about the solution of life's greatest mysteries, was the most superlative dignity to which man could attain, as it was pictured by Mr Colenso. The apostles did not think that it was of any very great importance whether man kept the Sabbath or not. He himself had got to the happy position of complete emancipation from all churches, if not from ail worship. He had reached the sublime elevation of mind that could treat the Fourth Commandment, if not the whole moral law, as a superstition. He somehow seemed to manage to save one truth dear to man's heart from the general wreck — the Divine Fatherhood — although how that is reached through nature in any of her moods is a mystery to many, or how it is held in life, apart from its great foundation in Christ Jesus, is a greater. The truth is, Mr Colenso, and thinkers of his type, proceed to draw certain truths from Scripture as if they were the simple products of men's minds, without any revelation from God, and then apply them to nature, whence they never could have originated. In this way he lays hold of the loving Fatherhood of God, and seems to cheer himself with it, It comes home very differently to the heart of the mam who thoroughly enters into Christ, as they hear him saying, "I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to yours because mine ; and where I am there shall alao my Bervants be." Personally I prefer the grounds on which the latter utterance is based a thousandfold over any forms of the former, and so will all men of like precious faith. Christian men are not insensible of the great and important work done by a vigorous Biblical criticism, which guides the minds of men to a sweeter and deeper perception of the truth of God ; nor are they unconcerned spectators of that kind of it which simply seeks to help men to deny everything, with reason or without it, and to build up nothing. The one they welcome as a gift from God ; the other they resist as a ministry of evil. Prize that power, Christian men, which helps you to enter into the truth and to possess the love and grace it reveals. Keep far away from you that influence which would help you to cast off everything specific about the Word of God, as one of the greatest of evils. Mr Colenso, and men of kindred sentiment, may rest quite contented with the assurance that that kind of criticism will never rob the Christian Church of its Sabbath, nor of the word on which it hangs. It may bring no little mischief to man, outside its pale, but it will never hurt itself. Greater is he that is for us than all that be against us. The point that next comes up for our reflection is Historical Criticism and its methods, with Mr Colenso's application of it. This I hope to consider next Sabbath evening.