The Divine and Perpetual Obligation of the Observance of the Sabbath, with Reference more Especially to a Pamphlet Lately Puvblished by the Rev. C.J. Vaughan, D.D., Head Master of Harrow School, Entitled “A Few Words on the Crystal Palace Question” — John Shaqi
The Divine and Perpetual Obligation of the Observance of the Sabbath, with Reference more Especially to a Pamphlet Lately Puvblished by the Rev. C.J. Vaughan, D.D., Head Master of Harrow School, Entitled “A Few Words on the Crystal Palace Question”Perowne, John
Religion
The Divine and Perpetual Obligation of the Observance of the Sabbath, with Reference more Especially to a Pamphlet Lately Puvblished by the Rev. C.J. Vaughan, D.D., Head Master of Harrow School, Entitled “A Few Words on the Crystal Palace Question”
Perowne, John
Sabbath -- Biblical teaching; Vaughan, C. J. (Charles John), 1816-1897. A few words on the Crystal Palace question
{16} We are reminded of certain expressions in some of the Fathers, from
which it is inferred, that they did not deem it necessary to keep the
Lord’s day so strictly as we contend it ought to be kept; and that
Constantine passed a decree permitting persons in the rural districts, to
get in their crops on Sunday, should the weather be such as to threaten
their destruction or serious injury. Without discussing the propriety of
the particular edict in question, we deem it a sufficient answer, that
the Bible, and not the Fathers or Constantine, is our rule of faith and
practice. Many erroneous notions were held by the Fathers; and no one
will pretend that either Constantine or the church generally in his days,
was so correct in practice, as to present a perfect model for us to
follow.
We are also reminded, that there were some in the early church—slaves,
for instance—who could not keep the Lord’s day; and these, it is argued,
would rather have died than have desecrated it, had they considered it of
the same obligation as the command to abstain from idolatry. To this it
may be replied, that the question is not what certain individuals
thought, or what was the practice of certain communities, but what the
word of God teaches. There is, however, a marked distinction between the
two cases here supposed, arising from the difference between the two
commandments. Many instances may occur, in which it is physically
impossible to obey the letter of some of the commandments. Thus,
poverty, sickness, or other providential impediment, may incapacitate the
most obedient child from ministering to the wants of his parents. In
like manner, bodily infirmity, imprisonment, or other providential
restraint, may prevent the observance of the fourth commandment in the
letter, while the heart longs to honour God’s holy day, and to enjoy its
blessings. The Christian slave, therefore, whose body (in the providence
of God) was under the power of his master, might be compelled to work on
the Lord’s day without incurring guilt. But he could not worship an
idol, without an open renunciation of Christianity. Surely there is no
need to insist on the difference between the two cases.
{17} Heb. iv. 9. σαββατισμὸς.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account