BRIEF ANIMADVERSIONS

ON

A PAMPHLET,

BY

DOCTOR RICHARD WHATELY,

ENTITLED

" THOUGHTS ON THE SABBATH, IN REFERENCE TO THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL OF THE LORD'S DAY."

[First Published 1833.]

BRIEF ANIMADVERSIONS, &c. &c.

ALTHOUGH the piece, on which I am about to animadvert, has been published two years ago, it is but very lately that I have seen and read it. Since its publication, the Author has been raised to the archiepiscopal See of Dublin; and it is not from any personal disrespect, that I prefer to designate him still as Dr. WHATLEY.

In a short advertisement prefixed to the edition from which I quote, (London: B. Fellowes, 1830,) the author speaks of "the Lord's Day," as "precious in the eyes of every right-minded Christian;" and of "its proper observance," as "of manifold utility." In what that proper observance consists, he has no where, as far as I can discover, informed us. If he suppose it to consist in the current attendance on multiplied clerical ministrations, in hearing many masses and many sermons, he may be assured that the " right-minded Christian" can take no part in such an observance of the day.

Dr. W. has very justly opposed the sabbatical observance of it; or any observance of it, which is rested on the fourth precept of the Decalogue as of continued authority. Yet, if I mistake not, he devoutly prays every Sunday, or professes to pray, that "his heart may be inclined to keep that law." He has not yet obtained permission from the king and parliament to lay aside that solemn mockery of the Most High. Such is State-religion.

But I must also assure Dr. W. that, to any "right-minded Christian," no religious observance of the first day of the week would be at all "precious," if it rested on the ground, on which alone he

imagines it can be placed securely: namely, the same ground on which he observes "Christmas-Day, Good-Friday, Holy-Thursday, &c." (p. 21.) The Doctor thinks that he thus places the duty" on its true foundation." But it is a foundation, which the word of God sweeps away, along with every superstructure built upon it.

:

But what is this foundation, on which, according to Dr. W., the obligation rests of observing the Lord's-Day, Christmas-Day, GoodFriday, Holy-Thursday, &c? The authority of what he calls THE CHURCH which CHURCH, he tells us (p. 23.) "has full power to SANCTIFY any day that may be thought most fitting."-Power to SANCTIFY! The assumptions of the man of sin can scarcely be carried higher than this. Here he appears indeed "as God, sitting in the temple of God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) For who but the living God has power to sanctify, or constitute any thing holy to Himself? This necessarily includes in it the establishing of an obligation on all, who know his Name, to acknowledge the holiness of the thing thus sanctified, to regard it as holy unto the LORD; so that any profanation of it is a profaning of HIS holiness. Any men, therefore, who assume the power of sanctifying a day, assume the power of establishing divine obligation; and, in that, attempt to usurp the throne of God himself.

I shall by and by examine the grounds on which Dr. W. asserts, that what he calls THE CHURCH is "endued with ample powers to enact" such regulations as the sanctification of Holy Thursday, &c. (And in the catalogue let me not forget what he calls "OUR LADY'S DAY;" which, he tells us, "Christians annually celebrate." Among the number of such Christians I am not; nor are any, with whom I walk in religious fellowship.) But at present let us stop a little to inquire what the Doctor means by this same Church, to which he thinks God has transferred his authority.

Now, Dr. Whately is a logician; and has written, as I understand, upon Logic. He must therefore be aware, that in all close reasoning nothing is of more importance, than the distinct and definite use of words; especially of such as are immediately essential to the argument, or as have been currently employed in a variety of meanings: and that nothing can more absolutely vitiate any argument, than the use of any such term, without notice, in several different senses. Yet the Doctor in his short pamphlet, has fallen into all these vices of reasoning in his use of the word Church. When he rests so much of religious observance upon the authority of THE CHURCH, we might expect that he would have plainly stated what he means by that phrase; which, if I mistake not, is among those that Mr. LOCKE adduces, as exemplifying the mischievous ambiguity and uncertain signification of words in current use. But Dr. W. has not only left it enveloped in that mystical obscurity in which divines have involved it, but has increased the difficulty of ascertaining his meaning, by changing the sense in which he employs the term at least three times. However, I shall endeavour to trace him in all his applications of it; and, in each, to expose the invalidity of his arguments.

One sense in which I find him using the phrase THE CHURCH," is, as equivalent with the men styled Bishops and Arch

66

bishops, in the several states of Christendom. Now, common as it is with the benighted papists of Ireland to speak of their Church and of their Clergy as synonymous, yet it might seem almost incredible, that in the nineteenth century, the PRINCIPAL of ST. ALBAN'S HALL, OXFORD, should adopt any similar application of the word. But the fact is incontrovertible, as will appear from the following quotation of a passage already referred to, in the 21st page of his pamphlet. And when it (the kingdom of Christ,) did come, his Apostles were, as I have said, not commissioned by Him to change the day, and perpetuate the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath; but they and THEIR SUCCESSORS, even THE CHURCH which He promised to be with always, even unto the end of the world,' were endued with ample power to enact regulations with a view to Christian edification; and among the rest to set apart festival days, such as the Lord's day, Christmas-day, Good-Friday, Holy-Thursday," &c.

Now what can be plainer, than that in this passage Dr. W. considers those whom he calls the "SUCCESSORS of the Apostles," as constituting what he calls "THE CHURCH?" Nor are we left at any loss to ascertain whom he intends by the Successors of the Apostles. For if we only look at the table of Ecclesiastical Officers, printed by authority, at the end of the English Bibles, we shall find the penultimate article running in these words :-" Bishops, successors of the Apostles in the government of the Church."

To expose the profane falsehood of this claim of the Hierarchy, I shall not insist upon the line of succession, through which those men professedly derive their successorship,-even through the vilest of the Roman Pontiffs :-nor shall I insist upon the political intrigues, by which in these countries they obtain an appointment to their function. No:-I abstain from these copious topics, that I may at once grapple with the subject more closely. And I tell Dr. W. that there are not, and cannot be, any successors to the Apostles; inasmuch as the Apostles still hold their office, and with respect to it are not defunct.

It was to the word of the Apostles, not to their persons, that the divine promise was given ;—" LO, I AM WITH YOU alway, even unto the end of the world:"-not, "with you and your successors.” Nor was there a whit more of Christ's authority sanctioning their word spoken, than the same word written. Or will Dr. W. assert, that an authenticated letter from the apostle Paul, read in the Christian assembly at Corinth, carried with it less of divine authority, or of divine obligation on the disciples to obey the injunctions it contained, than if Paul had been personally present, and spoken the same things? To this day Christians have with them the word of the Apostles and "he that knoweth God heareth them." (1 John iv. 6.)-But this is part of their language to the Churches of the saints:-"Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." (Col. ii. 16.) Such was the apostolic language to a Gentile church, concerning the holidays that really had a divine origin, and were once of binding authority to the Jews; though but shadows of good things" then to come, and shadows which, even to the Jews, were ready to

vanish away." (Heb. viii. 13, x. 1.) The Gentile Christians, therefore, were indeed enjoined I not to despise" their Jewish brethren for such Mosaic observances-(Rom. xiv. 3): but were as expressly enjoined to repel any attempt which false teachers might make, to impose these observances upon the Gentiles. And the adoption of such observances was. in the Gentiles, expressly marked as involving a departure from the Gospel. (Gal. iv. 9-11. v. 2.)

What then are we to say to a class of men, who pretend that the Apostles of Christ have been displaced from their office, and succeeded by themselves?-who, in perfect consistency with this arrogant assumption, have taken upon them to set aside the apostolic precept; and attempt to impose on disciples the observance of holidays and festival days, according to their own tradition; which they dare to represent as sanctioned by divine authority, and therefore binding on the conscience of a Christian. What are we to say to such men, but this?" whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Acts iv. 19.

Our

Enough has been said to shew, that, while Dr. W. conceives that he places some religious observance of the Lord's day "on a rock," (p. 7.) by resting it on the asserted authority of the Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, to sanctify it, or what they call “ Lady's day," or any other day that may be thought most fitting," (p. 23.) every right-minded Christian" must feel himself bound, by divine authority, to resist the religious observance of any day resting on such a foundation:-and still more strongly bound to this, when the men who would impose that observance, embody in this attempt the claim to an office and character the most obviously Antichristian.

I pass to another meaning, in which Dr. W. employs the word CHURCH, as connected with the same subject. In page 28. he remarks, that "it is very useful to shew (to the strenuous advocates for the observance of the Lord's day) that an institution, which they would be very unwilling to see deprived of all divine sanction, can derive such sanction from no other source than from the power conferred by Christ on EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH:"-or, as he expresses the same idea in a few lines before, a divinely-sanctioned power"-" vested in A CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, and binding on its members."

Here the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, have disappeared; and, in their place, we are presented with an idea which is in itself perfectly scriptural; a Church of Christ in any place always importing in the New Testament the community of Christians in that place, coming together on the first day of the week, to shew forth their Lord's death in the ordinance of his supper. But is it true, that CHRIST has conferred on such a community of Christians the power of sanctifying such days, as may be thought most fitting," and of imposing the observance of them as " binding on its members ?" In other words, is it true that Christ has vested in each Christian Church the power to release its members from their allegiance to Him, to turn away their ear from his accredited ambassadors, and to assume to themselves the right of enacting laws and ordinances

according to their several fancies? So far is this from being true, that every real Church of Christ has nothing at all to do with making any laws, or inventing any ordinances for their fancied edification. They are simply called to hear, and observe those promulgated by the King of Zion in the Apostolic word.

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul commends a Church, because they "remembered him in all things, and kept the ordinances, as he had delivered them,” (1 Cor. xi. 2.):-and another Church, for being "followers of the Churches of God, which in Judea were in Christ Jesus," (1 Thess. ii. 14.); enjoining them to withdraw themselves from every brother "that walked disorderly, and not after the tradition received of the Apostles." (2 Thess. iii. 6.) They were charged in solemn language such as this:-" we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more."

In the way in which the Apostolic Churches were called to walk, there was no room for diversity of faith or of practice :-no room for any human contrivances in addition to the regulations of the Apostles. Their authoritative language was-"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) "He that knoweth God heareth us:-he that is not of God heareth not us." (1 John iv. 6.) Thus it was of old; and thus it is at this day. That it is so, is a necessary result from the promise of HIM "whose words shall not pass away"-(Matt. xxiv. 35.)—“ Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It was a promise made to the Apostles by their divine Master ;-not to any pretended successors of the Apostles. The very terms of the promise involve the continuance of their function unto the end of the world; and therefore exclude all idea of any successors to them. I have known some indeed who wish to substitute for "the end of the world," in that promise, the version-" unto the end (or completion) of the age." And this translation is perfectly unobjectionable; but, understood aright, is perfectly equivalent with the common version. The "last days," (Heb. i. 2.) or last age of the world, had then commenced. The Kingdom of heaven was fully introduced, in opposition to the earthly kingdom of the Mosaic law. And as it was then the last age, the completion of that age must synchronize with the end of the world.

Many, I am aware, in order to make room for their traditions and human enactments in the Church of Christ, are accustomed to represent the Apostolic word, which Christians have with them at this day in the Scriptures, as insufficient, and not affording that fulness of regulation which the Churches of Christ require. They have never brought this to the test of experiment by obeying what is revealed. But none indeed can really be engaged in this attempt, but those who believe that Apostolic Gospel, which is "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" to the pride and ungodliness of man;-none but those who, being "ordained to eternal life," have been subdued to "the obedience of faith." (Acts xiii. 48.) To attempt to intro