Page images
PDF
EPUB

ANSWER

ΤΟ Α

LETTER SIGNED FIDUS.

Inferted in page 76, of No. II.

WE are glad to hear that our correspondent

Fidus has derived "fome pleasure" from our "first number," and we thank him for his courteous acknowledgment to that purpose. We do not confider the utmost freedom of remark on the fentiments we advance, as in itself an evidence of hoftility to our undertaking. We form our eftimate of a writer's difpofition towards us, by the matter contained in his remarks, and by the manner in which they are communicated; because from these we judge how he is affected to, and influenced by that TRUTH which we espouse.

Fidus objects to our faying " that the love "manifested in the atonement is the only true "God, and there is no God befides that love. "That God is love, he admits; but that love is "God, he cannot: becaufe, in his apprehenfion, "this would be to deify an attribute, and de"throne the great Spirit." This is indeed a weighty charge; and it became one who would "not be esteemed an enemy to our undertak

ing," to have deferred advancing it, till he had more maturely confidered upon what grounds it could reft. And why does he extract such a fentiment from the latter propofition, though he fees nothing exceptionable in the former? Truly, because he takes a liberty here, which there he durft not for if this form of expreffion (Love

is God) neceffarily means that an attribute in the Deity; doubtless that form of expreffion (God is Love) must mean that the Deity is an attribute. Let Fidus then be convinced that his principle of interpretation is false, and let him grant to both of thefe declarations the latitude which he cannot withhold from one of them. Then he will hear them speak one language, and a language fit for the ears of proud worms like us-that we fhall in vain feek to know any thing of God beyond those perfections wherein He has made HIMSELF known:-and that the affemblage of thefe perfections, that is, the whole Divine character, is then moft clearly and justly reprefented to our human conceptions, when He is called LOVE.

With refpect to " thofe words in the conclu"fion of John's first epistle, This is the true God "and eternal life;" we do not conceive that our application of them militates against the sense in which Fidus receives them; because the apoftle, in saying "all that he had to fay of love "and happiness," was but defcribing the Lord Jefus Chrift, in whom perfect love, or all that can be known of God, is exhibited to our view; and henceforth dwells not, as otherwife it must have done, in light inacceffible to men; but is manifeft unto all that believe, in the perfon of Jefus, who is the brightness of his FATHER's glory -the image of the invifible GOD.

We cannot difcover what precife ideas Fidus annexes to the terms "inftitutions" and " ordinances;" and whether or no he ufes both thefe words in the fame acceptation, is equally dubious. He thinks it "meet and right and a fpecial privilege to obferve" what he does not allow to be an inftitution, while he makes light of neglecting

neglecting what he admits as ordinances. Surely, the perfon who can with a fafe confcience revere what is not enjoined in the fcriptures, and difregard what is there laid down, should be the laft to raise a question about institutions and ordinances, for with fuch a perfon the difpute can be only about words. But we are not furprised to obferve Fidus inconfiftent with himfelf, for so it must ever be with those who are inconfiftent with fcripture truth; and here his departure from the guidance of the word prefents itself to us in four particulars : 1. In thinking it right to pay religious obfervance to that which is not enjoined in the fcriptures, because (as we must suppose) fuch obfervance has obtained a currency in the religious world: 2. In difpenfing with a veneration for "fome ordinances" in which "the first chriftians continued “stedfast,” because they " are little attended to "now" 3. In denying "that the obfervance of it” (the Lord's day) " is enjoined in the New Tefta"ment," though the New Teftament churches, under the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost, acted as if it were: and 4. In admitting to the rank of ordinances what either is not found at all, or is found unconnected with religious worship, amongst the primitive Chrif

tians.

The first and second of these errors involve a fuppofition that the authority of God's word may be fuperfeded by the prevalent ufage of religious profeffors. Did Fidus mean to utter fuch a fentiment? We will not fuppofe it. But when he writes for the public on fo important a fubject as Divine Truth, he fhould be more attentive to the force of his own expreffions. In the third inftance, he feems to confider a precept

[ocr errors]

preccpt conceived in express terms, neceffary to establish the obfervance of the Lord's day in the rank of an institution. Did Fidus merely dif approve of the word inftitution, as one which always conveyed to his mind the idea of a pofitive command; we fhould have an answer for him in his own ufe of the word ordinance, which, though full as ftrong and peremptory in its primary fignification, he has used with much greater latitude; and if that did not fatisfy him, we would not prolong a verbal controverfy. But we learn that his objection is not aimed at the term inftitution, from the mode in which he has advanced it, viz. his denying that the observance of the Lord's day" is enjoined in the New Teftament:" to this therefore we fhall offer a few words in reply.

[ocr errors]

That the early Chriftians "in general" obferved the Lord's day, Fidus is willing to admit; (and why he should fuppofe any to have neglected it, we cannot conceive, for we are fure the hypothefis has no countenance either from fcripture or ecclefiaftical history) but "that the ob"fervance of it is enjoined, &c. he is not con"vinced." We would then remind him that the first chriftian churches, being planted by infpired apoftles, muft be confidered to have derived their religious inftitutions from Divine appointment; and one which in a certain fense involved all the other ordinances of worship, would laft of all be left to human difcretion. But further; it appears from the beginning of the apocalypfe, that the Holy Ghost has recognized this as an appointment proceeding from Himfelf; for there mention is made of the Lord's day, which expreffion has no parallel in the Greek Teftament, except the Lord's Supper: and

as

as the latter appellation was certainly used to diftinguish from their common meals what Chritians eat and drank in remembrance of the`r Lord's death; fo we are led to understand the former as intended to distinguish from other days the day on which they commemorated their Lord's refurrection. "Tis true, the appellation itself leaves the precife day undetermined; but when we confider that the Gofpel gives not the remoteft fanction to the regarding any one day above another; except the first day of the week, infomuch that no other day is even mentioned (except the Seventh day in Heb. iv. 4.) throughout the whole New Testament; under this confideration, we must think ourselves bound to apply that title to the first day of the week, and to revere that day accordingly. We cannot therefore fuppofe it left to our own judgment whether we shall "think it meet and right” to regard that day, but we view the matter as already determined by the word of God. Fidus may perceive we do not enter at large into the queftion; for indeed there are. fo many little matters to be adjusted between us, that we are compelled to haften from one to another, for fear of being tedious: yet we are not without hopes, that we have faid enough to convince Fidus, that it is not only a " fpecial privilege," but alfo an indifpenfible duty, to obferve the Lord's day..

The fourth error of Fidus appears in his admitting as ordinances, what the Scriptures do not acknowledge as fuch; which, however, he has advanced with fome hesitation, for after the enumeration of his fuppofed ordinances, he adds, "But I wish for information on this head, and am open to conviction if I am wrong.'

« PreviousContinue »