AN ALTERATION THAT IS NO ALTERATION.
By R. F. Cottrell
The following extracts are taken from the same writer, only two pages apart:— "The Saviour appears, and reverences, honors, distinguishes, the Sabbath by his doctrine and his miracles. The ten commandments he recognizes without omission or alteration." "Every change is a fresh blessing. Every new dispensation is a new grace. Every alteration is an advance in the development of redemption on the one hand, and in the uses and importance of the institution on the other." To prove that the Sabbath has been altered, and has not been altered, is a difficult task. Is the writer insane or intoxicated? or does he presume that his readers are? The same writer says, "The particular day not being of the essence of the law, it is silently introduced." Who told him that the particular day was not of the essence of the law? Sabbath day means rest day. Hence the Sabbath day of God can be no other day than the one on which God rested. It was silently introduced. This is a strange way to introduce a law or institution. But the writer well knew that the Bible was silent in regard to the change. Many other changes have been silently introduced. Is this a good reason for adopting them? If so, let our Baptist friends adopt sprinkling for baptism, which was introduced in the same way. The writer's object was to persuade all to keep a definite day—the day of the resurrection of Christ. But since the particular day is not of the essence of the law, will it not answer just as well if we choose to keep the day that was not silently introduced? But he thinks we ought to "catch the intimations" of the Lord's will "with more alacrity," though "he re-enacts not in direct terms his day of rest," but "leaves it to be inferred from his own example and doctrine, and that of his apostles." There are many doctrines and practices of a corrupt church which the revelation which God has given "leaves to be inferred." Is this a reason that we should adopt them "with more alacrity"?