[The extreme length of the following communication, rendered it necessary to abridge it. Such parts, as appeared to make little or no advance upon what had been said before, have been omitted. The subject has its importance; and if there were room in our pages, and it would not tire the patience of our readers, we would freely admit all that the fertile genius of our correspondents might communicate. But, as it is, a brief replication from Ishmael, if he sees fit to make it, must, for the present, close the discussion.] EDITOR. FOR THE HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE. REPLY TO ISHMAEL, ON THE TIME OF BEGINNING THE SABBATH. (See pp. 287 and 307.) MR. EDITOR, With your permission, I will offer a few remarks upon the reply of Ishmael to Mikros. As two essays have been admitted on the other side of the question, I hope we shall have equal liberty. Ishmael strenuously contends that the evening preceding the day belongs to the day. And I should view his reasoning of considerable apparent weight, if it did not stand in opposition to the plain and express declarations of God himself, that the evening succeeding the day belongs to the day. But I showed that, when the evening of the day is mentioned, God mentions the evening succeeding as belonging to the day. In his reply he adduces not one instance where the evening preceding the day is called the evening of that day. He does indeed suppose, that the Israelites, who were required to kill and eat the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even, killed it in the evening following the thirteenth day. If this were the case, then, as they went out of Egypt on the morrow after they killed and ate the passover, they must have gone | out on the fourteenth day. But in Num. xxxiii. S, it is expressly said, they "went out on the fifteenth day of the first month, on the morrow after the passover." I hope this express declaration is sufficient to silence his reasoning, in which he lays so much stress upon the expression until the fourteenth day; though I could easily show that until such a day means, not in the beginning, but in the course of the day, and sometimes includes the day. See Exod. xii. 15, 18. I have however farther proof to offer on this point. The children of Israel were required, after eating the passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, to eat unleavened bread seven days, until the one and twentieth day. And the first day of unleavened bread was the fifteenth. But it must have been the fourteenth, if the evening of the fourteenth succeeded the thirteenth day. See Lev. xxiii. 34, Num. xxviii. 16, 17 and Exod. xii. 16, 18. Here the evening succeeding the fourteenth and twentyfirst days is called the evening of the fourteenth and twenty-first days. We are told that Christ sent two of his disciples, on the day, when the passover was to be killed, which was the fourteenth day, to prepare for them to eat the passover. And they ate it the evening following, which was the evening of the fourteenth. Consequently, the day preceding the evening, is here called the day, to which the evening belonged. See Mark xiv. 12, and Luke xxii. 7. It is said, Sam. xxx. 17, that "David smote the Amalekites from twilight even unto the evening of the next day." Thus plain is it that the evening succeeding the day is in scripture reckoned as belonging to the day, and that too when speaking of solemn feast days. And it is altogether unaccountable, if the evening preceding belongs to the day, and this was the manner of reckoning established by God in the beginning, that it is never followed in his word, but the evening succeeding the day is always called the evening of that day. ner. Jahn says, "the services and ceremonies were different from those on other occasions." It was not a day of joyful praise, but a day "to afflict their souls." If by the same manner he means, that it began at the same time, that he must prove. He supposes this command in verse 32, applies to all other sabbaths, because in the Septuagint translation, the word for sabbath is in the plural number (la sabbata.) But in verse 3, where the weekly sabbath is enjoined, it is in the plural number (sabbata.) And in the first clause of verse S2, which manifestly refers exclusively to the day of atonement. "those learned Jews" have put it in the plural number. It, i e. the day of atonement, shall be unto you a sabbath of rest (sabbata sabbaton.) How then "those learned Jews" help him to any argument, I cannot perceive. Respecting Levit. xxiii. 32, "From evening to evening shall ye celebrate your sabbath," I observed that this had no reference to the weekly sabbath, but to the great day of atonement, and that nothing is said about the beginning of the weekly sabbath in verse 3, where it is enjoined; and I might add, of any other feasts enjoined in this chapter, called sabbaths. Ishmael thinks, that "this circumstance is a good reason why we should understand the Divine injunction in this passage, respecting the celebrating of the sabbath, as designed to apply to any sabbath whatever." But I should draw a directly contrary inference. As the Israelites knew I observed that it was the opinwhen they had begun the weekly ion of some expositors, that in the sabbath, they would naturally great day of atonement, both evensuppose they must begin this at ings were observed by the Israela different time. As if God had ites. And as it was such a peculsaid, "From evening to evening iarly solemn season, and they had shall ye celebrate this sabbath." many rites and services to perform, Ishmael says, "It is not certain it seems suitable that they should that this day of atonement," begin on the ninth day at evening, which was observed on the tenth as is expressly commanded, and day of the month, was not one of observe that evening, and the enthe weekly sabbaths. If it was, suing day. But Ishmael says that the command here would apply 'from even unto even," &c. limto every weekly sabbath." I its that day of atonement to twenshould think this argument amount-ty-four hours." If however he had ed to this, "It is not certain you read this 23d chapter carefully, I are right. And if you are not presume he would not have hazright, you are wrong. But did arded such an assertion. It is he think that the weekly sabbath agreeable to such modes of expres would from year to year come on sion in this chapter, and elsewhere, the tenth day of the month? But to include both evenings. In verhe says, "If it was not a weekly ses 15, 16, the children of Israel sabbath, it was called a sabbath on were directed to count from the account of its being observed in morning after the sabbath, unto the same manner. I should think the morrow after the seventh sabit was called a sabbath, because it bath, fifty days. If you exclude was a holy rest. It was not, how- either the first or last morrow, it ever, observed in the same man- will count but forty-nine days. In 66 until the seventh day includes both the first and seventh days. And in verse 18, until the one and twentieth day includes that day. Instead, therefore, of limiting the day of atonement to twenty-four hours, the expression from even unto even will naturally lead us to include both evenings. Exod. xii. 15, from the first day | Ishmael thinks the evening of the fourteenth day was the evening following the thirteenth day. And if his views respecting the beginning of the sabbath be correct, the evening preceding the day must belong to the day. But I have already shown, I should think, beyond a doubt, that the evening following the day, belongs to the day. If the evening of the fourteenth day, on which the passover was eaten, was the evening following the thirteenth, as he supposes, then the morrow after the passover was the fourteenth day of the month. But Moses says, 66 On Ishmael takes it for granted that the Jews observed the evening preceding the sabbath as holy time, and then infers that there could be no other reason, and that this must be the reason that they brought their sick to Christ, when the sun was set, because they considered the sabbath as then ended, though there is no intimation that this was the reason, or that any one expressed at this time the least disapprobation at Christ's healing on the sabbath, but, on the contrary, great approbation was man-gument unshaken. Ishmael seems ifested. the fifteenth day of the first month, on the morrow after the passover, the children of Israel went out,' &c. This is absolutely conclusive, that the evening of the fourteenth day followed, and not preceded the day, and leaves my ar to be so intent upon proving his point, that he goes directly in the face of the plainest declarations of scripture. As the Christian sabbath is de I observed that the fifteenth day of the month was the first day of unleavened bread, Lev. xxiii. 6, but that in Matth. xxvi. 17 and Mark xiv. 12, the fourteenth day signed to commemorate the resuris called the first day of unleaven-rection of Christ, it seems more ed bread-that, as they began to suitable to enter upon the duties eat unleavened bread on the even- after the time, when he arose, than ing succeeding the fourteenth, several hours before. And as I when the passover was eaten, Ex. have clearly shown that the evenxii. 6, 8, if that evening belonged ing succeeding the day is reckonto the fourteenth day, they began ed in scripture as belonging to the to eat unleavened bread on the day, I conclude that the evening fourteenth, and therefore the four- succeeding the sabbath belongs to teenth might be called the first the sabbath. For Ishmael has adday of unleavened bread, though duced no one text where the eventhe fifteenth was properly the first ing preceding the day is called the day; but that if the fourteenth day evening of that day. And no wonended at sunset, the fourteenth der: For the evening of the day could with no propriety be called cannot both precede and succeed the first day, because they did not it, unless the day has two evenbegin to eat unleavened bread tillings. the beginning of the fifteenth day. MIKROS. FOR THE HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN PROFESSION. Observations upon Mark xii. 34. And when Jesus saw that he an swered discreetly, he said unto him, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." "Thou standing of the way of justification by faith in Christ. Probably this man afterwards became a disciple of our Lord," In this statement of Dr. Scott there is some plausibility; but, perhaps, some defect in point of reasoning. Perhaps, with many others, he makes too great an account of that conviction of sin, which commonly precedes the re By the kingdom of God, in this and some other passages of scripture, is meant, the spiritual king-generation of the heart. Possibly, dom of Christ on earth. art not far from a visible standing in the church of God." Thou art, hopefully, ripe for the Christian profession. To answer discreetly, when the great question in the law was proposed, was to answer pertinently, correctly, and to human view, devoutly and re ligiously. To be not far from the kingdom of God means, either the preparedness of the heart for admission into the visible kingdom of Christ; or else such a state of mind as is commonly called conviction of sin, and precedes the work of saving grace in the heart. To deterTo determine which of these is the true meaning of the expression, "not far from the kingdom of God," is thought by some to be a matter of no small difficulty. Doctor Scott is in favour of the latter opinion; that to be not far from the kingdom of God, means that state of light and conviction of sin, which arises from a special discovery of the divine law, in its excellency and power. His statement is this: When Jesus therefore heard the scribe answer so discreetly, and like a man who knew something of the nature of true religion; and of the spirituality and excellency of the moral law, he declared that he was not far from the kingdom of God. For this knowledge of the law leads to conviction of sin, to repentance, a discovery of our need of mercy, and to an under some of his readers and admirers are led, inadvertently, to conceive, that a measure of moral virtue is attached to this conviction of sin. But, of what nature is the virtue which consists wholly, or in any measure, in a conviction of sin? It is of the nature of selfishness.It implies, indeed, a painful sense of sin and guilt, and of just condemnation, by the law of God: but no reconciliation to God, no love to his holy and wise government. He still cherishes a carnal mind, which is enmity against God; not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. With all his splendid virtues, he is still totally depraved in heart, dead in trespasses and sins. In this state and character, sinful men are very far from the kingdom of God. The Doctor further represents those who are not far from the kingdom of God, as discovering somewhat of the nature of true religion; and of its spirituality and excellency. Those who sustain this character are, indeed, not far from, but very near to the kingdom of God. law and government of God; and they may feel the pangs of an accusing conscience. But they still cleave to their corrupt and ungodly lusts. The more they see of the character and law of God, in their unregeneracy, the greater is their opposition of heart. When they see, they hate both Christ and the Father. I think it evident, on the whole, that this class of sinners is very far from the kingdom of God. The other class, which is said to be, in the sense of the text, not far from the kingdom of God, consists of those whose hearts are renewed by divine grace: whose hearts the Lord hath opened; and who are prepared in heart for the Christian profession and theChristian baptism. All that is said of him, in the passage before us, and the connexion, is expressive of the Christian character; and all his own declarations exhibit one and the same pious and devout character. That the scribe, whose character is before us, was a real Christian, and a Christian of no ordinary rank, is evident from his receiving the approbation of the Lord Jesus Christ; for he was not in the habit of approving any but his true and faithful followers.These were the people who were not far from the kingdom of God; considering the kingdom of God as meaning the visible church of Christ. This scribe, who answered so discreetly, the great question respecting the divine law, had, by his interview with the Saviour, be come acquainted with the nature and essence of the moral law; and with great emphasis, he pronounced it to be the truth. "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth." He enlarged and dilated on the great subject. "For there is one God; and there is no other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength; and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Now, brethren, what think we of this scribe? How far was he from the kingdom of God? Would to God that all the people, as well as all the scribes of our day, were, as he was, not far from the kingdom of God. Soon would they be annexed to the visible kingdom of God. Soon would they not merely be near; but they would be incorporated in this kingdom: and it is a kingdom of righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghosta kingdom which shall never be destroyed; but which shall rise in glory and beauty forever and ever. It is a kingdom which attracts the heart and affections of every denomination of real saints. The particular character of those who are said to be not far from this holy kingdom, from the foregoing discussion, appears to be that of real saints; but in some cases, without a public profession of religion. REMARKS. It seems, that it is a matter of expediency, in some cases at least, that those who are, as the scribe was, near to the kingdom of God, should suspend, for a season, a public profession, as a time of probation and self-examination ; realizing the importance of holy sincerity, as a proper qualification for a standing in the kingdom of God. Realizing, at the same time, the importance of union and harmony amongst the subjects of this holy kingdom of God. "Can two walk together except they be agreed? What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" II. If those who are not far from the kingdom of God, according to this discussion, are real Christian converts, they will be disposed soon to make it manifest: and, |