§ 6. Hellenism was vernacular to the apostles. The apostles and evangelists also used the Greek as their native tongue, the proof of which we find in the dialect they used in their writings. This dialect, as has been often observed, consists of Greek words and Hebrew and Chaldee combinations, together with an occasional intermixture of Macedonian, Syrian, and Egyptian idiotisms. So peculiar was this at that period to the sacred writers and the inhabitants of Palestine, that you will not find either any people or author elsewhere employing it. If we look closely into this question, we shall perceive that there are only three causes which can furnish an adequate solution of it: either that the apostles acquired this dialect from the Greeks; or that God taught it them by miracle; or, finally, that it was their native dialect.

As to the first supposition, then, no one can say that the apostles learned this dialect from the Greeks, because, I. Josephus tells us that the Jews abhorred the reading of foreign authors, much more the learning of their language, which they regarded as impiety in a Jew to know too well. II. Be

pursues the same method, for putting the word 'Paßßi in the mouth of the two disciples of the Baptist, who accosted Jesus, he straightway subjoins & Xéyerai koμnvevópevov didúokaλs. Now, if John did so, although he wrote in Greek, in recording matters of minor moment, how much more would he have done so in regard to the divine words of Christ? But if we examine the words of Grotius, we shall find the expression ambiguous. "Est locutio Alpha et Omega a Rabbinis desumpta, &c. &c." This may either mean that the phrase was borrowed by the Rabbins from John, or by John from the Rabbins. If it be understood in the former sense, that the Rabbins took it from John, that may be correct, because they lived long after that sacred writer. But if Grotius means that John borrowed the expression from the Rabbins, he is utterly mistaken, since the very Rabbins named by him, even if we concede the highest antiquity claimed for them by their friends, are all more modern than John. The book Zohar, for instance, was composed by Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai; and Bahir, by Rabbi Nehemiah Ben Achan, who both lived in the second century; Jalkuth on 2 Sam. was compiled after this period; as also considerably later the Porta Lucis, whose author was R. Joseph Gecatilia, who flourished in the eleventh century after Christ; and the Porta Justitia, written by R. Karnitol, who lived about A. D. 1500, and R. Benarima. The objection of Grotius, therefore, goes for nothing.

1 Joseph. in fine lib. Antiq.

cause the apostles were almost totally ignorant of polite learning. There was no object, then, to impel them to the perusal of the Greek writers, which had they done they would certainly have formed a more cultivated style than they now exhibit. Nor must it be said, as some unthinkingly urge, that the sacred writers of the New Testament picked up their Greek from the constant study of the version of the Seventy. For, in the first place, this assertion is made without any authority whatever; and in the next, there is too great a difference between the Hellenistic of the Septuagint and that of the apostles for us to believe it. The apostles, for instance, strew their Greek with Latinisms, which are entirely wanting in the other; ample proof that theirs was the vulgar tongue, and daily enlarging by accessions from foreign sources. And, III. Because the apostles, plain and humble men, knew no language but their own. If, then, this Hellenism were really a foreign thing to them, not only were they incapable of forming their style from it, but could not even read or understand it without an interpreter.

Nor, in the second place, can it be said that the apostles were miraculously endowed with a knowledge of Hellenism. For, to omit any other argument, if this language was common, besides the apostles, to other Jewish writers, as we have already shown, to whom no gift of tongues was imparted, there was no need for the special interference of God to bestow it upon them.

It remains, therefore, in the third place, that we confess the apostles to have used this language, because their own vernacular tongue; which alone can account for their employment of a dialect so remote from pure Greek usage.

7. From the weighty reasons just adduced, it must be evident to all that Hellenism was not only the language of the Jews from the Maccabean age, but also that of Christ and the apostles at a later day, as the vulgar one of the country and times. We may, then, fairly rest in the conclusion that Christ imbibed it with his mother's milk, that he swallowed it

by daily use in conversation and teaching, and that he wrote in it when he stooped toward the ground, and pardoned the adulterous woman. His mother spoke Hellenistic, and the angel Gabriel Hellenistic, when he came to her and announced the incarnation of the divine Word. This same dialect did the apostles use as their native one when they went forth to publish the law of the gospel. Hence, too, came it that the ancient church so long employed the same language in its liturgy and ritual.

ARTICLE VIII.

ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK BY APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE.

By Rev. R. WEISER, Pastor of the Ev. Lutheran Church of Bedford, Penn.

1. An Address to the Baptists of the United States, from the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Baptists. New-York: 1843.

2. Sabbath Tracts, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, published by the Seventh-Day Baptist Tract Society. New-York: 1843. New-York:

3. The Sabbath Vindicator, Nos. 1 and 2.

1844.

4. Seventh-Day Baptist Anniversaries, or an Account of their Religious Conference for 1843. New-York: 1844. 5. Plain Questions. A Christian Caveat to the Old and

New Sabbatarians (by E. Fisher, Esq., first published in London, 1653), republished by the Sabbath Tract Society. New-York: 1844.

We have placed at the head of our article quite a formidable array of pamphlets. We have done this, in order to show those whose views we may feel it our duty to oppose,

that all the arguments and facts which they have been able to compress into some ten or twelve publications, are fully within our reach. That these publications, be they great or small, good or bad, true or false, are the proper and legitimate awards of honest criticism, none can doubt.

The article that stands at the head of the list, is an elaborate and rather spirited appeal to the Baptists in the United States, charging them with a deliberate and habitual violation of the fourth commandment, because they do not keep the seventh day holy. Twenty thousand copies have been ordered for gratuitous distribution! Tracts, proclaiming the same serious charges, are given to the winds, and scattered broad-cast over the land. Missionaries are sent forth to proclaim to the deluded and wicked members and ministers of the "First Day" churches, that all are sinning most grievously against the Lord of heaven, because they do not sabbatize cn the seventh day! This, to say the least of it, is a begging of the question. What good can such publications be expected to accomplish? They can only strengthen the hands of infidelity, and remove the restraints of public morality. The great body of the Christian church in this country, of all sects and parties, is now making strong and united efforts to produce a better and more general observance of the Sabbath of the Land, and as they honestly believe, the Sabbath of God. Whilst they are doing all they can to influence mankind to obey the commandments of Jehovah, and especially the fourth command, here we see a body of the professed followers of Jesus Christ putting forth every effort to convince the world that all or nearly all who do now, or have, for the last eighteen hundred years, professed and honored the name and revered the religion of Jesus Christ, have been in error on this subject. They say the law is, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord;" that neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles ever changed, or had a right to change, the time of keeping the Sabbath h; that the keeping of the seventh day is a part of the moral law; that the keeping of the first day is anti-Protestant; that it is one of the signs of the beast; that it hinders the progress of true

Christianity. The men who utter and propagate such sentiments may be honest in their views, but they are unquestionably doing more harm than good. They may think, like Paul, that they are doing God a service, but, like that once infatuated Jew, they are doing all in their power to injure the cause of religion.

From the Minutes of the last Conference of the SeventhDay Baptists, held at Hatfield, New Jersey, Sept. 1843, we learn that they have in their connection 59 churches, 49 ministers (ordained), 20 licentiates, in all 69, and 6,077 members in the United States. The preachers of this sect seem, at this very time, to be making more systematic and vigorous efforts for the dissemination of their peculiar notions, than have perhaps ever been made in any age or country. Dogmatism and unfounded assertions are palmed upon the public as unanswerable arguments. These circumstances seem to require an impartial examination into the merits of the case. We design merely to throw out a few hints in relation to the most important features of this controversy. Hence we shall endeavor to show :

I. That the apostles of Jesus Christ did uniformly in their lifetime celebrate the first day of the week as the Sabbath. If we can show that the apostles did celebrate the first day, and not the seventh, and if we believe that they were divinely inspired, then it must follow that the change was made by the sanction of Jesus Christ, either expressed or implied, unless we adopt the absurd position that the inspired messengers of heaven, whose express business it was (Matth. 28: 20) to teach the commandments of Jesus Christ to all nations, could err. If God commanded all men, from the giving of the law downwards, to keep holy the Sabbath, and if the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the apostles did not keep that day holy unto the Lord, (and there is no evidence that they did) then it follows that they (although all orthodox Christians admit their inspiration) lived in the habitual violation of the fourth commandment. This is one of the absurdities into which Sabbatarianism drives us !