reading the entire volume, that those by whom it was composed received a system of mythology comprising gods and goddesses, celestial broils, and celestial excesses. Nor is even pantheism consistently preserved, for some of the divinities are less distinctly pronounced supreme than others; whereas were each one equally the Eternal, no gradations could exist. Though image-worship is not sanctioned, animal-worship is very clearly, in this prayer to Garuda, the sacred vulture :

:

"O Garuda, the men whose breasts are filled with devotional feeling see thee, while moving thy wings gracefully in the heavens, as thou art radiant like gold, and the messenger of Varuna, art the bird that producest in the womb of Yama the all-controlling (Agni), and art the nourisher (of men). The water-preserving, aloft-going Garuda takes his station before us in the heavens, lays hold of his variegated armour, and covering himself with his own glorious plumage, like the sun, to await our reverential view, he gives to the adorable beloved (showers of rain). Covered with watery drops in the heavens, and shining with the light of the water-collecting sun, he goes to the fluid-receiving (cloud); and the sun, shining with his white radiance, produces through the three worlds the delightful (rain.)" (Page 278.)

(To be continued.)

REVIEW.

The Sanctification of the Sabbath illustrated and enforced in a Series of "Tracts for the Times,” by Ministers of various Denominations. I. By the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. II. By the Rev. John Jordan. III. By the Rev. Andrew Thomson, B.A. IV. By the Rev. David King, LL.D. Pp. 16 each. Partridge and Oakey.

UNDER whatever discouragement the Lord's husbandmen may sometimes have to labour in his vineyard, however the ungodliness of the world may resist and counteract the effects of their unceasing toil, we take courage on their behalf when we see them in united action, working on common ground, and contributing their talents with unsectarian freedom for the defence of the faith once delivered to the saints, and for the promotion of our common salvation. Such union of effort is pleasingly exemplified in the series of tracts, of which four lie before us; and we recommend them to the attentive regard of those who feel interested in the important subject therein discussed.

The subject is not less susceptible of the aids and illustrations of profound learning than any other, and the authors of these tracts might have filled their pages with a display of scholarship attractive to the eye of some readers, but unintelligible to those whom they wish to benefit. They preferred rather to give the public the result of careful study in plain language, such as the unlearned may understand, yet satisfactory to the more instructed; calling up to his mind recollections of previous investigation, and confirming the assurance which was at first produced by the perusal of evidence now made familiar, and has been subsequently strengthened by each act of deliberate examination. And, instead of literary ornament, we find an agreeable play of sound argument, interspersed with views, novel sometimes, but always worthy of a respectful hearing, and enlivened with historical and practical examples, which deepen the impression of truth, by

showing that the holy Sabbath, one of the most precious of divine institutions, self-consistent in its design, and in all its bearings on human society, is fully supported by the reciprocal analogies which rise into view whenever any one of God's works, whether it be a material or a moral work, is compared with all things which exist around, or stand in any relation to itself. Dr. Wardlaw leads the way, giving "a concise summary of the argument in support of the early origin and the universal and permanent obligation of the Sabbath, and of the change from the seventh day of the week to the first, under the Christian dispensation." We shall neither transcribe nor metaphrase those portions of the tracts which consist of the more obvious and standard proofs, but more particularly note those parts which bring new strength to the general argument, contain anything peculiar, or invite to further examination, affording valuable contribution to the general cause of revealed religion, apart from the topic under immediate consideration.

It has been established by evidence with which the reader is, no doubt, sufficiently acquainted, that the sabbatic institution was originated immediately after the creation of the world, not at the giving of the Mosaic law. The plain language of Scripture, at Gen. ii. 1-3, the nature of the institution, as commemorative of the creation, and the declaration of our Lord, that the Sabbath was made for man,-for man universally, not for any family or nation in particular,—are adduced, and supported, as we think, by irrefragable proofs. The ancient division of time into weeks over a great part of the world, the incidental mention of the Sabbath in the sixteenth chapter of the book of Exodus, as of a thing known before the giving of the law; and the injunction in the Decalogue to remember it, as already instituted, are duly exhibited, and abundantly suffice to outweigh the allegation, that for some long periods of time the sacred writers were silent, as if there had not been any sabbatic observance in their days.

An objection which some found on two passages of Scripture where God is said to have made known to Israel his holy Sabbath, (Neh. ix. 14,) and to have given the Sabbath to Israel, (Ezek. xx. 10–12,) is well answered :

Without insisting on the phrase "making known" rather implying the existence already of the thing made known than expressing its commencement, we may reply, So is God said to have made known his ways to Moses, and his acts unto the children of Israel ;" from which, surely, it does not follow that none of them had ever been "made known" before; far less that they did not exist before! The Sabbath, too, it is alleged, is said to have been "given" to Israel. (Ezek. xx. 10-12.) "What else," it has been said, "can this mean than its being first instituted in the wilderness ?" The answer is, first, that the same word is, in the same passage, as well as in Neh. ix., applied to God's statutes, and judgments, and precepts, and laws generally, as well as to his Sabbaths. Is it to be inferred from this that there were no divine laws "given" to men prior to the time of Exodus? Not so thought and taught the Apostle Paul. He argues

with the Jews, that there was a law anterior to theirs, binding on mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike, from the simple fact that "death," the penalty of sin, "reigned" over all men "from Adam to Moses;" the penalty of sin implying the existence of sin, and the existence of sin the existence of a law; seeing "sin is not imputed where there is no law." (Rom. v. 13, 14.) And, secondly, that by our Lord himself the word "given ” is expressly used respecting another rite, when it does not mean, and by himself is explained as not meaning, original institution. (John vii. 22.) "Moses, therefore, gave unto you circumcision: (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers :)" its having been given by Moses, then, does not signify its having been "first instituted" by Moses. Previously-existing institutes and laws might, with all truth, be represented as "made known," and as "given," to a particular people, when, in a systematic

and embodied form, with special solemnity, and with peculiar sanctions, they were delivered from heaven to that peo

ple; and when the possession of them in that form became the distinction of that people from others.

Had the Doctor been writing a book for students, instead of a popular tract, he would no doubt have gone further, and demonstrated the idiomatical use of the verb in the original of the latter text, as denoting appropriation to a special use of what is already in possession, rather than the giving of something new. A few examples may be taken from the Pentateuch alone. It was a promise to Israel that the Lord should make him the head; and the Hebrew says, "shall give thee to be," &c. (Deut. xxviii. 13.) At the deluge, the rainbow was formed by the refraction of the solar rays, refraction being essential to light, and the law of refraction could not have been inoperative until then. Yet the Lord said, "I do set my bow in the cloud," Moses using the word, `♫♫ “I do give my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token," (Gen. ix. 13,) as in Ezekiel it is written, "I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign." The rainbow and the Sabbaths had been equally pre-existent. When Pharaoh says unto Joseph, "See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt," the Hebrew says, and "I have given thee;" (Gen. xli. 41;) and when the Lord says to Abraham, "A father of many nations I have made thee," Moses writes it

"I have given thee." (Gen. xvii. 5.) It would be wearisome to multiply citations of this kind; but these are given for the purpose of showing, by one example, how pert objections to long-established truths and sacred obligations may rest on a basis of utter, unmitigated ignorance, -ignorance not to be convicted by ratiocination, so much as by a plain, schoolboy lesson like the present; a lesson which the objector has forgotten, if he ever learned. One could wish to have the infidel schooled in the mere literal rudiments of the book which he has not yet seriously studied, not even in the edition of his own vernacular, that he might cease to put forth cavils so inept as that which is made by a dull catch at the word "give," in the book of Ezekiel. Would that such cavillers might be persuaded to accept with gratitude the boon of opportunity for spiritual improvement, the gift made to man in Paradise, re-sanctioned in the wilder ness, hallowed by the church of God throughout all ages, and still made the fountain of strength and joy to myriads at each return! They would then acknowledge that, as the bow of God, which glowed upon the cloud as soon as ever the earthly Paradise was watered by descending showers, was given after the deluge to be a sign of divine forbearance, so was the Sabbath of God, instituted in the morning of ages, given at Sinai, to be a sign of the covenant of the Most High with Israel; a sign of the distinction of the Hebrews from those nations who had forgotten their Creator. And here it is justly observed, that the signature of God's people did not consist in the imposition of some peculiar moral law on them, for a moral law cannot be peculiar, but in their faithful observance of the law which others transgressed, or did not know.

The universality and permanent obligation of the Sabbath is justly inferred from the historical fact of its primitive institution; and Dr. Wardlaw confirms the inference by some additional considerations. He observes, that it must be intended for all mankind, because commemorative of the creation of the world, an event in which all men are concerned. "Its manifestly moral character" is apparent in the setting apart of a portion of time for "the worship of God, and the cultivation and expression of the principles and affections of piety," and in "our Lord's representa

tion of it as made for man;” that is to say, for all mankind. He meets the objection, that the penalties against Sabbath-breaking being abolished, the sabbatic law must also have been abolished, by the forcible reply, that as the law prohibitory of idolatry, adultery, blasphemy, and stubborn filial disobedience, is not repealed, although the penalties which were to be inflicted on Hebrew transgressors under the theocracy are no longer suffered, so neither is the law of the Sabbath repealed, it being, like the others, moral and perpetual. The obligation of a universal moral law is not in any way affected either by the imposition or the relaxation by statute of special penalties, which may vary widely, according to varieties of circumstance. And still distinguishing between the circumstantials of enactment and the essential of moral obligation, Dr. Wardlaw proceeds to justify the change of day from the seventh to the first, under the Christian dispensation. On this point we must dwell.

It does not require to be proved, that a change of the day, for any special and divinely-assigned reason, makes no alteration in the moral character and obligation of the institution. That such a change was made, by divine authority,— by the authority of Him who is "Lord even of the Sabbath day,"- —at the com

mencement of the Christian dispensation, is what we affirm; and that the change was from the seventh day of the week to the first. We argue this on the ground, -1. OF ITS OWN REASONABLENESS; -2. OF RECORDED FACTS AND EXAMPLES—and, 3. OF DIRECT IN

SPIRED AUTHORITY.

Following the train of Dr. Wardlaw's argument, we entirely concur with him in regard to the "à priori likelihood" of such a change. If the day of Sabbath were to be counted out with exact numerical precision, that it might be certainly reckoned the seventh back to the seventh day of the creation-week; if the task were laid on us to retrace all time, without the error of a single day; to verify the calculation through the entire course of a chronology which is itself uncertain, and, passing over periods unmarked by any record of their exact extent, measure to a day the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, remember accurately the return of the seventh day, which they forgot amidst the hardness of their bondage, still dating the weeks from Adam ;-if we could dive so deep into the ocean of the forgotten past, and bring up the tally which was dropped by men of other ages, then might we sit down with confidence, having the original first and seventh days before us, and inquire which we ought to sanctify. But even then there would be misgiving somewhere as to the accuracy of so complicated an operation, and the validity of the observance would be made to depend on the numerical identity of a day, rather than upon the fundamental principle of devoting to God a seventh part of time. We know that the Sabbath-day was forgotten in Egypt; and no one can prove the manna ceased on the original seventh day in the wilderness. For aught that can be shown to the contrary, it may have ceased on the fourth or the fifth; nor was the recovered institution less holy if it did. Besides this needless and injurious incumbrance, by contending for the sanctification of the original seventh or first day, we should be guilty of going beyond the precept, which reads thus: "Remember to keep holy na ing the day of the Sabbath." It is not there said, in "the

that

seventh day," although that day is mentioned in giving, historically, the reason of the institution. Thus to go beyond the holy Scripture would be to resemble those who, in the celebration of the eucharist, take the most solemn part of the ritual from the Missal, as being to their mind more explicit than the New Testament, and therefore to be preferred. But the

supreme Legislator has not bound us to so minute and puerile a method of obedience, nor left the way open for that excessive scrupulosity as to number and position which rather characterizes evasive casuistry than ingenuous religion. The spirit of the law is obviously this: that one day in seven be kept holy. We ask, then, Which day of the seven? That must be historically determined, because the Sabbath institution is originally and essentially commemorative. But on the point of antecedent probability of a change from the seventh to the first, the author treats very perspicuously, and must be heard for himself.