dices, and condescend to talk more like reasonable beings and less like bigots, the world would not be disgraced as it is by the deluge of trash vented on this topic. For, verily, the ignorance and illiberality displayed whenever the subject is broached by the orthodox are appalling. There seems to be a double-quilted jerkin of obstinacy around the brain of the Sabbatarian Christian, which bids defiance to the sharpest-pointed argument. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"—that is the perch to which they cling, and from this arbitrary law, because it happens to be printed in the Jewish decalogue, no power on earth can drive them. But, however, if they cannot be convinced of their error, and be brought to perceive the injury their views inflict upon their own cause, it is easy to embarrass their logic by simply asking the following questions:-Where is the Scriptural authority for transferring the law in the Fourth Commandment, which bound the Jews to observe as holy the seventh day, unto the Christian code, and applying it to the first day of the week? When did Christ or his Apostles ever declare that commandment to be binding on Christians? And if it be a religious duty to obey that Jewish law, why did not Christ or his Apostles say so? To these queries we have always failed in obtaining a satisfactory reply. The moment they are put, the Sabbatarian Christian begins to shuffle and flounder, and is regularly beaten. He has not a leg to stand upon, and is obliged to fall back again on the defence of his old text,-"Remember," &c.

Some remarks made on this matter by Dr. Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin, are worthy of notice. In a pamphlet, entitled "Thoughts on the Sabbath," he says:-

If, however, any persons are fully convinced that the precept respecting the Sabbath was given to Adam, and also conclude, thence, that it must bind all his posterity, they are of course, at least equally, bound by the (recorded) precept to Noah relative to abstinence from blood. Any one who admits these obligations, and complies with them just as they were given, observing not the first, but the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, is acting on a system which, though it may be erroneous, is at least intelligible and consistent. But he who acknowledges a divine command to extend to himself, ought to have an equally express divine command to sanction any alteration in it. Those Christians of the present day, however, who admit the obligation of the ancient Sabbath, have taken the liberty to change not only the day, but also the mode of observance. I believe they sometimes allege that the Jews were over-scrupulous on this point, and had superadded by their tradition, burdensome restrictions not authorised by the Mosaic law. This is true; but if we shelter ourselves under this plea,-if we admit the authority of the written law, and reject merely the Pharisaical additions to it,-we are then surely bound to comply at least with the express directions that are written; for instance (Exod. xxxv. ch. 2 and 3 vv.), 'Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day,' no one can pretend is a traditional precept; yet I know of no Christians who profess to observe it. Perhaps we may be told that it is a regulation not suited to our climate. That may be an additional reason, of some weight, for believing that the Jewish Sabbath was an ordinance not designed to be of universal obligation; but seems hardly sufficient, if it were of universal obligation, to authorize Christians to depart from the divinely-appointed mode of observing it.'

Let it be remembered that these are the sentiments of a prelate of the Established Church, whose intellectual and moral worth renders him an ornament to the Episcopal body. He certainly will not be accused of despising the Scriptures, for he has written eloquently in defence of their truth; and yet he denies the Fourth Commandment is the basis of the Christian Sunday. The vain attempt to build upon this foundation has no other effect than to widen the breach between Christianity as taught in the Churches, and the common reason of mankind. The sinister de signs of the Sunday-Sabbatarian party are obvious. These strait-laced

projectors want to shut up the lecture-rooms and halls of the people on the Sunday; and to extinguish what they term Sunday newspapers. It is an aristocratic move, and there is in it far more of political intrigue than genuine piety. The amount of stupid hypocrisy involved in it is positively incalculable.

All we say is, let the bigots do their worst; let them pass as many stringent Sunday Bills as they please the more stringent the better, and the sooner may we hope to see a strong reactionary tide set in, and sweep away such monuments of religious folly. F. G.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

THE times are sadly out of joint. What can we do, to better our condition ? This is a question in almost everybody's mouth. But the answer, it seems, is not quite so easy to give. Association is the idea of the time,—the allabsorbing topic. It is a noble one, and cannot well be overrated. But the best things may be perverted. Dwelling ever on association, men are apt to forget the importance of individual efforts. There is an individuality in Man which cannot be destroyed. Duty is a personal thing. It is from a man's own thoughts, words, and actions that he derives pain or pleasure, ultimate happiness or misery,-honour or disgrace. Men cannot become wise or virtuous, merely by combining their efforts. A bad man may be a member of a good association. Such an one has often contributed to the accomplishment of a noble work, from a very ignoble motive.

Nor do I

Individually, man is weak. Isolated, the little he can accomplish, is liable to discourage him from attempting anything. "True," said one in my hearing, were I where I could combine my efforts with those of others, I might be induced to attempt something; as it is, I go with the stream. see how the obligations of a reformer can extend to me." "No," said another, who had just been applied to, by a poor fellow who needed a little temporary relief, "show me others, by combining with whom, something permanently good may be effected, and I am your man. But I see no good likely to result from these acts of private relief. I have renounced them altogether. I give nothing in such cases. My benevolence, if I have any, flows in another channel." Were not these misapplications of the associative principle? To such men, and in reference to the duties they had thus declined, I would say, in the words of an old author-"These things ought ye to have done; and not to have left the other undone."

In this country, whose "glorious constitution" is "the envy of surrounding nations and the admiration of the world," bricks and mortar, land and money, make legislators. Unless he be the son of a Peer, a man may have the wisdom of Solon, the justice of an Aristides, the patriotism of a Marcus Curtius or a Codrus, or the eloquence of a Demosthenes, still, being poor, he cannot serve his country, where such talents and virtues are most needed. He may be more than a mere declaimer; he may possess great knowledge-may be more than a mob-orator,-may possess the rare gift of true eloquence,—yet should that modesty, which is the natural concomitant of genius, make him hesitate to denounce at once, as fools or knaves, all who may differ from him in opinion, he is little likely to succeed as a popular leader, especially where such leaders are most needed.

Notwithstanding these discouragements, no man is justified in living to himself alone. He has a duty, for the performance of which he is responsible to his country and his conscience. He is a man. And, in the language of the noble old Roman, "nothing that concerns humanity is indifferent to him." Man's obligations preceded human institutions. They cannot be determined. by the study of such institutions. They are to be inferred from his natural rights, and, in general terms, from that constitution of things of which he forms a part, and in harmony with which he must live, if he would avoid misery. The natural laws, as they affect mankind, are not to be tried by human institutions, but human institutions by them. When human institu

:

tions are in harmony with man's natural rights, duty and interest bid us observe and cherish them otherwise, to seek to reform or replace them with better. This, notwithstanding all the priest may say, is not a crime but a virtue a virtue by the practice of which the martyrs of the olden time achieved their immortality, and that portion of freedom we at present enjoy. Birth, wealth, station, are undoubtedly great things; and involve great responsibilities. But not having these, are we exempted from all obligation to serve our fellow-creatures? By no means. There is, at least, one virtue' which all may practise: a virtue which ever attracts attention, from its extreme rarity, especially in times like these, a virtue which commands the respect, even of opponents, and which is indispensable to real usefulness--a virtue which gives weight to a character, otherwise insignificant, and renders a man of but moderate intellect manifold more important in every cause, than another whose talents are the most brilliant, but in whom this virtue is wanting. The virtue I speak of is Consistency. Without this, no character can long retain its influence; and with it, the humblest cannot fail, in time, to make itself felt. Any man may, and every consistent man will, refuse to countenance, even with his presence, a movement or meeting, whose object and tendency are opposed to the cause with which he has identified himself. What? Not to listen to what may be said in defence of it? No: he has taken his ground considerately, and not attached himself to a cause of which he has not subsequently to learn the merits. This is an age neither of great virtues nor of great crimes. It is an age of calculation-in which men avoiding risque, keep their eyes upon the "quid pro quo." There is no chivalry— no sympathy with those crimes whose commission has elicited qualities which have made us regret the misapplication of powers so great, and of qualities so intrinsically noble. Every man is now deemed a fool who undertakes anything for which he is not to receive an equivalent, in hard cash " down upon the nail."

The Apostle Paul taught his followers, to " contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." But no man now is expected to contend earnestly for the faith delivered to him, by any body. To speak decidedly, even in defence of one's honest convictions is "decidedly low," and “in bad taste." It is by no means in harmony with "the spirit of the times,” or “the usages of good society." Any man may, and every consistent man will, avoid this spurious liberality, this disloyalty to truth, even at the risque of being thought narrow-minded. He will concede to the opinions of others the consideration he claims for his own; but he will not concede that a thing "is probably true," while it appears to him to be most certainly false.

That is a courtesy which demands the sacrifice of our sincerity. So long as we are in doubt, let us suspend our judgment; but having once satisfied

ourselves as to where the truth lies--let us manfully and consistently adhere to it.

The absence of religious feeling, in what are called the "lower classes" of society, is frequently deplored. But is there more of this same "religious feeling" in the upper classes? Alas! we fear not. As for their forms and ceremonies, why these are kept up we all well understand. But, in the very nature of things, we have reason to fear, that their sense of responsibility to a Supreme Being is very weak, and that their conceptions of religion, as well as their principles, are far from being distinct or deep. Much of their conduct is otherwise unaccountable.

Many think that the doctrines of Christianity, as at present expounded in our churches and chapels, are worse than useless. Now, consistency, duty, and the interests of true religion, render it imperative that those who thus think, should absent themselves from those places. This is a mode of opposing error which one would think least objectionable. Let reformers act on this principle. Congregations will soon sensibly diminish, and the present system peaceably give place to something better.

Every consistent man will evince, in more than words, his sympathy with all "good men and true." He will be ever among those who rally round, support, and encourage, such men; and where he cannot aid, he will take special care not to hinder them. Above all, a consistent reformer will look well to his private life, and be especially careful to show all who may deign to observe him, how a rational man should conduct himself, in the several relations of husband, father, friend, neighbour and patriot ;-to show, in more than words, that he is virtuous, as well as the friend of virtue.

A poor man's sphere of action, as a reformer, is indeed limited. Still, to fill that perfectly, involves the necessity of much self-denial, patience, and perseverance; and affords ample scope for the exercise of all the virtues he can command. And though such a man may obtain little of the world's applause, or even of its notice, he serves the cause of useful reform, and mankind generally, much more effectually than some whose career is at once startling and brilliant. The mountain flood, the roaring cataract, excite our admiration by their might and sublimity; but it is the stream that winds quietly through the fields and meadows, imparting fertility and beauty, that really blesses mankind. Does any one yet ask-what can I do? We answer -you can relieve a brother in distress whenever you meet with one, if not by the gift of money, at least by your sympathy and kind words ;-by a modest firmness, you can show that you feel the principles of that cause with which you have identified yourself worth contending for ;-that while anxious to avoid giving offence or pain to any one, there is nevertheless, in truth what may not be sacrificed to conciliate the smiles, or deprecate the frowns even of those you love best. We tell you further that you may and must be consistent, if you wish to be respected and useful. Are you young? Listen to the voice of experience; suspend your judgment until you have examined carefully. But, having once taken your ground, let nothing but a change of conviction drive you from it. An undecided man, does nothing-enjoys nothing. If you would share the happiness, the glory and immortality of those to whom we are indebted for much that makes life worth the having, you must share their self-denial, their labour, their patience, their perseverance. If you would obtain, like them a crown of life-like them, you must be faithful even unto death, if need be. Be not surprised should you find your principles standing in the way of your worldly preferment. If you

are not prepared to make the sacrifice, wait a while longer before you avow yourself a reformer, or you will make nothing of it. The world is not wanting in talent; but sadly wanting of men who to great talent unite a generous self-devotion to the public good. Are you a parent? Make it a prime object to impart to your children just notions of their rights and their duties; and to inspire them with a rational and manly resolution to maintain their rights, and to discharge their duties. Whatever may be your condition in life, determine to give to your country one good man and true. Would all act on this principle, bad and discouraging as times are, think you not they would soon mend? AN OLD MAN.

THE GOLDEN PRIZE.

Five Hundred Pounds Prize.-Seven Questions, (bearing upon the present Ecclesiastical Crisis,) addressed to the Bishops, the Clergy, and the People of England. By AGATHON. The above Prize will be awarded to any Person who can give a satisfactory Solution. London: CHARLES DOLMAN, 61, New Bond-street.

THIS Pamphlet is evidently the production of a Roman Catholic, and the author has introduced it to the public under circumstances which will no doubt ensure it an extensive circulation. Not that we think many persons will flatter themselves that they are destined to win the golden prize offered; but curiosity alone will induce hundreds to spend their shilling merely to see what these " seven questions" are about. It is not our intention to gratify that curiosity here, by extracting the questions' from the pamphlet, our object simply being to speak of their design,---to show what the querist is driving at in his interrogatories. Be it known, then, that the author, as a Papist, strikes a blow at the Protestant Established Church of England. He puts into the Anglican episcopal mouth nuts to crack which he knows, and every body else knows, are absolutely uncrackable. He asks questions that cannot be answered by any supporter of the Church of England, without admitting that the Romish Faith is the true faith of Christ and his Apostles; or, at any rate, that the English Church is not the true church. Every thinking mind reading this pamphlet must see that between Romanism and Free-thinking there is no consistent ground to stand on; that it is absurd to look for a middle path between implicit obedience to some infallible authority in réligious matters, and the most unlimited liberty of opinion. If the exercise of private judgment is to be permitted, as Protestantism says it is, how dares the Church of England attempt to place fetters on human thought? If man has a right to think differently from the church, how dares any clergyman to speak of the sin of schism---the sin of dissenting from the doctrines, and not conforming to the discipline of the Church of England? If, as Agathon' asks, the Bible be the rule of faith, where is the text of Scripture that says so? But if, on the other hand, Human Reason is to fall prostrate before Revelation, and to obey the voice of some apostolic authority whose interpretation of that? Revelation is unerring truth,-then the Roman Communion is our only refuge, no other Christian Church professing infallibility in its teaching the consequence is that, to be consistent, we must be either Romanists or Rationalists. There is no way out of this dilemma, and this is the grand fight to which the world is approaching. The fight not between England and Rome, but between the principles of religious despotism and religious liberty.