against this objection by providing a seventh day beforehand for Israel, and not propounding it in the moral law. The Jewish day of sabbatical observance depended not on the fourth commandment, but on a previous ordinance; and the Christian day of sabbatical observance depends not on the fourth commandment, but on a subsequent ordinance. We beg to call our readers' special attention to this fact, as it completely throws over an argument of which the anti-sabbatarians are very fond, and which Dr. Hessey endorses; namely, that we must either take the particular day that the Jews had, or else deny the seventh-day principle altogether. How carefully the omniscient Jehovah provided against this error! Thirdly, the necessity of haring set times for religious service is involved. This, again, is universal, and is the only moral element which Dr. Hessey could discover in the commandment. Besides these three distinct principles of Sabbath observance, we find other principles involved which have not so much connection with the particular day, but have reference rather to the universal need of rest, and the duty of giving to others what God has given to us. But these are extraneous to the question before us. Sufficient, we hope, has been said to show that the fourth commandment takes its place amongst the rest, and must be viewed as a moral law, obligatory in all times and in all places; so that when we pray in church that we may be enabled "to keep this law," we need not to descend to the frame of mind which Dr. Hessey would have us adopt, when he tells us that " we read the commandments as we do David's psalms; not that all there concerns us, but a great deal of them does." (Quoted from Selden, p. 145.)

There is one other argument which Dr. Hessey advances, namely, that the Sabbath on the seventh day was but a part of a great sabbatical system which extended to months, and even years. It was so; but that does not account for its appearance in the decalogue, nor does it account for the extreme frequency of the exhortations to keep the Sabbath, and the sanctions dependent on its observance or non-observance, throughout the Old Testament. Even if it were otherwise, no argument can be founded on the existence of the sabbatical system to disprove the morality of the Sabbath.

The lecturer has remarked that the Sabbath is often spoken of to the Jews as a sign; but he does not see the full force of this title, which undoubtedly points to the great and notable truth, that the Creator of the world and all things therein was that same person who had delivered Israel from Egypt, and was giving laws for their guidance. The idea of the spiritual unity of God had not entirely passed away from the Israelite mind; but as the affair of the golden calf proves, its hold had been relaxed by their intercourse with the heathen. But the

decalogue reasserted the great truth that God is one, that He is spiritual, and to be worshipped spiritually; while at the same time it taught that He was to be loved as their Deliverer, and worshipped as their Creator. The idea of the Sabbath as "a sign' is as valid now as ever. Nay, more so; for we may trace a progressive significance in the Sabbath. In the patriarchal ages it would be viewed simply as commemorative of creation. By the decalogue a second idea is added, namely, that the Great Benefactor of Israel was personally identical with the Creator. But when the gospel of the resurrection was preached, a more glorious truth was proclaimed, namely, the identity of the Creator with the Redeemer, of the God of nature with the Lord of life and grace. This doctrine was brought forward very prominently in the apostolic preaching; miracles bore testimony to it; the Lord's-day, devoutly kept every seventh day after the resurrection, was "a sign" of it. The old creation is brought to our minds by the septenary division; the new creation, and the acceptance of the Son's work by the Father, are brought before us by the fact that this seventh day is kept on the Lord's-day.

Here we may close the discussion of the nature and obligation of the Lord's-day. Before touching on the application of the subject, we would briefly sum up what we have advanced, so as to show what is the Christian view of the obligations of the Sabbath. The Christian is no longer under law but under grace, i. e., he is no longer a servant but a son; he has entered into a new covenant, and the law is within his heart; in other words, he is stimulated to obedience not by fear, but by love. The Bible tells him how to please his Father. He examines it on the Sunday question and finds that God rested on the seventh day from his work, and sanctified the day; and hence he feels it is God's pleasure that the day should be kept holy. Passing to the decalogue, he feels that, "being under the law to Christ," he must obey God's will and follow God's example in resting after six days' labour. In giving rest as far as possible to man and beast, he looks to the example and teaching of Jesus, and finds himself confirmed in the idea that "the Sabbath was made for man," and that "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day." He will endeavour to spend his time in that which tends most to the service of God, and the spiritual welfare and true rest of man. He feels grateful to God for the wise appointment of a day of rest which neither comes too often nor too seldom, but is exactly adapted for the physical, mental, and spiritual wants of his creatures. Turning to the apostolic times, he finds the Lord's-day kept in memory of the resurrection; and history tells him that as the old day of sabbatical rest died out, the Lord's-day enabled Christians to keep up the religious observance of one day in seven, which

has never since been dropped, and never ought to be, as it is in accordance with the plainest expressions of the will of God. Such we believe to be the Christian view of the subject.

A brief sketch of Dr. Hessey's views of the application of his Sunday principles will conclude our task. We can agree with much that the lecturer says on this head. Declining to give any rules for the observance of the day in England, he points out that the higher a man's tone of Christianity is, the more spiritually will he keep the Lord's-day. Much is said, and well said, about the necessity of our taking into account the great variety of employments in the week, which require various degrees of bodily and mental rest on the Sunday. People err not "in acting up to their own principles (there they are right), but in making their own standard a standard for all others." (Simeon, quoted p. 297.) As regards legislation, all that we can expect is that the external conducting of business of all sorts shall be prohibited. An apology is made for necessary Sunday dealings in the crowded parts of London, where, from the peculiar sources of their livelihood, many poor miserable creatures cannot get their food a day beforehand. We do not blame the poor so much as their superiors, who, by a little consideration in the payment of wages, and in other ways, could at once remove the temptation. Sunday should be as far as possible a cheerful day. He quotes an admirable passage from Dr. Miller, of Birmingham. Children of the rich and poor should not be forced into gloomy restraint; much less should the latter be alternately cooped up in school and stowed away almost out of sight and hearing in a close gallery in church, to listen to a service in which they have but little interest, and a sermon which they cannot understand. Individual efforts in

parishes may improve, and in many cases have improved, this state of things. As regards church services, we are recommended to shorten them by breaking them up, and to introduce, if possible, "services such as the mass can attend, more compatibly with their circumstances and habits, and feel interest in, as brought more to the level of their mental cultivation." (p. 332.)

While we think that Dr. Hessey has somewhat exaggerated the evils of the present system, we agree with him that there is much to be remedied; that great allowance is to be made for the poor; and we echo his sentiment, "How little with our superior knowledge, and freer disposal of our time, do we realize the religion of the day!" (p. 338.)

In parting with Dr. Hessey, we may remark, that he writes in a plain yet not uncultivated style; but we wish that there had been less dryness in the discussion, and, above all, more spiritual warmth in the application. And while we feel indebted to him for an elaborate work on so interesting a

subject, we cannot but feel great sorrow to see so much pains taken (or rather wasted) to deprive us of that view of Sunday which allows us to call it "the Sabbath," as well as "the Lord's-day;" a view which includes the idea of a seventh day's rest, in memory of the completion of the work of our Creator; as well as the idea of a first day's joy, for the completed and accepted work of our Redeemer.

WELLINGTON'S CAREER.

Wellington's Career: a Military and Political Summary. By Edward Bruce Hamley, Captain R. A., and Lieut.-Colonel. Edinburgh: Blackwoods. 1860.

We have seldom been more perplexed by a small and almost insignificant work, than by this little book of colonel Hamley's. Its author writes well, and understands, generally, the subject which he has taken in hand. Yet it is difficult to appreciate with any clearness the object of the publication. It is not a biography. It is not a brief history of the Duke's campaigns. It is not an attempt to estimate his character, or to compare him with other great generals, so as to fix his place and ascertain his rank. It is a sort of rapid sketch of the Duke's life, in which nothing is fully made out, no distinct impression left. But there is one feature in it which will appear to many to be repulsively absurd.

It gives us, more especially with reference to the battle of Waterloo, colonel Hamley's criticisms on the Duke's movements. Twelve pages are devoted to the events of the 16th, 17th, and 18th of June, 1815, without an attempt to describe the battle; and of these twelve, ten are occupied with animadversions on the Duke's opinions, decisions, and movements; all tending to prove that in his principal course of action, the Duke was in error, and colonel Edward Bruce Hamley would have done better! Thus, at page 72, we are told, that "the Duke was persuaded that Napoleon would attack by the latter roads, and the Duke was wrong." At page 74, "we must believe the Duke in error." At page 76, "this singular mistake has never been explained.' At page 77," the Duke was throwing away golden minutes. At page 79, "he never suspected that in a few hours he would be sorely taxed to hold his ground." At page 80, "the English had a narrow escape." "Yet the Duke was for some hours in greater danger." At page 81, "Wellington was extricating himself from his dangerous position." At page 82, "the Duke's

apprehensions for his own right never ceased to haunt him. It might have been supposed that so practised a general would have read in the French movements," &c. "Yet the Duke not only detached a considerable force to Hal, but kept it there during the day, though it was sorely needed."

And, finally, after having thus kindly pointed out all the Duke's blunders, colonel Hamley dismisses him at last, in the following gracious and patronizing sentence :

"But these and the other errors we have alluded to were amply redeemed by the issue. The Duke never displayed a cooler and more indomitable resolution than during the great crowning action of his life." (p. 83.)

Yes, the Duke did manifest "resolution." He had that one quality which was possessed also by every private soldier of the foot-guards! All he wanted was a little of that strategic skill and knowledge which colonel Edward Bruce Hamley endeavours to exhibit and impart.

Yet colonel Hamley admits his consciousness that this opinion of the Duke's, which he chooses to call "an error," was not a hasty thought, but a deliberate conviction, which his Grace in after-life steadily maintained. He must know, too, that the great master of the art of war whose opinion he thus overrules, was described by the first of German critics, Niebuhr, as "the only general in whose conduct of war we cannot discover any important mistake."

For our own parts, regarding, as we do, the duke of Wellington as a man specially raised up, and specially endowed with extraordinary talents for war, we have no hesitation in expressing our conviction, that when the Duke delivers one opinion on a question of this kind, and colonel Edward Bruce Hamley another, the probabilities are quite one hundred to one that the Duke is right. Colonel Hamley adduces reasons for his own opinion; to which we reply, that we are quite certain that all these reasons, and a great many more, were taken in at a glance by that penetrating eye, and pronounced to be insufficient. And so we leave this part of the subject.

Colonel Hamley's little book, however, calls to our recollection the fact, that we have never yet seen, in any compact and popular form, either a rapid sketch of the main facts of the Duke's life, or an estimate of his character. Either or both of these colonel Hamley might have given us, and if he had done so in a proper tone and spirit, he would have conferred on us no small benefit. As it is, the deficiency remains, and we feel strongly tempted, in spite of the fullest consciousness of our lack of professional knowledge, to attempt something of the kind which we have pointed out. In fact, colonel Hamley's manifest failure rather encourages us; for it shows, that an