The fifth Commandment is another instance still more strongly to our purpose. It may justly be said of the duty enjoined in it, that it naturally commends itself to the heart and conscience, and also that it has been republished by Christ. But neither the one nor the other of these assertions can be applied to its promise. If we hope that the blessing will follow the performance of the duty, our only ground and warrant for such hope is, because we find it so written in the Decalogue. We shall search the New Testament in vain for any other.

It is true that Selden,* and others after him, have cited this very promise, as a proof that the Decalogue is superseded by the Christian dispensation. They assume that it can only be interpreted as one of the temporal blessings held out to the Jews under their particular Covenant, and can refer only to the land of Canaan. Hence, they argue, that dispensation having come to an end, its promise must end with it, and therefore the Decalogue, as a whole, no longer remains. What is retained stands upon a different authority, that of our Lord and His apostles.

The inference would be very just, if the assumption were well founded and true. But as the assumption is the very foundation of the argument, it ought itself to be proved, and not taken for granted, before we are called upon to allow the consequence. The mere verbal statement of the promise does not in itself warrant its assumed restriction; for when the Scripture tells us that "God has determined the bounds of their habitation to all nations of men," what reason have we for saying that the expression, "The land which the Lord thy God has given thee," is not applicable to every nation and every individual in it? What warrant have we for restricting it to the land of Canaan alone? Is there any Englishman who will not apply it to his own lot, and thank God for the land which He has given him? Do we not believe that, as of old, so now also, God will bestow temporal blessings upon those lands and those persons that honour Him, and visit with His judgments those that depart from Him? What is there, then, in the wording of the promise, which will not as well apply to Christians of the present day, as to the Jews of old?

But we should be sorry to rest so important a matter upon so weak a foundation as any conclusions of our own; nor do we require of any one that the reasons which are satisfactory to us should be received as convincing by him. We rest the justness

Selden's expressions, however, have been extended far beyond his meaning. He had no doubt about the duty of observing the Sabbath; his objection was, as he states in another place, "to their observing it in the Jewish manner;" a rule laid down by some of the Puritans.

The duty of keeping the Lord's-day holy, and the mode of keeping it holy, are two perfectly distinct questions, and much controversy would have been spared, if the distinction had been always kept in view.

of our interpretation, not upon our own arguments, but upon the express testimony of an inspired apostle. St. Paul is writing to converts who had been heathens, and not Jews; and we need only read the passage (Ephes. vi. 1-3,) in which he is laying before them the fifth Commandment, to see that in it he expressly asserts these two things, first, that the expression of "thy days being long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee," means, that "thy days may be long on the earth;" and next, that they may depend upon this promise being still in force, because it is so written in the Decalogue.

We may observe, besides, that in calling this the "first Commandment with promise," he necessarily implies that all the others are commandments also, and therefore of equal permanence and authority.

It is certain, then, with respect to two of the commandments, that St. Paul, in writing to his heathen converts, considers the mere fact of their being found among those "written by the finger of God" on mount Sinai, sufficient proof that they must be still in force, sufficient authority for enjoining our obedience, and sufficient reason for our relying upon the promise. Now, if this is a good reason for any one, it is a good reason for every one of them. It is apostolic testimony to the divine and permanent authority of the whole Decalogue.

Where an apostle has delivered his opinion so peremptorily, it is perhaps weakening our case to add anything further upon the subject. But as the assertion we are combating is mainly brought forward to set aside the divine authority of the Lord'sday, we may be permitted to add a few words on that subject, so far as it bears upon the question under discussion.

When we wish to know a person's opinion about a subject upon which he has not expressly spoken, we naturally endeavour to collect it from his actions. Now let us apply this to the case in question.

It is very clear that the apostles, and all the early Christians, so far obeyed the fourth Commandment, as to set a broad mark of distinction between one day of the week and the other six. The mere fact, also, of their calling this day the Lord'sday, shows that they looked upon it as one more peculiarly His, and more especially devoted to His service and worship.

But we shall not see the full force of the inference to be drawn from this apostolic observance, unless at the same time we take into consideration how alien from all other nations was this septenal division of time. The Romans, the Greeks, in fact all the civilized world at that period, with the exception of the Jews, and perhaps the Egyptians,* used modes of reckoning time which,

* We do not enter upon the argument respecting the heathen origin of the week, derived from the heathen names of

the Days. The Christian week was established long before the Egyptian influence had perceptibly extended itself,

however different from each other, were all such as could never be made to coalesce with our week. How, then, is it to be accounted for, that as fast as Christianity made its way in all directions, and among all nations, the peculiar observance of one day in seven always accompanied it? If it had been regarded merely as a Jewish ordinance, that circumstance, so far from being a recommendation, would have proved a hindrance to it, both among the heathens and the early Christians. Yet we see that St. Paul, who claims to be considered as eminently the Apostle of the Gentiles, and who is on all occasions most distinct and peremptory in asserting the Mosaic law with all its ceremonies and ordinances to be totally superseded, speaks of the first day of the week as a settled and established ordinance of Christianity, though writing to converts among whom the civil reckoning by weeks was totally unknown. He has shown, then, by his conduct in this instance, the observance of one day in seven, as well as by his express assertions in the other two cases of which we have been speaking, that he considers every commandment of the Decalogue to be as binding upon Christians as it was and is upon the Jews; and can we fix upon any one who would be more jealously on his guard against every attempt to ground any religious service upon mere human authority?

We have spoken the more at length upon these details, because the question, whether the whole Decalogue is still binding, is of great importance to all, whether Churchmen or Dissenters; for although we do not consider the duty of observing one day in seven to rest upon the fourth Commandment, but upon the original law given to man before his fall, yet that commandment is a most solemn attestation, and that by the Almighty Himself, to its universal and permanent authority. The second Commandment also draws a visible line of distinction between Romanists and all Protestants. So that every one will allow the importance of the question at issue. But it more especially concerns Churchmen, because we have engrafted the whole Decalogue into our Liturgy, and are told authoritatively to "pray for God's mercy on our transgression thereof, and grace to keep the same for the time to come." Now, if the Decalogue, as a Decalogue, be abolished, its adoption by our Church is a greater blemish than the introduction of the Apocrypha into our Ritual. For we expressly disclaim the Apocrypha as having any divine authority, and merely read it as any homily of old or sermon of the present day may be read, "for example of life, and instruction of manners."

But

bably derived it from the Chaldæans. The Christians adopted the six names of the week days named after the moon and five planets, retaining their own name for the remaining day.

supposing the Decalogue a mere Jewish code, and as such now superseded, in adopting it, and our responses show how entirely we adopt it in all its particulars, we are guilty of re-fastening a yoke and burden upon our people, from which Christ had set them free.

No doubt, a deep and searching examination into the foundations of all the truths which we are called upon to accept, is not only the right, but the duty of every Christian; and we utterly repudiate the notion of its being a duty to fling away or stifle all doubts as the suggestions of the evil spirit. Where there is doubt upon any point of religion, inquiry becomes duty; nor can we believe that the result of conscientious inquiry will ever be injurious to our piety and peace. Such teaching would keep every one in the error in which he had been brought up; under it, no Roman Catholic could become a Protestant, no Mahometan a Christian; and therefore it is by them that such a tenet is most vehemently espoused. Such teaching it was that so long retarded the Reformation. It is, however, utterly alien to the spirit of our Church, which directs her members, like the more noble-minded of the Bereans, to "search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so."

Nevertheless, there is a heavy responsibility attaching to the spirit and manner in which this is done. There are many writers in the present day who might earnestly be entreated to consider whether advancing all kinds of speculations on religious subjects without offering any proof of their truth, whether endeavouring to invalidate the authority of the Scriptures on account of some supposed or hitherto unexplained difficulties in them, whether suggesting doubts without any attempts to solve them, are innocent and charitable proceedings. It is no valid justification of such a course to say that nothing is to be feared from it; that truth can bear safely every attack, and that every attempt to overthrow it must end in its more firm establishment. We have no doubt about that: but such defence is in its essence no other than that reprobated by St. Paul,— "Let us do evil that good may come;" for how many souls may have suffered shipwreck, before the mists we have raised cleared away!

*

We will conclude with a beautiful passage from a sermon recently published, the whole of which is worthy of attentive perusal, and especially at the present period. Happily this is not an instance in which the Church has had reason to complain of the University Pulpit.

"What so uncharitable, so heartless, so cruel, as the wanton suggestion of doubts and difficulties in religion to unsuspecting minds? We may do so, indeed, imprudently and unconThe Province of Private Judgment, by E. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel College. H. and J. Parker.

Vol. 61.-No. 290.

T

sciously. Heaven forgive us where we have so done! But it is also the fault, from time to time, not merely of the rashness and vanity of young and half-informed talent, but even of those who should be grave, considerate, and sound. If 'it must needs be that offences come,' yet it is written, Woe be to that man by whom the offence cometh.' 'Whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.' Do we marvel at such words? It was the first evil work in this world of the great enemy to tempt innocent souls to unbelief. We never do the work of Satan so directly as when we tempt others to unbelief and sin."

R. T.

DR. TRENCH ON THE EPISTLES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHE S IN ASIA.

Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia; Revelation II., III. By Richard Chevenix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 1861.

IN reviewing Dr. Trench's exposition of the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, it was not at first our intention to touch upon the questions either of the authorship or of the interpretation of the Apocalypse itself, partly because we wished to confine ourselves to the subject of the book reviewed, and partly because the Christian Observer has recently contained a discussion on the Book of Revelation. But it was easier to make this resolve than to keep it. The Apocalypse resembles that great granite boulder in the Cumbrian mountains, which vibrates to the touch of a child's finger, although a giant's strength could not move it an inch from its base. This book is immovably settled upon the basis of its divine origin, its apostolic authorship and inspiration; yet men have always been laying irreverent or curious hands upon it: and although for one moment it has seemed to vibrate at their touch, not all the force of hostile criticism has been able to roll it from its place in God's word. The latest "child's finger" that has touched it, is a brilliant but superficial article in the Westminster Review. (October, 1861.) And our desire to expose the fallacies of this article must be our excuse for deviating from our special subject, and again calling the attention of our readers to the Apocalypse. The writer denies that St. John was the author; determines the date of its composition to be during the seven months' reign of Galba, or A.D. 69; ranks it in substance, although not in genius,