the Sabbath is plainly spoken of as given (what else can that mean but as first instituted ?) in the wilderness." (Works, p. 91.)

Dr. Barrow thus speaks to the same effect:—

"It is expressed to have been a sign, or characteristical note, whereby their peculiar relation to God might be discerned, and they distinguished from all other people. As circumcision was a seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity; so the keeping the Sabbath did obsignate the covenant with the children of Israel after the delivery out of Egypt. (Ex. xxxi. 16; Ez. xx. 11, 12, 20; Neh. ix. 13, 14.) Where making known to them the Sabbath as also otherwise giving them the Sabbath, are expressions, together with the special ends of the Sabbath's appointment which are mentioned in those places, confirming the judgement of the ancient christians, Justin M., Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c., who refer the first institution of the Sabbath to Moses, affirming (that which indeed the history by its total silence concerning the Sabbath before him, sufficiently doth seem to confirm) that the patriarchs were not obliged thereto nor did practice it."

To such reasoning Mr. Gilfillan replies thus:

6

"To insist that such language establishes the origination of the Sabbath at the time to which it refers, requires us no less to believe that all the other statutes mentioned in connection with that institution were then also enacted. According to this doctrine, sacrifices, the Decalogue, and circumcision, must have then in the first instances been apppointed. But sacrifices had been offered as early as the days of Abel; the ten commandments had been in force from the creation, for there are traces of them all in the book of Genesis; For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law'; and circumcision had been instituted 400 years before. How strikingly as to this last mentioned ordinance does the rule of induction expose the fallacy of Dr. Paley's argument! Circumcision, like the Sabbath, is mentioned as given at the commencement of the Levitical dispensation: 'Moses gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers.'

According to Mr. Gilfillan, the right explanation of these "givings" is, "that laws and institutions previously appointed and known were, at Sinai, with superadded ceremonies and political statutes, formally promulgated, committed to writing, and organized into a regular system."

As to the argument from the fact that the Sabbath was constituted a sign between the Jews and God, the same principle would warrant us-would it not?-in maintaining that the sun and moon had no existence before the fourth day of creation; and that the rainbow had never thrown its beautiful arch across the sky till that day when Noah, on the side of Ararat, offered his burnt-sacrifice to God.

It seems obvious, then, that as we cannot find the institution of the Sabbath in the giving of the law at Sinai, so we cannot find it

a fortnight earlier in the wilderness of Sinai. It is only, we are persuaded, when we ascend the stream of history, and of the human race, and get to the source of both, that we find the original appointment of one day in the week separated from the other days for special and sacred purposes.

The words of the original institution we believe to be the following:-"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. ii. 2-3.)

Regarding these words, Dr. Paley makes the following admission: "If the Sabbath had been instituted at the time of creation, as the words in Genesis may seem at first sight to import." Now the words are really such that at second and third sight, and always, they would be regarded as stating the origin and institution of the Sabbath, were it not for the intrusion of some theory exerting a modifying influence, and requiring their apparent import to be explained away. It would be wrong, indeed, to insist on the absolute correctness of the at-first-sight import of a passage. If after and other statements of the Divine Word, the meaning of which is definitely settled, require a modification of the at-first-sight import, by all means let it be modified. But if no necessity for such modification exist; if, on the contrary, there is the clearest harmony between the at-first-sight import and all other and after passages of Scripture bearing on the subject, then the at-first-sight import is certainly to be accepted and maintained. The fact that it is so natural an import as to suggest itself at first sight, is strongly in its favour.

How does Dr. Paley, after such an admission, endeavour to bring the passage in Genesis into harmony with his theory of the institution of the Sabbath? He

says:

"It was natural in the historian, when he had related the history of the creation, and of God's ceasing from it on the seventh day, to add, ' and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,' &c., although the blessing and sanctification, i. e. the religious distinction and appropriation of that day, were not actually made till many ages afterwards. The words do not assert that God then blessed' and 'sanctified' the seventh day, but that he blessed and sanctified it for that reason; and if any ask why the Sabbath, or the sanctification of the seventh day, was then mentioned, the answer is at hand-the order of connexion, and not of time, introduced the mention of the Sabbath, in the history of the subject which it was ordained to commemorate."-Works, p. 91.

But does not this strike the unbiased reader of Moses as a very forced interpretation? We have a great fact stated, viz.,

that God ended his work. Another fact is stated, viz., that on the seventh day he rested. These two facts took place immediately after the six days of creation. Why then should not the next fact stated be regarded as also transpiring at the same time. "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." The reason, moreover, which is assigned for the sanctification of the day is one which had as much force then as it had two thousand five hundred years afterwards.

Dr. Paley says, "The words do not assert that God then blessed and sanctified the seventh day, but that he blessed and sanctified it for that reason." But is this the case? Do not the words as really assert that God then blessed and sanctified the seventh day, as that he ended his work and rested that day? And the reason for the sanctification of the day is not that two thousand five hundred years afterwards he ordained that men were to rest, but because he himself rested that day. The reason, in short, which is assigned for the sanctification of the Sabbath day is one which has had equal force from the first seventh day till the present hour; and it will continue to have the same force, so far as we can see, to the end of time. And be it observed, stil further, that in the Fourth Commandment God does not say,"Wherefore God now blesses the Sabbath day, and hallows it, but blessed and hallowed."

It is argued, however, by Dr. Paley and others, that there is no trace of the Sabbath from Adam to Moses. Let the objection be admitted. The fragmentary nature of the history will go a long way to account for the fact, if fact it be. We have very long intervals, during which there is no mention of circumcision, or the Passover, &c., but such silence does not infer their later institution. We cannot, however, admit that the alleged fact is a fact. There are, as it appears to us, distinct traces of a septenary division of time, as in the case of Cain and Abel sacrificing" at the end of days." There is, too, express mention of "seven days" in the account of the flood, when Noah sent out the raven and dove, and ultimately left the ark. The “weeks" which Jacob fulfilled for Rachel, point in the same direction. And Pharaoh's complaint against Moses and Aaron, "Ye cause the people to keep a Sabbath from their burdens," (Ex. v. 5) is further evidence. This septenary division of time was known to other ancient nations besides the Jews, and is most easily and satisfactorily accounted for by the primeval institution of the Sabbath. It is therefore a mistake to say that there are no traces of the Sabbath from Adam to Moses.

Dr. Paley further says, "that there is no record of any permission to dispense with the institution in the case of the Jews in Egypt, or on any other emergency." But, admitting this, may.

not the question be pressed, where was the necessity for such per mission? Where is the proof that the Israelites needed it in Egypt? And should such emergency, as is referred to, arise, as in the case of a Christian condemned to the galleys for life, and allowed no Sabbath, what principle of divine law would hold him guilty as a Sabbath breaker?

Is it urged that the words in Gen. ii. 2, 3, are not words of institution or command? We answer, Are the words in Gen. ii. 24, the words of institution?" Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." If these are the words of institution, so surely are those in Gen. ii. 2, 3. But if they are not, where is the original institution of marriage?

Putting the language of the Fourth Commandment and the unstrained language of Gen. ii. 2, 3, together, it seems to be clear that we have the Sabbath instituted at the beginning of the world, at the start of the human race. And if it was instituted then, we do not see that it could be intended exclusively for any one particular tribe of men. It must have been meant for man, as man, all the world over, and to the end of time.

To the same effect is the testimony of our Saviour. "The Sabbath was made for man." It may be "replied that the point before the Saviour was not the obligation of the Sabbath, but the superiority of man to the day. But what of that? The Saviour distinctly asserts that the day was ordained, or appointed, for man; not for the Jew merely, but for man. It must, therefore, we should think, have been originated at the beginning of the human race. It must be of universal and perpetual obligation.

A. D.-G.

BELIEF NOT WORKING BY LOVE;

OR, HOW COMES IT TO PASS THAT SOME BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN ATONEMENT FOR THEIR SINS, AND YET ARE DESTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN PEACE AND CHRISTIAN PURITY?

If

THERE are some persons who have a strong propensity to adjust the objects of their thoughts into a symmetrical system. If they study botany, for instance, they must form for themselves a system of vegetable nature. If they study astronomy, they must form a system of the stellar universe for themselves. they study geology, they must work out a system of the progression of the terrestrial ages. And so, if they study theology, they must construct for themselves a symmetrical system of the relations of God to man, and of man to God. Among these relations, the atonement, of course, comes in. Coming in, it

must be disposed of, by the systematizer, in his system. In disposing of it, the question of its extent falls to be considered. It cannot be consistently ignored or avoided. But in considering it, some systematizers find that the niche which is left for the topic in their system is most appropriately filled by the concept of a limited atonement, as it is called,-an atonement for the sins of the elect alone. This concept fits in best with their notions of God's laws, as fixing beforehand whatsoever comes to pass, and thus with their notions of the universal range of foreordination, and the universal reach of "philosophical necessity," or "christian fate." In the systems of other systematizers, however, the niche that is left is better filled by the concept of a universal atonement, a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. This concept agrees better,-perhaps far better,-with the notions that have been formed of God's moral character, and of man's responsibility, and of the sincerity of the invitations, exhortations, and entreaties of the gospel. Hence the universality of the atonement is maintained. It is maintained because it fits into the theological system which has been constructed. It is an indispensable part and parcel of the system-just as the creation of Adam is, and the promulgation of the moral law, and the existence of sin. Without it, the symmetry of the system would be gone. The universality of the atonement thus becomes an object of firm, settled, immovable conviction. It is unwaveringly believed in. But it is believed in, simply as one of the essential elements of a symmetrical theological system. The system needs the universality of the atonement, to make it complete, and therefore the universality of the atonement is believed in and maintained.

Other individuals are rather intellectual warriors, than intellectual architects and system-builders. They are soldiers in spirit. They are ready to do battle, on the arena of debate, with any who may feel inclined to measure lances with them. Their theology, hence, is rather polemic than systematic. They found contests going on in reference to theological subjects when they entered into the maturity of intellectual life, and they rushed, under the impulse of an irrepressible intellectual instinct, and with hearty goodwill, into the thick of the fight. In some of the more earnest grapplings and collisions in which they had thus to take part, the atonement came in for discussion. Its extent, too, had to be debated. And hence a particular side in this contest had to be chosen. It was chosen. And, perhaps by a sense of logical consistency, or, perhaps by a perception of a really weak point in the argumentation of an antagonist, or, mayhap by an accidental turn in the tournament, or by a mere love of opposition, the universality of the work of our Saviour