them, and worship them, we shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord hath destroyed before our face, so shall we perish because we would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord our God." According to the pages of many a modern philosopher, when our deeds are such as might seem to imply an obedience to the gospel, that obedience is expressly to be disclaimed, and the name and power of the idol to which we are bowing down, be it what it willhonour, or expediency, or liberality-must be hallowed and blazoned abroad to the open disparagement of Almighty God, and the denial of his love in Jesus Christ for helpless sinners. Let us beware of any approximation to such philosophy which substitutes idols of the intellect for idols of the senses, and is worse than the heathenism which raised temples to Venus and Bacchus in the regions of ancient Greece. Let us guard our thoughts even on such subjects; the worst sin that ever was committed, was in its origin an idle thought.

Yours, very respectfully, A CHURCHMAN.

SABBATH.

SIR,-Indifferent health must be my apology for not sending an earlier reply to the last communication of your valuable correspondent, "H.," on the subject of the Sabbath. I certainly ought to have quoted his words with more accuracy; but I cannot think that my expressions misrepresent his meaning-at least if I rightly understand it. I conceive he intends to say, that although the Sunday was, in point of fact, honoured with religious observance immediately after the resur rection, yet the strict observance of the Saturday as the Sabbath was obligatory (I am not quite sure whether he means on all mankind, or merely on all persons of Jewish origin) until the destruction of the temple; but that thenceforward, by apostolical authority, the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week. In alluding as I did to this opinion, I did not intend to enter into the discussion of the general question, but simply to take the opportunity of bringing into notice a very important statement of so eminent a person as Justin Martyr, which appeared to me not to have met with the attention it merited. I am very well aware that the early fathers are an “uncritical" race, and I should, therefore, hesitate to take their opinions on many subjects-for instance, on the mystical interpretation of a passage of Scripture; but still I think they may be valuable witnesses of a tradition, especially when they had the means of communicating with those who lived in the time of the apostles. I should not, therefore, attach any great weight to the reason Justin gives for the observance of the Sunday, unless it appeared probable in itself; but I do think that his assertion, that Jesus, on the day of the resurrection, instructed his disciples to honour that day with certain religious ordinances, is worthy of grave consideration. And I may, perhaps, be allowed to say, that as there is confessedly no proof of any sort that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week at the destruction of Jerusalem, it may be worth inquiry whether the statement of Justin, who died (according to the Table at the end of Professor Burton's "Lectures on the Ec

Perhaps, in conclusion, you will allow me to add, that your strictures on this subject are not the less wanted because the book is a novel, -nor the less justifiable because the writer is a lady.

In this our day we have more writers than readers, if by readers be meant students of solid and useful learning, yet we have more readers than writers of novels, and more readers of novels and of books which are of that character than of any other books. Now though the spirit of the age is never to be flattered or indulged merely as such, yet it will mostly be found that it is to be opposed and censured as such, and is generally but another name for the reigning form of selfishness, dressed up in its best colours by the arch enemy of man. And when ladies bring themselves forward before the public, reviewers are not at liberty to consider them in any other character than that of authors. An authoress is a modern noun substantive, which ought not to be found in any grammar or dictionary. Ladies, of course, may write, and publish too, whatever their inclination may command and their sense of modesty permit; but what is so written and published may not be treated with the same courtesy that would have been gladly shewn had it been said at home by a quiet fire side. It has been my misfortune to see something of riots, and where there has been most mischief done, there women have always been in the front ranks, and the requisite measures for restoring peace have been too long delayed out of consideration for them. Had they worn men's clothes, however, this would not have been the case; and so when ladies turn authors-in other words, when they put on men's clothes they must make up their minds to consider the riot act as read, and let the law have its course.

. In "Helen," as in most novels, and particularly in Sir Walter Scott's, much is left undone which ought to have been done; but in "Helen there is also a further evil from the selection of the (subject, it might almost be written) moral, and the mode in which that moral is left to work. The deficiency of sterling principles is such as will most naturally be supplied by counters; and maxims will be gradually and inperceptibly worked into the reader, such as will have a show of reality until the hour of adequate temptation; then the reeds break sharp off and pierce the side they had seemed likely to support. "Helen" desires to inculcate the necessity of a strict adherence to truth; yet is there too much reason to fear "she has turned aside out of the way which God commanded her, to make for herself a molten image." If it were possible that morality, as it is called, could now exist in England apart from and independent of religion, that reason without religion could be sound, and such morality and sound reason could secure good conduct, still each character so admitted to exist for the occasion, (as the centaurs in ancient fable,) so assumed to be moral and well behaved, would probably thereby be led further from the only Lord God that taught him, and learn to "say in his heart, my power, and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth."

Every book should rather turn its readers "to remember the Lord their God: it is He that giveth us power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant" with us and our children. "If we do at all forget the Lord our God, and walk after other gods, and serve

them, and worship them, we shall surely perish. As the nations. which the Lord hath destroyed before our face, so shall we perish because we would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord our God." According to the pages of many a modern philosopher, when our deeds are such as might seem to imply an obedience to the gospel, that obedience is expressly to be disclaimed, and the name and power of the idol to which we are bowing down, be it what it will— honour, or expediency, or liberality-must be hallowed and blazoned abroad to the open disparagement of Almighty God, and the denial of his love in Jesus Christ for helpless sinners. Let us beware of any approximation to such philosophy which substitutes idols of the intellect for idols of the senses, and is worse than the heathenism which raised temples to Venus and Bacchus in the regions of ancient Greece. Let us guard our thoughts even on such subjects; the worst sin that ever was committed, was in its origin an idle thought.

Yours, very respectfully, A CHURCHMAN.

SABBATH.

SIR,-Indifferent health must be my apology for not sending an earlier reply to the last communication of your valuable correspondent, "H.," on the subject of the Sabbath. I certainly ought to have quoted his words with more accuracy; but I cannot think that my expressions misrepresent his meaning-at least if I rightly understand it. I conceive he intends to say, that although the Sunday was, in point of fact, honoured with religious observance immediately after the resur rection, yet the strict observance of the Saturday as the Sabbath was obligatory (I am not quite sure whether he means on all mankind, or merely on all persons of Jewish origin) until the destruction of the temple; but that thenceforward, by apostolical authority, the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week. In alluding as I did to this opinion, I did not intend to enter into the discussion of the general question, but simply to take the opportunity of bringing into notice a very important statement of so eminent a person as Justin Martyr, which appeared to me not to have met with the attention it merited. I am very well aware that the early fathers are an “uncritical" race, and I should, therefore, hesitate to take their opinions on many subjects-for instance, on the mystical interpre tation of a passage of Scripture; but still I think they may be valuable witnesses of a tradition, especially when they had the means of communicating with those who lived in the time of the apostles. I should not, therefore, attach any great weight to the reason Justin gives for the observance of the Sunday, unless it appeared probable in itself; but I do think that his assertion, that Jesus, on the day of the resurrection, instructed his disciples to honour that day with certain religious ordinances, is worthy of grave consideration. And I may, perhaps, be allowed to say, that as there is confessedly no proof of any sort that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week at the destruction of Jerusalem, it may be worth inquiry whether the statement of Justin, who died (according to the Table at the end of Professor Burton's "Lectures on the Ec

clesiastical History of the First Three Centuries") no later than A.D. 165, and who had resided in Palestine up to 132, is not, to say the least, extremely worthy of belief; and, if so, whether Christ's having appointed the religious observance of the Sunday was not in reality transferring the Sabbath to that day. I am aware that this notion militates against " H.'s" opinion, that not only the Sabbath, but the whole Jewish law, continued in force as long as the temple stood. But I cannot avoid agreeing with those who think that St. Paul (Coloss. ii. 16) plainly implies that Christians, as Christians, were absolved from the duty of keeping the Mosaical Sabbath; and if so, there is no need of the "incredible supposition," as "H." styles it, of the Lord's-day Sabbath "having been superadded" to the Jewish, and "of the primitive Jewish believers having but five work days in their week." For if, as I conceive, the whole frame of the Mosaical law was deprived of its religious obligation immediately upon the institution of the Christian church, (which took place, at the latest, on the day of Pentecost,) if, consequently, the legal Sabbath from that time forward became part of an obsolete ceremonial, the observance or non-observance of which was a matter of indifference, so long as men did not regard it as a means of procuring acceptance with God, then of course there remained to the Jewish believers only one day of obligation. And, indeed, as Christianity is a religion of the spirit, and not of the letter, they would be left to their Christian "liberty" as to the manner of observing the Lord's-day, so that they did really make it a day set apart for spiritual improvement, for the public worship of God, and the enjoyment of the communion of Saints.

But although the Jewish Christians might be at liberty to discontinue the observance of the Mosaical Sabbath, it does not appear that they did so; but, on the contrary, it seems evident that they did actually observe both Saturday and Sunday as days of Divine Worship. Mosheim, in his "Ecclesiastical History, (Cont. i. part 2, chap. iv. p. 4,) asserts it distinctly respecting the churches which were composed principally of Jewish converts. Bingham, in his " Antiquities," xx. iii. 1, states it respecting the oriental churches in general, and some of the western-Milan, for instance; and Professor Burton, in the work which I have already quoted, (Lecture viii. A.D. 53,) appears to agree with him. It is true that Bingham's authoritiesAthanasius, Augustin, Basil, and Ambrose-all belong to the fourth century; but it appears extremely improbable that the keeping of the Saturday as a festival, by the oriental churches in general, should have had any other origin than the general custom of the church of Jerusalem. In confirmation of this idea we find Theodoret, as quoted by Bingham, (xx. iii. 4,) charging the Ebionites, who derived many of their peculiarities from the Jewish Christians, (See Burton, lecture xi. A.D. 66—100,) " with joining the observation of the Sabbath according to the law of the Jews with the observation of the Lord's-day after the manner of the Christians." And this may explain in what sense Ignatius and Justin Martyr condemn the observance of the Sabbath-namely, the keeping it with Judaical strictness.

Leigh, Feb. 12th, 1835.

J. B. L.

DISTRICT VISITING SOCIETY.

DEAR SIR,-Attached to the number of the "British Magazine" for December, is the authorized statement of the objects and rules of the General Society for Promoting District Visiting in connexion with the Established Church.

The perusal of this notification has again excited in me an anxious desire of more distinct information as to the rules by which this society does actually, in practice, guide its proceedings. Comparing this new edition of their exposé with that which appeared in their Fourth Annual Report, when the sermon before the society was preached in Portman Chapel, Baker Street, in 1832, by the Bishop of Chester, I feel convinced that your readers will agree with me, that there is ground, on the part of the parochial clergy, for directly requesting a distinct avowal of the views and practices of the society.

Under "the plan of operation" stands, I. "Communication with the clergy. The central committee feeling the importance of having the sanction and co-operation of the parochial clergy, make it a preliminary step to the establishment of any local society, that a communication shall be held with the clergyman of the parish where its formation is contemplated." To which, in the Fourth Annual Report, is added, "It is, however, to be distinctly understood, that even should the sanction of the clergyman be withheld, a society may still be formed where circumstances render it expedient."

Again" It is advisable that the clergyman should be its president."

It will afford satisfaction, I doubt not, to many of the parochial clergy to be informed, that the rules of the society have been so modified as to render the consent at least, if not the co-operation, of the incumbent, or resident minister, an indispensable preliminary to the formation of a district visiting society in any parish. I am inclined to hope that this is the fact; for it can scarcely be conceived that the bishops and dignitaries of the church would countenance, in the general society, a principle which would justify the Bishop of Bangor in holding a confirmation in Chester, or the Bishop of Durham at York. You, Sir, I am certain, will be ready to adopt and to circulate the opinion, that it never can be expedient for persons not having any official authority in a parish, to assist in forming there any society contrary to the wishes of the resident minister. I will go farther, and declare that, with regard to a district visiting society, it is not only advisable, but indispensable to the maintenance of parochial unity and ministerial influence, that the resident minister should be president, or have the absolute direction of the operations of the society, especially in sanctioning the tracts to be distributed by them, and in the choice of visitors. All who are conversant with large towns will agree with me, that the zeal which may be found there is not always according to knowledge, and that a love of church unity is not always joined with it. I am quite alive to the difficulties which are continually presenting themselves to the parochial clergy of large towns; but howVOL. VII.-March, 1835.

2 Q