Spain, as proprætor, was successful. He chastised the mountaineers of Lusitania, relieved the distress of the provincials, and amassed a considerable sum from the spoils of the enemy, by which means he was enabled to pay his debts. On his return to Rome, in the summer of B.c. 60, he found the position of affairs seriously changed, every one "seeking his own," and none another's welfare ;* and this state, which resulted in the union of Cæsar, Pompey, and Crassus, has drawn from his biographer the following reflections in defence of his favourite:

"Historians in general have given no other reason to account for the agreement of these three men than personal interest. Doubtless Pompey and Crassus were not insensible to a combination that favoured their love of power and wealth; but we ought to allow Cæsar more elevated motives, and suppose him inspired by a genuine patriotism. The condition of the Republic must have appeared thus to his comprehensive grasp of mind:-The condition of the Roman dominion, stretched like some vast figure across the world, clasps it in her sinewy arms; and whilst her limbs are full of life and strength, the heart is wasting by decay. Unless some heroic remedy be applied, the contagion will soon spread from the centre to the extremities, and the mission of Rome will remain unfinished. The Roman people must be raised in its own eyes, and the Republic in the eyes of the world. Absolute liberty of speech and of vote was a great benefit, when modified by morality and restrained by a powerful aristocracy; it gave scope to individual faculties without damaging the general well-being; but, ever since the morality of ancient days disappeared with the aristocracy, we have seen the laws become weapons of war for the use of parties, the elections a traffic, the forum a battle-field; while liberty is nothing more than a never ending cause of weakness and decay. Our institutions cause such uncertainty in our councils, and such independence in our offices of state, that we search in vain for that spirit of order and control, which are indispensable elements in the maintenance of so vast an empire. Without overthrowing institutions which have given five centuries of glory to the Republic, it is possible, by a close union of the most worthy citizens, to establish in the state a moral authority, which governs the passions, tempers the laws, gives a greater stability to power, directs the elections, maintains the representatives of the Roman people in their duty, and frees us from two most serious dangers of the present-the selfishness of the nobles, and the turbulence of the mob. . . . Is it truer to say, that Cæsar, having become proconsul, aspired to the sovereign power? In departing for Gaul,

Plutarch mentions an anecdote respecting this thirst for office which prevailed at Rome in those days as much as it does in the United States of America at the present time. Once in crossing the Alps, Cæsar halted at a village, and his officers asked him

playfully, if he thought, in a remote place such as that in which they found themselves, there could be any rivalry for office. To this home question Cæsar characteristically replied, "I would rather be first among these savages than second at Rome."

he could no more have thought of reigning over Rome, than could General Buonaparte, starting for Italy in 1796, have dreamed of the Empire. Was it possible for Cæsar to foresee that, during a sojourn of ten years in Gaul, he would there link Fortune to him for ever, and that, at the end of this long space of time, the public mind would still be favourable to his projects? Could he foresee that the death of his daughter would break the ties which attached him to Pompey ?— that Crassus, instead of returning in triumph from the East, would be conquered and slain by the Parthians ?-that the murder of Clodius would throw all Italy into commotion ?—and, finally, that anarchy, which he had sought to stifle by the triumvirate, would be the cause of his own elevation ? Cæsar had before his eyes great examples for his guidance; he marched in the track of the Scipios and of Paulus Æmilius; the hatred of his enemies forced him, like Sylla, to seize upon the dictatorship, but for a more noble cause, and by a course of proceeding exempt from vengeance and cruelty. Let us then abstain from continually seeking little passions in great souls. The success of superior men-and it is a consoling thought-is due rather to the loftiness of their sentiments, than to the speculations of selfishness and cunning; this success depends much more on their skill in taking advantage of circumstances, than on the presumption blind enough to believe itself capable of creating events which are in the hands of God alone. Cæsar had faith in his destiny, and confidence in his genius; but faith is an instinct, not a calculation, and genius foresees the future without understanding its mysterious progress." (Liv. II. ch. v. § 7.)

With this questionable definition of heathen faith, we must draw our remarks on the life of the ancient Cæsar, by the heir of the modern Cæsar, to a close. We cannot say that his imperial biographer has added much to our stock of knowledge respecting one of the most remarkable men whom the world has ever seen, and whom all ages have recognised as one of the greatest. Nor do we think he has drawn the picture of his hero with the same ability which others have done in their treatment of a similar subject. But none can deny that it is the most skilful defence of his own conduct, under circumstances not altogether dissimilar to those which he has closely studied, and the results of which he has now given to the world.

HOW CAN WE BEST PROVE THE PERPETUITY OF THE SABBATH IN OPPOSITION TO MODERN OBJECTIONS?

In searching for arguments to prove the perpetuity of the Sabbath, the first and most important question is, "What saith the Scripture?" We may begin by examining those passages which are quoted by modern objectors on the other One of these is Col. ii. 16, "Therefore let no man judge

side.

you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Dean Alford observes upon this passage, that if the ordinance "of the Sabbath had been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the Apostle to have spoken thus." Bishop Elliott, however, remarks that Dean Alford's statement cannot be substantiated; and if we refer to Lev. xxiii. 24, 32, we are struck by the fact, that the feasts and fasts of the Jews, quite independent of the weekly Sabbath, are called "Sabbaths of rest," and "Sabbaths," and in v. 38 are distinguished from the "Sabbaths of the Lord." May we not, therefore, consider it quite as probable that in Col. ii. 16 some of these special Jewish feasts are spoken of, and not the weekly Sabbath? Besides, that "weekly Sabbath" was not a "shadow of things to come," but a commemoration of things past, viz., the Creation and the Deliverance from Egypt. There is only one sense in which it is a shadow of things to come: it typifies the eternal rest of heaven; but the shadow must remain until the substance comes; therefore the Sabbath must continue to be observed until the end of the world. And here we may call to mind the passages, Ezek. xliv. 24, xlvi. 1,3,4, Is. lxvi. 23, which are generally interpreted of a millennial kingdom yet future. If so, the passages bear witness to the observance of the Sabbath at that period. Are we then to suppose that such observance is to be suspended during the present interval of time? In arguing thus, we are aware that we have no right to press, as Christians, words spoken by Jewish prophets to their countrymen, unless, as is probable in these passages, they refer to the times of Messiah yet future, in which all nations shall bear a part. Referring back again to the passage in Col. ii. 16, we may observe that, even if the weekly Sabbath is intended there, still it does not follow that the Apostle spoke of it as an abrogated ordinance. He is arguing against the observance of the law meritoriously as a ground of justification, so as to obscure the work of Christ.

The same may be said of two other passages quoted by modern objectors: Gal. iv. 10, "Ye observe days and months and times and years;" and Rom. xiv. 5, 6, " One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike," with what follows in the 6th verse. It is not certain that the Apostle was even alluding to the Sabbath in these passages: there were other days of observance, which were swept away among the ceremonies of the law; but if the Sabbath be alluded to, it is not the keeping of the day which is condemned, but a reliance upon the keeping, as constituting man's righteousness, or tenacity as to the particular day in the week

which was to be kept as a Sabbath-day, whether the 1st or the 7th.

Having disposed of those passages which appear to be unfavourable, we may next consider how far the testimony of Scripture is favourable to the perpetuity of the Sabbath. The words of the Fourth Commandment refer the sanctification of the day back to the rest of Almighty God after the creation of the world, and thus take it entirely out of the list of temporary Jewish ordinances. Our Lord in the New Testament strengthens the ordinance of marriage by reference to its institution "at the beginning." Are we not then justified by analogy in claiming this primeval institution of the Sabbath as an argument in favour of its present obligation?

The Fourth Commandment revived an institution as old as Creation, and Jewish history supplied additional reasons, peculiar to that nation, why it should be observed. See Deut. v. 15, where the obligation to perform the duty is founded upon the deliverance from Egypt. In the Jewish theocratic system also the Sabbath occupied a peculiar place, as part of the covenant between God and Israel, and as a sign of their faithfulness to His service, and of His sovereign love and care over them. (See Ezekiel xx. 12.) Similarly the pollution of the Sabbath was reckoned one of the crying national sins of Israel, which brought upon them their calamities. (Ezek. xx. 13, 16, 21.) But though the Sabbath was thus incorporated into the Jewish polity, and enforced by motives appealing specially to the Jewish people, it does not appear from Scripture that it either commenced or ended with the Mosaic dispensation. There is, indeed, no record of its observance in the patriarchal age (unless we consider Gen. iv. 3, "in process of time," or "at the end of days," to mark a weekly festival) until we come to the giving of the manna in Exodus xvi., where the people are commanded to remain at home, and do no work on that day. The Sabbath, too, is there spoken of as the gift of God, and an institution standing and familiar, before the publication of the law; or it may have fallen into some degree of disuse, and have been now revived. Bishop Whately maintains the mention of the Sabbath in Genesis after the Creation to be introduced by anticipation, but there seems no ground for this opinion.

Again, the position which the Fourth Commandment holds in the Decalogue is an argument for its perpetuity. It is embedded in the Moral Law, which is not abrogated, but confirmed by the Gospel. The commandment itself is moral, though the appointment of one particular day in the week is positive, and therefore may be and has been changed. If we eliminate the Fourth Commandment from the Decalogue, how can we condemn the Romanist, who eliminates the Second? The Fourth Commandment is enjoined in a manner quite dis

tinct from those ceremonial observances among which some persons wish to place it. It is one of a select company, given in a select code; and though the Decalogue is not a covenant to us, as it was to the Jews, still it is a binding relation of God's will.

Again, when we come to the New Testament, we should expect to meet with a formal abrogation of the ordinance, if it were intended to be no longer binding. This is nowhere to be found. On the contrary, our Lord showed what might he done on that day, and thereby certainly implied that it should be observed in some way, though not according to the manner of the Pharisees; He also directed his followers to pray that their flight from the siege of Jerusalem might not be on the Sabbath-day (Matt. xxiv. 20), forty years after His own ascension. A weekly Sabbath was kept in the early Church, although the day was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week by the Apostles, who probably were authorised to do so by our Lord Himself, as Lord of the Sabbath (John xx. 19, 26). At any rate he sanctioned the change by successive appearances among the disciples on that day. And for some hundreds of years, as we hear from the Apostolical Constitutions, vii. c. 23, and other authorities quoted in Hammond's Practical Catechism, the Jewish Sabbath was retained in a great part at least of the Church, together with the "Lord's Day," and the services proportioned to them both, until both were merged in one.

The change of day does not affect the essence of the institution, and if we are taxed with inconsistency in arguing for the Sabbath and yet not keeping it on the seventh day (the two words "Sabbath" and "seventh day" being interchanged and expressed by the same, or nearly the same, Hebrew term) we reply that the first day of the week may be-we cannot prove that the seventh day is-the original day of God's rest from the works of creation, and that as the Jews, in Exodus xvi., observed the seventh day from the first descent of the manna as their Sabbath, so we on our Lord's Day observe the seventh day from the descent of Christ, the true manna, into the grave. When we call to mind the great fact of our Lord's Resurrection, we say "This is the day which the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it."

One of the strong points of our adversaries is that all the other commandments are quoted in the New Testament, except the Fourth. (See Luke xviii. 20; Rom. xiii. 9.) But these quotations are in both these places confined to the commandments of the second Table; and the first, second, and third receive no more specific mention than the fourth.

So much for the testimony of Scripture.

Two other proofs may be shortly stated as follows:-(a) The