is the cause of these, eludes all observation. The physiologist cannot discern it through his microscope, nor detect its form by means of his most delicate chemical tests. All we can say respecting it-all that any can say respecting it, is, that it is some mysterious, indescribable, inscrutable something, which, actuating the plant, and operating through it, excites, regulates, and sustains all the processes of vegetation.

But, whatever life be, it bespeaks very directly a divine origin. Just in the degree and measure in which it is superior to mere mechanical power, to mere chemical power,-and it is precisely its superiority to these, the only powers with which we are acquainted, that constitutes its mysteriousness,—it proves the presence and agency of a divine intelligence in vegetation. “It is to be remarked,”· says Dr Carpenter in his physiology, "that the physical properties themselves are dependent both for their existence and excitement to action upon those vital processes, which no mechanical contrivance or chemical operation can produce or imitate—a beautiful series of actions and re-actions, which cannot but excite our admiration of the skill of the Supreme contriver." Life, indeed, would just seem to be the link by which the

chain of natural causes and effects, both in plants and animals, is bound to the eternal throne. "The phenomena of life," says a distinguished professor of physiology, "are to be referred to certain laws of vitality, of which we can give no other account than that they depend on the will of the Author of nature.” “I humbly conceive," says Sir James Smith, "that if the human understanding ean in any case flatter itself with obtaining, in the natural world, a glimpse of the immediate agency of the Deity, it is in the contemplation of the vital principle, which seems independent of material organization, and an impulse of his own divine energy." Who, indeed, can look at the development of vegetative life, glowing in vernal beauty and fragrance, without being constrained to exclaim, in the beautiful words of the poet,—

"Thou art, O God! the life and light, Of all this wondrous world we see; Its glow by day, its smile by night

Are but reflections caught from thee. Where'er we turn thy glories shine,

And all things fair and bright are thine. When youthful Spring around us breathes Thy Spirit warms her fragrant sigh; And every flower that summer weaves Is born beneath thy kindling eye; Where'er we turn, thy glories shine, And all things fair and bright are thine."

SOME months ago a committee of the House of Commons published a report on the Sunday traffic of the metropolis, from which it appears that Sabbath desecration in this form of it, is carried on to an enormous extent in almost every part of London and its environs. In a social and prudential point of view, the evil is denounced as flagrant, and the summary suppression of it by parliamentary enactment, is recommended as the only available remedy. We have no faith in human legislation for the

better observance of the Sabbath. To speak of enforcing its sanctification, would be obviously absurd; for keeping holy the Sabbath is a homage of the inner man, of which compulsion can extort nothing but the pretence and resemblance. It is not much that legislation can do even in the way of enforcing the external quiet of the Sabbath-day. Not that we deny there are moral nuisances which public authority might and ought to put down. We believe and lament that such there are practices, for

'example, which, without any plea of necessity, and with manifest detriment of the public morals, deprive large numbers of our fellow-men of the advantages of the day of rest. Good, we doubt not, will come of the inquiry in which our rulers are engaged, by means of the fearful mass of information which it brings under public notice, relative to the vices and cruelties of Sunday traffic. Whatever good in this way may come of the inquiry, we hope our senators themselves will share it. They have much to learn in the way of selfreformation; for there is no room to doubt that not a little of the irreligion which it is fashionable for the great to mourn over among the masses, these have acquired in the way of imitating their superiors. In some -less considerable instances, there has indeed been some improvement. The Sunday banquetings of the magnates of Downing Street, do not offend, as they once used to do, the feelings of the sober-minded and pious classes of the community. In the merry, orthodox, church-and-king days of Tory domination, cabinet Sunday dinners were the common course of things. The Reform cabinets, as belonging to a party who defer more to public opinion, eschewed the scandal.* But, in other things, the government of this christian country is perhaps the greatest Sabbath-breaker in the land. - In how many departments of the public service are the sanctities of the Lord's day disregarded? The Post-Office is not the only example, flagrant though it be, from the num

*What could possess Lord John Russell to do a thing so obtrusively the opposite of the course referred to, as to select the Sabbath for his summer's trip from Ireland to the Clyde? Necessity there was none. He was on his way to pay a visit of ceremony to her Majesty at Balmoral, which might have been as well done the day before or after. But so he would have itSunday must be the day; and thus, for the accommodation of a man and his wife-for this is the plain English of the matter

ber of persons necessarily deprived of the public as well as private privileges of the day of rest. Other examples of a similar kind less heard of, are not less heinous. In the protection of the revenue, as well as in our postal arrangements, there is a systematic national breach of the fourth commandment. Our attention has lately been turned to this subject in connexion with the coastguard service and the customs; and the state of things in both departments appears to be such as fully to justify the language we have used. The employment of tide-waiters, whose duty is to board vessels arriving from foreign ports, and to remain on board till the cargoes are discharged, is the plan employed to check frauds upon the revenue. These men's day's service extends to thirteen and twenty-one hours alternately out of the twenty-four. In the tide-waiting branch, some relief from duty is allowed the men by turns on Sundays; but never to the extent of giving opportunity to attend church above once a-day, and this, after the exhausting fatigues of a night's watching, when the tidewaiter is fit for little else but to go to sleep-and that, too, under command to return to his post as soon as his half-day's worship or half-day's sleep is ended. Speaking of the system as a whole, it may be asserted without exaggeration, that this is a class of public servants for whom no Sabbath comes round.

But how is it that we hear no complaints from the men who are under

making their passage from Dublin to Greenock, must a whole ship's crew be robbed of their Sabbath's rest, bodily and spiritual, and the decencies of the Lord's day be broken by the arrival of the steamer, and the ceremonial of his lordship's progress into the town-progress, we say, for, as might have been expected, as many sauntering fools were found upon the quay as to form a sort of mock ovation for the premier on the way to his hotel, when the people were assembling for public worship.

this yoke of grinding secularity? Were there no complaint, as alleged, the sin would be nothing the less on the part of those by whom the burden is imposed. It is quite possible that the practice of exacting Sunday labour from them, with hardly any intermission of their toil, has the effect of destroying their sense of the sacredness of the day. It would be nothing more what we might anticipate, from what, in other cases, we see of the deadening effects of familiarity with that which is evil. So much the louder is the call to abate a practice which thus exemplifies the double curse of sin bringing forth sin-and then using the aggravation of the sin as an excuse for it.

not.

than

The truth is, if the men do not complain, it is not because they are insensible to their hardships. They do not complain, because they dare To peep or mutter would be to risk dismission. But if the case be so bad, why not anticipate dismission by taking leave? This is an easy rejoinder by those who have no risk to run; but let it be borne in mind, that when men think of leaving, they must also think where they shall go; that for a man with a family depending on him to quit the employment he lives by, is a sacrifice which few can afford to make merely on account of accompanying hardships, and which only persons of religious principle will make at the call of conscience and of duty. But what right has the state to bring men into a situation where advantage is to be taken of their difficulties; or to arrange any department of the public service upon a principle which says, that no man shall enter it who is not prepared to forego his religious liberties? These are not his to give away.

Now, what is the cause of all this strictness of service, and wearisomeness of tide-waiting? Why, to protect the revenue from frauds in the import and export trade. The duty

is indispensable. But can it not be performed without robbing the poor man of his Sabbath privilege, or bribing him to sell it? "May not the revenue be infinitely better protected in every way, by his absence after the usual custom-house hours of business, having his ship secured by lock and seal, for the safety of which the ship is responsible, than by his presence, active or passive, with the ship entirely open, exposed, and free? Would a bonded warehouse be considered more secure by the locker sleeping in the warehouse, with the warehouse open and exposed, than when securely locked up in his absence? When a tide-officer boards his ship arriving from sea, may he not be required to get her thoroughly rummaged fore and aft; securely seal up her bulk-heads, and, at the expiration of the usual hours, lock down all her hatches? May not the ship, in this state, be in a far greater degree of security than any the tideofficer could afford by sleeping on board, with the ship open and exposed, on his presumed security? "*

Whatever may be thought of the different mode of protecting the revenue here recommended, one thing is clear, that there is cruelty and sin in the existing system. If another plan would gain the end as well as is done by the present regulation, what a senseless adherence to things as they are would be the refusal of a change? If no relaxation can be granted to persons under the existing law without augmenting their number, who would grudge to see a necessary extension of the corps? In their present state these men have strong claims on public pity: the public voice ought to demand an amelioration of the system, and this the more, that we are nationally concerned in the criminality of the present practice. Those men are the

* Custom House Frauds. By J. F. Bell, Liverpool.

servants of the public, and so intent is their master to make the most of their services, that he gives them but a moiety of the privilege of the beasts of burden, whose yoke is loosed and their bodies allowed to rest on the seventh day, according to the commandment.

If the statements contained in the pamphlet from which the above extract is taken, be consistent with fact (and, so far as we know, their general accuracy has not been called in question), the Custom-House system, instead of being effective, with all this rigour, is deeply infected with fraud, and the public are paying for

the cheat.

At the out-stations and in the service of the coast guard, the rigour of the public duty is still more oppressive. The men employed at the former, if we may judge from the practice in our own immediate neighbourhood, never have the privilege of a Sabbath, nor any part of a Sabbath, allowed them. At one station, for example, where there are two men in attendance, the order of the Board is, that "the tide-waiters be at their

station during the day, and one of them during the night, alternately." Sunday is included in this uninterrupted attendance; and the consequence is, that years pass without the opportunity of their entering a place of worship, unless for some special purpose they should obtain leave of absence by formal application. These things are not much known; but the whole case is one for the public to pronounce upon as regards the interest of the service, the moral and physical well-being of the men engaged in it, and, above all, their religious rights, which are thus wrested from them by absolute authority, which says they must hire soul and body, and either surrender their Sabbath or lose their bread. Is there not something futile in Parliament issuing reports on Sunday traffic, and gravely suggesting checks upon the practice, when Government itself is seen to be the great Sunday. trader-bribing conscience by Sunday pay-silencing its remonstrances by stern command-and profaning our ports and certain public offices by the mischief of bad example?

H.

MILLENNARIAN "TIMES OF RESTITUTION" EXAMINED.

WE had no thought of controversy when we penned our observations on Acts iii. 1921, as they appeared in last January number of this Magazine. We knew that able expositors of Scripture had deemed the passage very difficult of interpretation, and though we dared not affect absolute certainty, where the greatest divines had spoken with modest caution, we ventured to submit our views to candid consideration. doing this, we took occasion to question the sentiments of those who appeal to this Scripture, in proof of a personal reign of Christ on earth during the millennium; and our remarks on this topic have drawn forth in

In

the October number a sharp critique from an ardent disciple of the millennarian theory. For the truth's sake and our own, we feel called to meet this critique with a brief reply. Our task would have been more pleasant, had the spirit of the writer been somewhat more gentle, and the general style of his remarks more ingenuous and candid. His argument would not have suffered in weight, though courtesy had led him to spare the allegation, that our difficulties in this Scripture are all the "result of our unwillingness to understand the passage in its plain unrestrained meaning, lest it should confirm the millennarian theory." We are not conscious of unwillingness to understand any portion of God's truth, and the insinuation of a charge so grave on

grounds so insufficient, proves that its author greatly needs to remember the words of his Lord and ours,-"Judge not." The effect, too, of these strictures would not have lost in power, though they had been delivered in a tone less assuming, and been supported more by clear argument than by magisterial assertion or parade of irrelevant authorities.

In these strictures we are first impugned for supposing the times of refreshing to denote the seasons of spiritual tranquillity enjoyed by a believer in receiving the truth; and the reason assigned for rejecting this view is, that "the present is not our rest." True, but the wonder is how the ingenuity, even of a millennarian, could attach such an inference to our interpretation, or advance so inept a truism, in the shape of argument, to disprove its accuracy. Our critic indeed asserts, "the form of expression used by the apostle shows, that it is to the future rest he refers;" but, in sup porting this assumption, he falls into mistake in rendering the text, from which it is hoped another reference to his authority, Parkhurst, will deliver him. "It is not said," he observes, Repent, &c., seeing that times of refreshing are come; but repent, that your sins may be blotted out when times of refreshing shall come." Unfortunately for him, the Greek text says no such thing. The Greek word thus rendered when, is örws. Now, where is the instance in the New Testament in which this particle, preceded by a verb, and followed with the aorist subjunctive, denotes simply time when in the future? Is it not on the contrary uniformly, either final, denoting end or purpose, in order that;' or eventual, marking result, so that,' Matt. vi. 5; Luke ii. 35; Rom. iii. 4; Matt. xxiii. 35. In the former sense we understood it in the slight change we made in rendering this passage, and observed that thus viewed an important key is supplied for its interpretation; since the repentance commanded is seen to be the means of securing the blessing promised. It would have been more satisfactory, if the author of these animadversions, instead of dealing out hard assertions about our (6 unwarrantable interpretation," and "forced unnatural construction of the apostle's plain language," had examined what that language really is, and set himself to prove the meaning we give it to be without authority. We will not say that this is impossible, but it is no great presumption to pronounce this attempt-a failure.

We are next found fault with for regarding the sending of Jesus Christ as denoting his coming into the heart at conversion; and the argument advanced why it cannot be so, is, that "a personal coming is re

ferred to in verse 26th, and every legitimate principle of interpretation requires that the sending of Jesus, spoken of in verse 20th, be understood in the same sense." We know not where our critic learned his principles of interpretation; but we are pretty sure the lesson here repeated is not in accordance with the common rules of biblical criticism, or, indeed, with the dictates of common sense. We were aware that the meaning and reference of a phrase in one part of a passage is often a guide to its import in another; but to us it is quite a new canon of criticism, that an expression must be understood in the same sense in the text as it is in the context. We should like to see the propounder of this canon apply it to all the cases in which the word law occurs in the close of the third chapter of the Romans; or, what is more pertinent to our present purpose, it would be edifying to see him carry it through the different texts where Jesus mentions his coming in the fourteenth chapter of John. We have been wont to think that the Lord there, in verse 3d, speaks of a "personal coming," when ages close to take disciples home; and that, in verse 18th, he promises a spiritual coming to comfort them now; but it seems this is all wrong. According to our critic's rule, 66 as a personal coming is referred to in verse 3d, every legitimate principle of interpretation requires that the coming of Jesus, spoken of in verse 18th, be understood in the same sense." The canon of interpretation, as thus stated, will not stand the test of experiment, and the argument founded on it falls to the ground.

We cited a few passages of Scripture to prove that the sending of Jesus spoken of by Peter, may be spiritual. The manner in which these are discussed by the writer of the strictures, is quite unique. He admits that there are cases in Scripture, where a peculiar manifestation of the divine character is called a coming of the Lord; but in all the texts adduced he attempts to ex. plain away the force of this admission by lax and vague exposition. Thus, Mic. v. 3, is a sublime prediction, which, along with many such, is "generally supposed to have an ultimate reference to the personal coming of Christ to judge the world!" Again, "the coming spoken of, Is. xxxv. 4, is the same as that predicted by Peter, as occur ring at the times of the restitution of all things;" and, by a choice specimen of reasoning in a circle, the argument is clenched thus, "then, verily, shall be times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; for we affirm it is at his second personal coming, and not till then, that such everlasting joy shall be experienced."

But we are further referred to the Greek words, επιφάνεια της παρουσίας, “the brightness