But if we admit that difficulty of performance can in any case postpone this law, it may be claimed that we thereby admit that it is not an express divine law, but only a useful usage, and, therefore, only obligatory when, in our judgment, its usefulness preponderates over its inconveniences.

To understand this, we must remember that there are two great classes of moral laws-the primary, consisting of supreme love to God, and love to man, modified and proportioned according to his character and relations to us; and the secondary, or auxiliary, consisting of means and guards to the first. The primary class is never unenforced. Some provisions of the secondary may be for a time, not by man's judgment or option, but by divine allowance. For instance, the law of monogamy, established at the beginning, and guarded by the seventh commandment, was, for a time, unenforced, and polygamy and divorce were tolerated. They had taken such deep root that they could only have been eradicated by miracle. So they were allowed, for the hardness of their hearts. War, in nearly all cases a violation of the sixth commandment, has not been specifically and peremptorily forbidden. Slavery, often, if not always, a violation of the golden rule, was allowed by divine legislation. The New Testament enforced some laws previously unenforced; but not, in terms, all moral laws. It did not require the soldier to desert, nor the citizen to rise against Nero, nor the slave to run away. So slaves of heathen masters were not exhorted to rest from their work on the Sabbath, for they could not. This no more admits that the Sabbath is not a divine law than that monogamy is not.

We may be asked, if one divine law can be postponed, or temporarily unenforced, why not any other—for instance, not to sacrifice to idols? Because, such sacrifice involves a violation of the primary duty of supreme love to God, either by the offerer, or by those around him, and so must be stopped at all hazards. Moral duties, that are only auxiliary to higher moral duties, may-by divine, not human, option-be temporarily unenforced.

The catalogues of specific duties in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, were made out for immediate hearers, and adapted to their circumstances. In some cases, future generations were left to ascertain their particular duties from comprehensive

commands or general principles. In the case of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, its obvious necessity, and the example of the early Christians who could keep it, ought to have secured its observance, when postponed, as soon as it became possible.

We do not propose to discuss the manner of keeping the Sabbath. The great point is to establish its divine obligation; that once settled there is little room for doubt how it should be kept. The rigorous exactions and specific directions of the Mosaic law, outside of the decalogue, are not addressed to us, and when not moral in nature are not declaratory of any divine law to us; and, therefore, are not binding on us. The moral, and still obligatory, part of the Sabbath law is to "keep it holy."

Anything is holy when set apart to the service of God. If it is a moral agent, his whole moral being is so set apart, and thus conformed to the character of God. If it is a thing, its only use is to be in God's service. If it is a portion of time, it is to be honestly appropriated to God's service. That is to be its only use, except (to use the happy classification of the old divines) works of necessity and mercy, such as were allowed by our Saviour. Boundaries more definite than this cannot be fixed beforehand. Particular acts will be on one side of the line or other, according to the varying circumstances of each generation.

One great reason why the divine obligation to keep the Sabbath is denied by so many is, that its advocates so often fail to point out the distinction between the moral precept and the purely positive national commands about it, scattered through the Old Testament. They sometimes even quote passages containing such merely positive commands as if directed to us. Thus they confound what really is commanded to us with what anybody can see is not, and so convince many that no command on the subject reaches us at all.

The Israelites kept (perhaps were commanded to keep) a particular day of the week, which, counting from their starting point, was the seventh day. But as one day is as good as another, the command to keep that particular day, even if meant by the language of the fourth commandment, is positive in its nature, not declaratory of moral law, and binding only on the nation to whom it was addressed. Other nations, though

bound to keep some day, were not bound to keep that particular one. We do, in fact, keep a different day.

If two carriages meet on the highway, it is the moral duty of each, irrespective of any human law, to turn out for the other. But the law of England, that each shall turn to the left, and the law of New Jersey, that each shall turn to the right, are positive, binding only where enacted, and subject to alteration. So the moral law of God, to keep holy one day in seven, binding on all mankind, was accompanied or followed by directions how and on what day it should be carried out by the nation to whom it was immediately given, leaving the rest of mankind, if they have good reason for it, to carry it out in some other way, or on some other day.

Any positive feature in the fourth commandment no more proves the Sabbath to be a mere positive institution, than the positive feature in the law requiring opposing carriages to turn to the right, proves it to be a mere positive regulation that they shall turn out at all.

Regarding the keeping of one day in seven as moral, and which day, as positive, the apostles and primitive Christians, with or without express divine command, could with great propriety discontinue the observance of the day associated with so many superstitious observances, and keep the day which, besides its other uses, commemorates the resurrection of the Redeemer.

Art. VII. CHURCH QUESTIONS IN FOREIGN

MISSIONS.*

By Rev. JOHN C. LOWRIE, D.D,, New York.

WE often find in the Reports of our Foreign Missionary Boards, references to what we may call Church Questions. These questions relate to practical measures in the spread of the gospel, more or less ecclesiastical in their nature. They may be distinguished from the gospel itself, though almost necessarily included in all well-devised efforts for its extension in the world. We have an example in this Report, in the case of certain churches, "formed on the so-called union basis;" and it is added, "if it should be deemed expedient for them to remain as they now stand, they will virtually add a new denomination to the number of Christian churches,". . ." a result to be deprecated, but it is one which may be overruled for good, especially if grace be given unto all to follow the golden. rule in their intercourse with each other." These church questions may be expected to occupy attention abroad, as well as at home. We cannot yet dispense with a "Committee on the Polity of the Church," and a "Committee on Bills and Overtures," in our General Assembly-two committees, by the way, which seem to be entrusted with similar duties; much less should ecclesiastical matters be left to shape themselves in newly-formed missionary communities. At the least, the principles on which they ought to be settled should be well understood, both by the supporters of missions and by the missionaries in the field. We do not design, however, to enter on any extended discussion of these matters; our aim is rather to give a statement of some practical questions, with brief suggestions as to their answers.

At the outset, we meet with a question which goes to the foundation of all church ideas. Why should we trouble converts from the heathen religions with ecclesiastical matters?

*The Thirty-eighth Annual Report of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church. New York, 1875.

Why should we say anything at all to them about the church? It is the gospel we wish to give them, not the church. Now, we do not differ from those, who thus put the case, in their views of the supreme importance of the gospel of the Grace of God in the salvation of sinners by faith in Jesus Christ ; we define the point thus fully as of the greatest moment. But we must think that the way of doing this is not unimportant. We would not "trouble" the converts, but we would save them from trouble, by beginning our work for them on right views. The simple story of the cross includes correct instruction, presupposes the proper calling and training of the teachers, is followed by public confession of faith, receiving the sacraments, fellowship with the saints, a godly life, Christian discipline, active labors for good objects, and all the means of self-support and the perpetuation of the gospel ministry and ordinances. With all of these ideas, the Christian Church, the organization of Christians in church fellowship, is closely connected. The missionary might as well attempt to live in an ideal house, and not in one of wood or stone, as to preach the gospel in the abstract. If his preaching is with power from on high, an external organization of some kind must follow. Granted that the form of church government is of minor moment, as compared with the great truths of the gospel, but a scaffolding is needful for the rising palace. In this case both are sacred; "the church of God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth." All enlightened men in Christian lands have considered this church question; regard the church as a divine institution, and are not likely to change their convictions; and until these convictions are changed, it cannot be expedient for missionaries to proceed on the theory of indifference to this matter. As to leaving the native converts to choose for themselves the form of church government, eventually they will do so, without doubt; but at first we might as well leave it to our children to choose whether they will be Presbyterians or Episcopalians, republicans or monarchists; and in any case, the converts can not avoid meeting whatever disadvantage may arise from the existence of different denominations, as we shall see presently. For ourselves, and our missionary brethren, it is our happiness to regard our church system, in its doctrines and its leading hatures of order, as taught by sacred Scripture, adopted by