he is reviewing) in the views he expresses concerning the Sabbath.  He asserts that the Sabbath or Christian Sunday is a divine institution, and that this is the doctrine of the Lutheran Symbols:  That the Lutheran Church differs from the Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the former advocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method. The contrary of this is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. of the Augsburg Confession, and it would be almost incomprehensible how the author could fail to perceive this, were it not for his manifest desire to make the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any other precept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not be accomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointment of the Sunday.

Once more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of that learned and impartial historian of our own country, Dr. Murdock, himself, though a native American, a highly respectable German scholar:  “The XXVIII.  Article of Augsburg Confession,” says he, “teaches that as to Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishops may and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and the people should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conducive to good order and edification.”  Murdock’s Mosheim, Vol. iii., p. 53, Harper’s edition.

I. What is the charge of the Definite Platform against the Augsburg Confession on this subject? It is, that

The Augsburg Confession “treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish institution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety of our retaining the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the churches for the convenience of general convocation.

II.  What ground does the Plea take?

It denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, while it supposes the Confession to object not to the divine institution and obligation of the Lord’s Day, but to the corruptions which the Romish church had connected with it, and especially the idea that the observance of the Lord’s Day was a meritorious work, which would secure our justification before God.

The observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of the Sabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of the Platform.  The author also intersperses other useful practical remarks, which we have not have room to quote.  The simple point of difference, of any moment, is that relating to the question whether our obligation to observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by God or by the church.  Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains, for the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtually acknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says:  “The Augsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite assertion that the Christian Sabbath rests on no special dictate of the Word of God, maintains that by necessity, and by right, the church instituted our Christian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it.”  P. 34.  To this we shall confine our proof.