93, he thus expresses his views: "We cannot agree with him (the author, whom 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.