source of so many benefits to man; moral, intellectual, and religious. If the philosophic observer were called upon to name the institution most conducive to the happiness of the human race, to the interests of religion and morality, he would, by a comparison with every other, indisputably fix upon that of the sabbath. Let all, then, by authority, by precept, by example, endeavour, to the extent of their power, to enforce the strict, observance of this holy rest. Let every friend of his species, every lover of God, keep it, both in his own person and in those of his domestics, as far as possible inviolate, not only from occupations which may be avoided, but also from those earthly thoughts and cares which interfere with the spiritual improvement of so hallowed a season. To this conclusion the legislator, who judges of all institutions in the balance of political expediency, must be led in contemplating the multiplied blessings of the sabbath. But it remains a very important question how far it is supported by the authority of the Holy Scriptures. Were its origin merely human, it would indeed be obligatory to observe it on account of its influence in augmenting the comforts, and exalting the moral character of mankind; but this obligation would only rest upon the same grounds as the duty of obedience to the political institutions of the land. Though it might be regarded with the respect and deference to which all human laws are entitled, it would nevertheless be destitute of that force and influence which belong to whatever is stamped with the authority of Holy Writ. It is desirable, however, that an ordinance of such manifest utility should be fortified with a sacredness of character which may ensure à conscientious and permanent compliance. It is the tenet of mystic Quakerism, that God is not to be worshipped through the intervention of a ministry, of formal ceremonies, or of typical institutions, but by a simply spiritual worship, and of course that one day is not more holy than another*. By the Unitarians also several objections are urged against the religious observance of stated days. "To a true Christian, says a writer of this school, every day is a sabbath, every place is a temple, and every action of life an act of devotion. A Christian is not required to be more holy, nor permitted to take greater liberties upon one day than upon another. Whatever is lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week is, under the Christian dispensation, equally lawful and expedient upon any other day." Again, "I have * Barclay, Apology, Prop. II. § 4.; Gurney, Observations on the religious Peculiarities of the Society of Friends, cap. iv. no hesitation in asserting, that under the Christian dispensation every day is alike.' Of public worship I am a sincere advocate; and it having been the uniform practice of the Christian church to assemble for this purpose on the first day of the week, I highly approve of the continuance of this laudable and useful custom. But that under the Christian dispensation one day is more holy than another, or that any employment, or any amusement, which is lawful on other days, is unlawful on the sunday, can never be proved either from the Christian scriptures or from ecclesiastical antiquity." Not far remote from this low and 'Belsham, Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise, p. 15. 107. edit. 3. A much more sober theologian asserts, "In Novo Testamento omne dierum discrimen abolitum est, nec ullus dies altero sanctior." (Limborch, Theologia Christiana, lib. v. cap. xxviii. § 7.) Another theologian of the same school observes, "Sub Novo Fœdere omne dierum discrimen est abolitum, ita ut unum altero sanctiorem per se habere superstitionem resiperet." (Curcellæus, Relig. Christianæ Instit. lib. vii. cap. xxxi. § 11. See to the same effect, Grotius, Confessio Fidei Augustana, § 7. Opera vol. iv. p. 549.) Yet neither of these writers deny that a certain distinction of days is authorized under the Christian dispensation, "Discrimen quod ponitur inter dies ordinis causa, et propter conventus sacros, non esse sublatum : necessarium enim est in ecclesia." (Curcellæus, De Usu Sanguinis, cap. vi. p. 957.) A writer of great erudition, and to whom we are indebted for an admirable edition of the fragments of the ante-nicene Christian Fathers, observes, "Qui enim dies veteri degrading notion of the sabbath is that very generally held by the Romanists, and by not a few Protestant divines, which rests it upon the authority of the church. The only difference seems to be, that the Unitarian grounds it merely upon expediency, while they make it rest upon the uniform custom and practice of the ancient catholic church: the one reduces it to a mere human institution, the other regards it as one of those ritual observances which Christ hath left power to his church to ordain. The third opinion is, that it is a divine institution, and consequently of universal and indispensable obligation. He who reflects how much the due observance of it contributes to the present and future happiness of man, must wish that opinion true which enforces it with the sanction of divine authority. Now its religious obligation must arise from its being enjoined in the Word of God; hence it is foedere sanctificatus colitur, is septimus, non primus est: atque in Novo Testamento nihil de cultu cujusquam diei substituti in sabbati locum præcipitur, nedum aliud aliquod sabbatum instituitur." He concludes, however, with saying, " Restat autem nobis, non sabbatum quidem, quia deletum atque abrogatum est, sed dies vetustissima consuetudine et perpetuo ecclesiæ consensu observatus, dies dominicæ resurrectionis, quo cultum Dei, ipsi et lege naturæ debitum, publice celebramus." Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. iv. p. 384. |