country: nor can any one tell that it may not at a future period be so again.*

CHAPTER XI.

Differences of Opinion concerning the supposed Authority of Man to institute a Weekly Sabbath.

'ONE man,' observes the apostle Paul, esteems one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike: let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth a day, regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.'—No one who thinks that there is a Scriptural sabbath, whether he considers it to be the seventh or the first day, or even the seventh part of time ab stractedly, without reference to any particular day, can suppose that this celebrated passage relates to the weekly sabbath, as well as to any other day; because the inspired writer of it no

As no circumstances whatever can warrant any one's dispensing with what he believes to be a divine law, so neither have they a right to influence his judgment of the law itself.

more censures him who keeps no day, than him who keeps a day-except indeed he thinks that keeping no sabbath could in no case follow from a man's being 'fully persuaded in his own mind :' but of that every one must be left to judge for himself.

But I believe it to be the general opinion, (and it certainly is mine,) that the words in question no way relate to the weekly sabbath or to the testimony of Scripture about it, but to days respecting which the Scriptures are silent, every one being at full liberty to consult his own judgment and inclination whether he should observe them or not; and if the former, in what way, and to what extent, he pleases. The same liberty is granted respecting animal food that is wholesome, to eat it or not. Every individual, and every society, whether religious or civil, ought to allow and to be allowed this liberty. St. Ignatius, for instance, had a right to call the first day 'Lord's day,' (if he ever did call it so,) to keep it as a religious festival himself, and to recommend it to others, in honour of our Lord's resurrection, without the authority of any apostle, which indeed he never pleads. At the same time, neither he nor any other of the Fathers, nor any of the Councils, nor all of them put together, had any right to enjoin the observance of that day, or of Easter, or of any fast or feast not

commanded in Scripture, upon a single Christian that did not own their

supremacy,

and was

differently minded; or in case of non-compliance to inflict any ecclesiastical censure or penalty upon him.*

The same might have been said of all the sacred days that have been instituted in the Christian Church since the Roman empire became Christian, if the civil power had not adopted them. However, when that power ceased to sanction any of them, they were of course no longer obligatory upon those who maintained the right of private judgment in opposition to ecclesiastical usurpation and tyranny. Hence the termination in this country of that sacred regard which the black letter days once possessed, and which they still possess wherever the Roman Catholic religion retains its sway.

I come at length to the principal subject of this Chapter, namely, the difference of sentiment among Christians concerning the divine right of the civil power to institute a weekly sabbath. The question is manifestly of uncommon.delicacy

* A Christian community has a right to keep any day to the Lord, and that weekly, which it pleases; but it has no right to make the observance of it as a sabbath a term of church-membership, except it thinks that the observance is enjoined in Scripture.-See Rom. 14. 1, &c.

as well as importance and difficulty. It will require nice discrimination in discussing various parts of it. With proper care, however, I hope that it will not be found impossible to treat it in a manner that may be satisfactory in general to opposite parties. I do not recollect that the case has frequently come under discussion, probably because it has been for the most part supposed either that the day appointed by the civil power for the weekly sabbath coincided with the Scriptural sabbath, if there was one by divine appointment, or necessarily took place of the other, even if there was a difference between them. But a Sabbatarian cannot possibly acquiesce in either of these propositions, without the admission of certain modifications and distinctions.

The ancient Fathers and Councils never, as I have already observed, refer to the New Testament at all in support of the first day, but rest its right to observance solely upon their own opi nions, wishes, and authority. The edicts of Constantine and of the other princes, as also the canons of Councils between his time and the Reformation, while Christendom was governed by the Roman Emperors, and after it was divided into separate states, founded their regard for the day entirely upon what had been done by the Christians under the heathen emperors. Most of the

Reformers, too, if not all of them, consider the practice of the primitive Church as the sole ground of the first day's claim; affirming at the same time that the sanctification of it is optional, and that the Church has authority to transfer the weekly sabbath to a different day, or to have two in a week instead of one, if it pleases. The later writers, those in England at least, such as Bishop White, Dr. Wallis, and Mr. Morer, do for the first time urge in favour of observing the first day the passages in the New Testament that have been considered, but show themselves sufficiently distrustful of this evidence to make it appear that they rely chiefly upon the practice of the primitive Church; admitting that what they say concerning Christ's authority and apostolic tradition in support of the first day's claim is only conjecture, though they think it probable.

However, therefore, it may have been thought by the Puritans, and some of their cotemporaries, or may be still thought by many pious individuals both in and out of the Establishment, that the obligation to keep the first day chiefly stands upon the ground of Scripture, I am persuaded that the civil power rests it chiefly on the same ground on which it retains certain fasts and feasts that were observed in the primitive Church. Nor do I wish to dispute the right of human authority thus to exercise itself. On the contrary,