ment upon the sensitiveness of private conscience. Can any position be more monstrous? As advocates of the principles of civil and religious liberty, we must protest against their being held answerable for consequences or inferences of so glaring absurdity.

If the regulation of enforcing the observance of a day of rest, be considered as conducive to the well-being of the community, there can be no reasonable objection, we are told, against the legislative enactment of such a regulation, or against its general enforcement by magisterial authority. But what clearer right has the legislative body to assume the political doctrine, that a day of rest is necessary to the well-being of the community, than it has to assume the religious doctrine of the antecedent religious obligation? The one is just as controvertible a doctrine as the other; and with none, in fact, has the political expediency of observing a day of rest ever appeared to have much weight, who have denied its moral obligation. The interference of the Legislature in enforcing the Sabbath on the ground of public utility, would be resented quite as warmly, and with more decency, than its enforcement as a law of morality. Yet, this Writer maintains, that the attempt to increase the authority and stability of the law, by refusing to recognize the expediency of the regulation as its proper foundation, and to substitute a religious doctrine as the proper ground on which it ought to rest,-is obviously to remove it from a foundation of rock, and to place it on one of 'sand. This language is borrowed from Dr. Whately; only, his rock is of different formation: not expediency, but the power ' of the Church,'-not this Writer's sand-stone, but Roman tufa. The one is speaking of the religious, the other of the political obligation; but they unite in the confident allegation, that the Decalogue is nothing better, in comparison, than a foundation of sand. This sounds very much like impiety, but our readers will recollect that these Writers have adopted the belief, that the Ten Commandments have been abrogated. Were this indeed the case, we wish to be informed, upon what foundation of rock, the expediency of enforcing the observance of a seventh day, rather than an eighth or a tenth, can be placed. If the judgement of the Legislature upon this point be the only tenable footing upon which a municipal law of this nature can ever consistently be placed,' and the matter is one of mere option ' and expediency,' by what process of reasoning shall it be established, that the well-being of the community will be best promoted by fixing upon one day in seven, and that one day of the week the first? No doubt, most ingenious reasons could be found for making the day of rest occur every tenth day, or for altering the Sabbath from Sunday to Wednesday. Were this

6

deemed convenient and expedient, according to this Writer, there would be no rational objection against the change.*

And yet, it is readily admitted,' he says, that no human 'power, whether of the Church or the State, can originate or set aside a Divine institution. Whether, however, a weekly Sab'bath continues, under the Christian dispensation, to be a Divine 'institution, has hitherto been a matter of doubtful disputation, ' on which it seems very unnatural to think that civil govern'ments ought to be called upon to deliver an opinion.' Nevertheless, civil governments are called upon to act, in the very matter in which they ought not, it seems, to have an opinion. They have to determine whether they shall enforce or set aside there is no alternative-what is, in its nature and origin, a Divine institution, and is still held to be such by the vast majority of the best informed and pious members of the community. Silence, the Government may maintain on such a point; it may decline the recognition in words of the theological dogma ;' but neutrality is impracticable. And if the legislative enactment be really determined by the fact, or by the common belief in the fact, that the Sabbath is of Divine appointment, then the concealment of the reason, the pretence that expediency alone has determined the law, is a useless affectation of irreligion. It is plain, after all, that the concession is made to religion, but that the politician is ashamed of it, and wishes to find an excuse for it in the utility of the Institution; although, but for the religious obligation, its utility would never have been thought of. Is hypocrisy one of the virtues of a free government?

If whether the Sabbath be a divine institution or not, is a matter of doubtful disputation, it is at least possible, that the Divine law may continue to be in force. But let it be deemed at least supposable, and let our opponent for a moment grant, that no doubt existed on the subject; we wish to know whether, in that case, the government of a country would be at liberty to take cognizance of the institution as one of Divine appointment, and to assume the moral obligation arising out of it, as the reason of a civil enactment. What would be the duty of the civil government, if it were unquestioned, that a law which no human power can set aside, is still in force? Our opponent will perhaps admit, that no wrong would then be done, no grievance could be felt, by grounding the political enactment on the religious obligation. And yet, if the nature, and objects, and proper limits of legislation forbid the taking cognizance of a religious obligation that is doubtful, they would not the less preclude all direct cognizance of

We wish that the Writer had given his authority for attributing such sentiments to Tindal and Calvin. The language of the latter, in his Institutes,' warrants no such representation.

༔

one that was unequivocal and certain. Its being doubtful or not, can really make no difference in the business. Whether the Government assumes that which is certain, or that which is only probable, the assumption can no more infringe upon religious liberty in the one case, than in the other: only it is supported by a greater or smaller degree of evidence. If the object of the enactment falls within the province of the Legislature, and the enactment itself is conducive to the welfare of society, shall it be construed into an offence, that the Government conceived itself to be therein acting in conformity to the revealed will of God? Would not a mere probability that the Law of the Sabbath is binding, be a sufficient reason for not daring to set it aside; sufficient evidence, or rational probability, being all that is attainable in a thousand cases that call for practical decision? If the Legislature affected to create a new religious obligation, this would indeed be to infringe upon the Divine prerogative, and to interfere with the conscience; but, in simply recognizing a religious obligation as the justification of its own procedure,-as the highest reason, though not the only one, which recommends the enactment to compliance, even if that obligation be ambiguous or imaginary, it leaves every man in undisturbed possession of his convictions as to the antecedent obligation; requiring, not his faith in the reasons, but his compliance with the provisions of the enactment. Surely, then, to quarrel with the reasons, because we happen to dissent from them, displays not a little unreasonableness on the part of those who, after all, approve of the law. Again, we say, let not the principles of religious liberty be held answerable for these refinements of polemical jealousy, which, followed out to their full extent, would make it incompatible with a free toleration of religious opinions, for a Government to profess itself Christian, or to afford the slightest countenance to any measures for evangelizing the world.

We have dwelt the longer upon this point, because, both in our country and in America, there have prevailed very extensively, even among those who acknowledge the Divine authority of the Sabbath, objections against its legal enforcement, as inconsistent with the rights of conscience *. On principles of an equality of

* It appears from the Third Report of the "General Union for promoting the Observance of the Christian Sabbath", in the United States, that the attempts which are being made to effect a repeal of the law that requires the opening of post-offices on the Sabbath, are decried by the opponents, as being inconsistent with a free toleration of religious opinions and the rights of man.' The Committee have deemed it right to take no part, officially, in the application to Congress; but they distinctly avow, that, with hundreds of thousands of their fellow-citizens, all of whom exult in the wise provision of the national charter, that no preference shall ever be given to any deno

civil rights, and the removal of all civil distinctions on account of men's religious opinions,' the present Writer contends in the true spirit of an American republican, it must be wholly inconsistent to place the secular enactment which enjoins the observance of a day of public rest, on any other foundation than its ' recognized expediency.' Many go further, and say, it must be wholly inconsistent to have any secular enactment at all on the subject. And certainly, if the principles of civil equality are violated by the assigning of religious reasons for the enactment, they cannot be saved from violation by the mere artifice of merging those reasons in general expediency. We have endeavoured to shew, that no infringement of religious liberty is involved in the assumption, on the part of the Legislature, of the moral obligation of keeping the Sabbath, and of the common consent of Christians respecting it. Were it otherwise, we should say, that the infringement upon religious liberty would be justified by the paramount public duty, and that no possible evil could arise from an infringement so beneficial. But is it not ridiculous to represent the countenance given to an opinion-supposing it to be a mere opinion-by an act of the legislature, as amounting to the same thing as an unjust preference of individuals on the ground of religious opinion? To proclaim, nay, to assume, that the Fourth Commandment is binding, is to patronize a sect,-to shew an unjust partiality to the denomination who keep holy the Lord's Day;-it is an odious interference with the rights of man. this reasoning impose upon any one?

Can

We are not contending, however, that it is the business of the Legislature to enforce either moral or religious duties as such. There are many duties of the most binding nature, which cannot be enforced by the power of the magistrate, and crimes of deep atrocity, which human legislation cannot reach. But we maintain, that moral and religious obligations must be the basis of all wise legislation,-that they must be assumed as such, and that they form the reason, though not the legitimate object, of political laws. This will scarcely be denied with regard to moral obligations; but the present Writer, and those who think with him, deny that any moral obligation is connected with the Sabbath. In their language, the law of the Sabbath is a mere theological dogma; and a belief in the obligation of observing it, is derided as worthy only of weak and timid minds.' 'It would undoubt'edly involve a moral wrong,' it is said, 'to attempt to reverse

mination of Christians,'-they have considered the law in question as 'an unhappy and baneful provision, an infringement on the civil rights of the people, virtually excluding conscientious men from holding the office, and at the same time pouring contempt on the sacred law of Heaven-"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy."'

6

'any moral precept whatever'; nor can human authority reverse 'the law of the Sabbath, if it be actually in force now, as a law of 'heaven.' But not only is this denied, but it is boldly affirmed, that the law of the Sabbath never was a moral precept, and has no foundation in the nature of things.' The following passage will shew that, with all his anxiety to keep clear of rash and 'unbeseeming dogmatism', the Writer sometimes forgets himself, and becomes both dogmatical and flippant.

They who can acquiesce in the extraordinary dogma, that one portion of time is more holy in its nature than another, are no doubt at perfect liberty to act on their own convictions of religious truth and duty; but it seems very unreasonable, that this apparently incredible notion should be forced upon others, whose minds, it may be, are too logically constructed to allow them to acquiesce in its accuracy. And it seems to be especially unreasonable, that civil governments should be called upon to acknowledge its correctness and obligation, on the penalty of being denounced as vile Atheists, who presume to oppose the eternal moral laws of the Deity.

The error of confounding people's own interpretation of the law of duty with the law itself, and of condemning, on the ground of this private interpretation, every action of others which is not sanctioned by it, constitutes the very essence of intolerance, and has long been the fruitful source of innumerable forms of unchristian usurpation and spiritual oppression. It is a gross fallacy to represent the law, "Thou shalt not steal," and an injunction to sanctify a determinate portion of time, as laws alike eternal and immutable in their obligation. The former is a moral duty, being founded on the nature of things; and its obligation is recognized by the human conscience, independent of any specific enactment. The latter is a positive law, because it derives its obligation wholly from the promulgation of an express precept. The one is commanded because it is right; the other is right solely because it is commanded. This distinction between the positive character of the law of the sabbath, and the moral nature of all laws founded on the principles of the love of God and our neighbour, is one of the principal points on which the controversy regarding the perpetuity of the sabbatical law hinges.' pp. 22, 23.

The error of confounding people's own interpretation of the 'law of duty with the law itself', is a very prevalent and mischievous one; but we are at a loss to perceive how this error can be the essence of intolerance. We must remind the Writer, that intolerance is an attribute, not of opinions, right or wrong, but of the moral sentiments. The error he speaks of, may cloud the judgement of the most tolerant and liberal of men; and it is assuredly the capital blunder which constitutes, if not the essence, the basis of his own reasonings. His erroneous interpretation of the Fourth Commandment is made the pretext for impugning the obligation of observing it, and for even depreciating the wisdom of the Divine ordinance. To affirm of any Divine precept, that it