or of the principles of astronomy to brutes, because, in walking, they preserve the centre of gravity; as it is to call such persons Christians. A Christian is one whose motives are Christian faith and Christian hope, and who is, moreover, able to give a reason of the hope that is in him.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

But as there are some persons who are too ready to separate from any religious community on slight grounds, or even through mere caprice, to "heap up to themselves teachers, having itching ears,' it has been thought-or at least maintained-that the only way of affording complete satisfaction and repose to the scrupulous, and of repressing schism, is to uphold, under the title of "church principles," the doctrine that no one is a member of Christ's church, and an heir of the covenanted gospel-promises, who is not under a ministry ordained by bishops descended in an unbroken chain from the apostles.

Now what is the degree of satisfactory assurance that is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences of any members of an Episcopal church? If a man consider it as highly probable that the particular minister at whose hands he receives the sacred ordinances, is really thus apostolically descended, this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain: and the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause for hesitation he will find. There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue (for such it is, that is implied-whether the term be used or not-in the principle I have been speaking of) dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages, by a bishop, himself duly consecrated, after having been in like manner baptized into the church, and ordained deacon and priest—this sacramental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of all the links that hang on that one. For, if a bishop has not been duly consecrated, or had not been, previously, rightly ordained, his ordinations are null; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him; and their ordination of others, (supposing any of the persons ordained by him to attain to the episcopal office;) and so on, without end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable extent.

* * * *

It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading should be imparted to the people. It is not without cause that they dread and lament "an age of too much light,"

and wish to involve religion in "a solemn and awful gloom." It is not without cause that, having removed the Christian's confidence from a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foundation.1

THE LORD'S DAY NOT THE JEWISH SABBATH.

The same.

The opinion that Christians are bound to the hallowing of the Lord's day, in obedience to the fourth commandment, implies that there is a part, at least, of the Mosaic Law binding on Christians; I should say, the whole; for since the fourth commandment is evidently not a moral, but a positive precept, (it being a thing in itself indifferent, antecedent to any command, whether a seventh day, or a sixth, or an eighth, be observed,) I cannot conceive how the consequence can be avoided, that "we are debtors to keep the whole Law," ceremonial as well as moral. The dogma of the " Assembly of Divines at Westminster," that the observance of the Sabbath is part of the moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible; for I do not see on what principle we can, consistently, admit the authority of the fourth commandment, and yet claim exemption from the prohibition of certain meats, and of blood-the rite of circumcision-or, indeed, any part of the Levitical Law. But to those who fear that the reverence due to the Lord's day would be left without support, should we deny the obligation of the Mosaic Law, I would suggest two considerations, either of which would alone be sufficient to show that their apprehensions are entirely groundless: First, that there is no mention of the Lord's day in the Mosaic Law. Second, that the power of the church, bestowed by Christ himself, would alone (even independent of apostolic example and ancient usage) be amply sufficient to sanction and enforce the observance. To seek, therefore, for support for an institution which is "bound on earth" by the Church of Christ, and which, consequently, he has promised to "bind in heaven," among the abrogated ordinances of the Mosaic Law, where, after all, it is not to be found, is to remove it from a foundation of rock to place it on one of sand: it is to "seek for the living among the dead."

Throughout the whole of the Old Testament, we never hear of keeping holy some one day in every seven, but the seventh day, as the day on which "God rested from all his work." The difference, accordingly, between the Jews and the Christians is not a difference of reckoning; which would be a matter of no importance. Our

I regret that I have not room for more of the bishop's compact mass of logic on this subject, which so completely exposes the absurdity of this papal figment-the apostolical succession.

2 When Pitcairn's Island, in the South Seas, was visited by an English ship for the first time after its settlement by the remnant of the mutineers of the Bounty, our voyagers, on landers observing Sunday:

computation is the same as theirs. They, as well as we, reckon Saturday as the seventh day of the week; and they keep it holy as the seventh day, in memory of God's resting from the work of creation; we keep holy the first day of the week, as the first, in memory of our Master's rising from the dead on the day after the Sabbath. Now, surely it is presumptuous to say, that we are at liberty to alter a divine command, whose authority we admit to be binding on us, on the ground that it matters not whether this day or that be set apart as a Sabbath, provided we obey the divine injunction to observe a Sabbath. One of the recorded offences, we should remember, of "Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin," was his instituting a feast unto the Lord on the fifteenth day of the tenth month, "even the day that he had devised of his own heart."

One day is as good as another; except when there is a divine command which specifies one; and then it is our part not to alter, or to question, a divine command, but to consider whether it extends to us; and, if it does, to obey it.

* * * *

He who acknowledges a divine command to extend to himself ought to have an equally express divine command to sanction any alteration in it. Those Christians of the present day, however, who admit the obligation of the ancient Sabbath, have yet taken the liberty to change not only the day, but also the mode of observance. I believe they sometimes allege that the Jews were over-scrupulous on this point, and had superadded, by their tradition, burdensome restrictions not authorized by the Mosaic Law. This is true; but if we shelter ourselves under this plea-if we admit the authority of the written law, and reject merely the pharisaical additions to it-we are then surely bound to comply, at least, with the express directions that are written; for instance, "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day;" which no Christians, I believe, profess to observe.

The rule which seems practically to be laid down by most persons of piety and good sense is, to abstain from any thing that may interfere (in respect of ourselves and of others) with the primary object of the Christian Sabbath, viz. public worship, and religious studies and exercises. This, in the Jewish Sabbath, seems to have been the secondary, and rest the primary circumstance. The fourth commandment, accordingly, does not even contain any injunction respecting public worship, or religious study. But the day was naturally made a day of worship, because it was a day of rest: the Lord's day ought to be made a day of rest because it is a day of worship. The two objects are indeed, generally, so far from inter

an obvious result of the circumstance that the Bounty and the other ship had arrived at the same spot by sailing from England in opposite directions. This is an instance of a mere difference of reckoning. Both parties designed to observe the same festival, though they kept it on different days.

Ex. xxxv. 2, 3.

fering, that they aid each other; but, if a case should arise in which they do interfere, the secondary point should give place to the primary: if, for instance, it should happen that a man could not attend public worship without laboring to clear away some obstruction in a road, or employing the services of cattle, the Christian would be as clearly bound to go as the Jew would have been to stay at home.

*

*

*

What need is there, then, to bring ourselves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law for the sake of enforcing the observance of the Lord's day, which is not even a part of that Law? The first day of the week is set apart by all Christian churches, as a religious festival in celebration of Christ's resurrection, agreeably to the practice of the apostles and other early Christians. The custom of the primitive church would not, indeed, alone, make this an imperative duty; since the "Love-feasts" and some other ancient practices are now, by the rightful authority of the church, disused; but their early custom gives additional solemnity to an observance that has the sanction of the church-a sanction which would, even of itself, be sufficient. For when our Lord "appointed to his apostles a kingdom," and declared that "whatsoever they bound on earth should be bound in heaven," promising also to be "with them always even unto the end of the world," He must surely have conferred on his church a permanent "power to ordain rites and ceremonies," and to institute and abrogate religious festivals, "provided nothing be done contrary to God's word;" and must have given the ratification of his authority to what should be thus ordained. For if his expressions have not this extent, what do they mean?

But, if any one, not satisfied with what is in reality a sufficient foundation, attempts to strengthen the obligation by an appeal to the Old Testament, he is not merely making an unnecessary and useless addition, but he is nullifying the very obligation which he seeks to enhance: he is not merely superadding the shadow to the substance, but losing the substance, while he catches at the shadow; he is, as I before said, removing the institution from a rock to place it on the sand. For, if the positive institutions of the Old Testament are wholly abrogated, THEN (and not otherwise) all days become in themselves indifferent; and in such a case the church has, as I have above remarked, full power to sanctify any that may be thought most fitting; but, on the other hand, the church has A power to ordain any thing contrary to God's word: so that if the precepts relative to the ancient Sabbath are acknowledged to remain in force, then the observance of the first day of the week, instead of the seventh, becomes an unwarrantable presumption. This, therefore, is a case in which (unless we will consecrate two Sabbath days in each week) we must absolutely make our choice between the Law and the Gospel.

Thoughts on the Sabbath.

HARTLEY COLERIDGE, 1796-1849.'

HARTLEY COLERIDGE, the eldest son of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was born at Clevedon, a small village near Bristol, on the 19th of September, 1796. Though he grew up to be an engaging child, his personal appearance, independent of his shortness of stature, was quite singular; and while at school he seldom played with his school-fellows. Hence he was much alone, passing his time in reading, walking, dreaming to himself, or talking his dreams to others. Such were his peculiarities, that he was educated not so much by a regular course of study as by desultory reading, and by the living voice of his father, Southey, Wordsworth, Lloyd, Wilson, and De Quincey. He, however, entered Oriel College, Oxford, and passed through the usual course of studies there with credit, though not with high academic distinction, and received his degree in 1821. He then went to London, where he spent about two years with some of his father's personal friends, writing, from time to time, sonnets and small pieces for the "London Magazine."

In 1823 he went to Ambleside, in Westmoreland County, near Lake Windermere, and opened a school for boys. But for the educational profession-a profession that requires, to ensure success in it, the union of so many high qualifications both of head and heart, as well as of personal habits and manners-he was not at all suited. One by one his scholars left him, and in four or five years he abandoned his school, and removed to Grasmere. Here he supported himself mostly by his pen, writing for "Blackwood's Magazine," his contributions to this periodical forming a part of the general collection of his essays. His essay on the character of Hamlet may, without prejudice, be compared to any piece of criticism extant on this subject. He had now acquired a considerable literary reputation, and he entered into an engagement to furnish matter for a biographical work, to be published at Leeds, on the Worthies of Yorkshire and Lancashire. The "Worthies" consisted of thirteen lives, as published in a collected form, under the title of "Biographia Borealis," and immediately obtained, and continues to enjoy considerable reputation.

In the year 1834 he lost his father, which bereavement he felt with more than usual grief. Three years after, his kind hostess, Mrs. Fleming, with whom he had boarded at Grasmere for a number of years, died, and some anxiety was entertained about his future residence-so ill calculated was he to make his own way in this busy, selfish world. He had not, however, to change his abode; the house was taken by a young farmer and his wife, William and Eleanor Richardson, with whom, first at Grasmere, and afterward at the Nab Cottage, on the banks of Rydal Water, he spent the remainder of his days. For twelve years this worthy couple watched over him with respectful solicitude, and attended him with affectionate devotion during his last sickness. On the 26th of December,

1 Through inadvertence, I neglected to put this author in his place chronologically; though, aside from a desire for uniformity, it is of no consequence.