(b) Those who believe the obligation to have been transferred to the first day by the Apostles.
(2) Those who deny that the Sabbath was a primitive institution, or that its obligation sur vived the Mosaical dispensation, but who never theless hold the observance of the Lord's day as an apostolical institution, deriving none of its au thority or obligation from the Mosaical dispen sation.
(3) Those who both deny the permanent obli gation of the Sabbath. and that there is any ob ligatory authority in the New Testament for the observance of even the Lord's day. These again may be divided into classes: (a) Those who hold that, although not of divine obligation, the observance of the first day of the week as a day of rest from toil, and of spiritual edification, is not only salutary but necessary, and is therefore in accordance with the will of God, and ought as such to be maintained.
(b) Those who assert that, not being a matter of positive injunction, it is not necessary or de sirable to observe the day at all on religious grounds. But even these generally admit that it is competent for human legislation to enact its observance as a day of rest, and that it then be comes a duty to obey it as the law of the land, see ing that it is not contrary to the will of God.
(c) A mixed view of the subject, arising out of the last two, seems to be entertained by the Quak ers, and by individuals in different denomina tions, namely, that the authorized institution of Moses respecting a weekly Sabbath, and the prac tice of the first teachers of Christianity, constitute a sufficient recommendation to set apart certain times for the exercise of public worship, even were there no such injunctions as that of Heb. x:25. Community of dependence and hope dic tates the propriety of united worship, and worship, to be united, must be performed at intervals pre viously fixed. But, it is urged, since the Jewish Sabbath is abrogated, and since the assembling together on the first day of the week is mentioned as an existing practice in the New Testament, but not enjoined as a positive obligation, it does not appear why these periods should recur at intervals of seven days any more than of five or ten. Nevertheless, it is added, 'the question
whether we are to observe the first day of the week because it is the first day, is one point— whether we ought to devote it to religious exer cises, seeing that it is actually set apart for the purpose, is another. Bearing in mind then that it is right to devote some portion of our time to these exercises, and considering that no objection exists to the day which is actually appropriated, the duty seems very obvious—so to employ it' (Jonathan Dymond, Essays on the Principles of Morality, i, 164-172).
This testimony in favor of the observance from one who ptterly denies the religious obligation of setting e)•en one day in seven apart is not unlike that of Dr. Arnold, who seems to have taken the view of the subject represented in 3, a. In a let ter to Mr. Justice Coleridge he says: 'Although I think that the whole law is done away with, so far as it is the law given in Mount Sinai, yet so far as it is the law of the Spirit. I hold it to be all binding ; and believing that our need of a Lord's day is as great as it ever was, and that, therefore, its observance is God's will, and is likely, so far as we see, to be so to the end of time, I should think it most mischievous to weaken the respect paid to it' (Life and Corre spondence, 355).
We have entered into these details concerning the differences of opinion on this important sub ject—which concerns one-seventh of man's life— for the sake of defining the exact amount of such differences, and of showing that pious men, sin cerely seeking the truth of God's word, may on the one hand conscientiously doubt the obligation of a Christian Sabbath without deserving to be stig matized as Antinomians, scoffers, or profane; and on the other, may • uphold it without being re garded as Judaizers and formalists. A very grati fying result which arises from the contemplation of these differences as to the nature and extent of the obligation will be found in the clearer per ception of the agreement to which they all tend, in favor of the observance itself, as in the highest degree conducive to the health of the mind and the nourishment of the soul.