As regards the duty of the pub& religious ob servance of the day by every Christian who ac knowledges the authority of the .N. T., there can be little doubt. It has been seen that public worship, the not forsaking of the assembling of ourselves together,' is mentioned as an express duty ; and that duty can be discharged only by a general compact to observe the same day of meeting. The apostles and primitive Christians chiefly met for such purpose on the Lord's day,' as is evident from sacred and ecclesiastical history ; and Chris tians still observe the same day for the same pur pose. Public worship, then, according to the conscientious convictions entertained by Christians, will be one marked feature in the mode of observ ing the day. As to the number and frequency of the public services which each can profitably attend, or what proportion of time he shall give to private religious duties ; and, when not engaged in directly religious duties, what latitude of social relaxation he shall permit himself,—all this, like so much else that relates to the mode of observing the day, must be left to the individual conscience of the Christian ; for certain it is that the N. T. says nothing on the subject, nor, it is manifest, can any one rule be laid down for all.
That the primitive Christians continued through the post-apostolic age of the church to celebrate the day by public assemblies for religious worship is plain from the evidence, already cited, of Justin Martyr and others. Nor is it uninteresting to ob serve that the services consisted substantially of the same parts as at present : namely, the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, psalmody, and prayer ; and, as already said, these same elements of public worship are found alluded to in the early letter (cir. 107) of Pliny to Trajan.
As regards the degree of strictness with which the Christian shall observe the day in private, it is equally impossible to lay down any rule in the ab sence of any precise instructions in the N. T. The principles already enunciated must determine the matter. If tbe Christian regards the day as both a 'holiday' and a 'holy day,' and its celehration de terminable by its whole design, it is certain that he will not permit himself in any kind of worldly oc cupation which can be avoided, because that would simply poison it under the former of these notions ; nor in any such recreation, however innocent on other days, or in itself, which would be inconsistent with the desire that others should have the rest which he himself wishes to enjoy, or which would (as many recreations will) jar with the spirit and the duties of the day, untune the mind, and dissi pate whatever of salutaiy impression has been pro duced. But even within these limits the judgment
of what may be done or not will vary considerably in different minds. Yet, since Christians (if they be such indeed) will not be oblivious on this day of that charity which is so strongly inculcated on evely day, each will be content to allow his brother a reasonable liberty, and be happy if he does not condemn himself in the thing that he alloweth.' Certainly the notion of some, that the whole day should be given up to unbroken religious thought, emotion, and contemplation, is a mere absurdity, and refutes itself by its impracticability. It is an effort of which the human mind is wholly incapable, and, if made, can only issue in outward formality of gesture and manner in which the heart takes no part. Such a constrained posture of the mind would be as incompatible with the rest' of the Lord's day as that constrained posture of the body which some of the Rabbis tell us the Jew, in certain circumstances, must preserve during the whole day lest he profane the Sabbath, would be with its rest. In fact, either would make any day inexpressibly irksome. Variety of mental mood, changes in the train of thought, are essential to the salutary action of the mind, whether our employments be religious or secular ; and it would be as impossible, under ordinary conditions of mind, to spend the whole day even in the most interesting religious exercises, without pause or change, as in uninterrupted and energetic action of any other kind. And practi cally, we never do find the most scrupulous advo cates of Sabbath rigour attempt any such vain conformity to their own ideal of Sabbath sanctity. Follow them to their homes and to the social meal, and they converse as freely (for aught we have ever been able to see) on topics which naturally suggest themselves at table, as anybody else with laxer notions. Nor need undue laxity be feared by any who have a due regard for the day. The unconscious influence of the habits of sincere respect for the institution will keep all such topics within bounds, both as regards their nature and the degree of attention given to them ; and this unconscious reverence is a far better safeguard against laxity than any stmined and artificial tabooing of specified topics can be. For the latter would infallibly produce a self conscious constraint inconsistent Nvith spontaneous and genuine emotion, and utterly prevent that natural play of the faculties without which all social intercourse becomes irksome and unprofit able.