Prince of Orange himself, and it is expected that it will be recognized by the States-General. We confess that we do not see in what way the separation would tend to remedy any of the grievances complained of, or to promote the national prosperity. In the main constitutional questions on which the ministry and the liberals have been at issue,-the responsibility of ministers, the freedom of the press, and trial by jury, the Hollanders and the Belgians have a common concern; nor does one portion of the nation stand at all in the way of the interests of the other, except that the Dutch are naturally more attached to the reigning family, and more averse to the French. The separation might be grateful, on religious grounds, to the Belgian Catholics, as, in Ireland, many might be glad to bring about a repeal of the Union. Yet, if the Belgian Catholics are still to acknowledge the sceptre of a Protestant King, they would gain no solid advantage by a separate Government. As to a union with France, the recent changes in that country must tend materially to lessen any desire the clergy may have entertained, to be more closely connected with that empire.

Whatever, then, may be thought of the wisdom and justice of the original policy which led to the formation of the present Kingdom of the Netherlands, we cannot but regard the clamour of the Belgian radicals for a separation, as the offspring of a mean and anti-social national jealousy, quite distinct from the spirit of liberty. Had they been, like the Genoese, betrayed to a contemptible despot, they might have reason to complain. We almost wonder, indeed, that the Congress of Vienna did not consign them to Ferdinand of Spain. As it is, their political situation more nearly resembles that of Scotland at the time of its union to this country, except that the crown does not rest upon the head of a Belgian prince. Grievances they may have to complain of, which require redress; but they can scarcely hope to change their political condition, upon the whole, for a better.

Art. IV. 1. Suggestions for the Amendment of the Statutes relating to the due Observance of the Lord's Day; in a Letter to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P., Secretary of State for the Home Department. 8vo. pp. 40. Price 1s. London, 1830. 2. The Christian Sabbath; its Institution and Obligation: in a Letter occasioned by some recent Publications, and addressed to a Friend. By Richard Mant, D.D. M.R.I.A., Bishop of Down and Connor, &c. 8vo. pp. 70. Oxford, 1830.

3. A Sermon on the Holy Authority and binding Character of the Law of the Sabbath, with some Instances of its Grievous Profanation in

the present Day.

ton, Hants. 8vo.

By Herbert Smith, B.A., Curate of East Stratpp. 40. London, 1830.

4. The North American Review, No. LXVIII. Article 7. On Sunday Mails.

WE E rejoice to find that, both in this country and in the United States of America, the subject of the legislative enforcement of the Sabbath is beginning to excite that share of public attention which it demands. Although we have not much to add to the arguments and considerations which we laid before our readers in our Number for June last, we gladly avail ourselves of these publications, to keep the subject before the eye of the religious public, and to put to shame, if we can, the criminal supineness of those whom we have hitherto failed to impress with its importance.

We have, probably, few readers who themselves neglect the observance of the Lord's Day, or who dispute the religious obligation which Christians are under to keep the Sabbath. Many of them, however, may have had difficulties respecting the binding nature and proper interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, and its consistency with the change of the day to the first day of the week; difficulties which we have done our best to obviate. But the practical conclusion to which it has been our main object to conduct them, is the urgent necessity, as well as strict propriety, of a legislative interference to uphold and enforce the law, by which alone the observance of the Sabbath can be efficiently guarded in any country.

Against any new legislative measures for this object, we anticipate all sorts of objections from all sorts of persons, the interested, the timid, the ultra-liberal, the irreligious, and the mistaken good. A few specimens of such objections are furnished by the opposition raised in the United States against the enforcement of the law. For instance, an American paper contains the following monitory paragraph.

1

"

If Protestants wish to know what effect the prevalence of Popery in this country will have on religious Institutions which they sacredly regard, let them read the following Resolution; which is one of a series adopted a few weeks since, at a public meeting of those citizens in Mobile" opposed to the closing of stores on Sunday morning! "Resolved, That a portion of the present meeting is composed of Roman Catholics, whose religious opinions do not compel them to close their stores or shops on Sunday; that this custom prevails in all Catholic countries in the world;-that they have inherited these maxims from their forefathers, and are tolerated in them by their own Church; -and to this day, their conduct has never been called into question in New Orleans, the capital of our sister state of Louisiana.” › (Miss. Reg. Aug. p. 384.)

To some persons, this insidious representation may appear not a little specious. It may even seem to partake of an infringement of religious liberty, that Protestants should enforce their own views and scruples relative to the observance of the Sabbath, upon these very conscientious Roman Catholics. Why should the Government, it may be said, be more strict or less tolerant with them, than their own Church, which allows them full liberty to buy and sell, and keep open their stores on the Lord's Day, provided they fast twice a week, honour the festivals appointed by the Church, are regular at confession, and pay their dues? Our reply is, that, in the first place, no man has a right to plead his conscience as a bar against the enforcement of a law which compels him to do nothing against his conscience; and secondly, that no subject of a Government has any claim to an exemption from the operation of laws having for their avowed object the general interests of the community. That the law of the Sabbath is intolerant, that it offends against any man's conscience or real interests,-can by no ingenuity be made to appear. It cannot, then, be intolerance to enforce that law; since intolerance consists in the nature of enactments, not in the execution of them. To tolerate the non-observance of the laws by any portion of the community, is not liberality, but negligence and laxity; and the magistrate who connives at the open breach of the laws, virtually reproaches the Legislature.

The representation of the Mobile Roman Catholics erroneously assumes, that the Government compels them to observe the Sabbath with a strictness not required by their own Church, and punishes them for not so observing it. It does no such thing. It leaves them to observe the day religiously, or not so to observe it, as their conscience or the Church may dictate. It tolerates their irreligion up to the point at which it would interfere with the religion of their neighbours; and then, it does not deal with them penally for being irreligious, but simply restrains them from breaking a salutary social compact, ratified by the State, for the general benefit of the community. The ob servance of the Sabbath, it is true, is far from being a mere voluntary compact: it rests upon an antecedent religious obligation, binding upon every man. Still, this does not render it less a compact between man and man, and one which it is the duty of the Government to ratify and enforce, in common with other compacts relating more immediately to social rights and possessions. The time of the labourer is as much his property as the estate of the rich man. Both are protected by the law of God; the one by the fourth, the other by the eighth commandment. If it be intolerance in the State to enforce the compact of the Sabbath, it must be equally so to enforce the compact of hereditary or other legal tenures,

In America, as in this country, the law of the Sabbath is recognised as the law of the land. The sittings of Congress and of all the State legislatures are regularly suspended on the Sunday; the courts of justice, the custom-houses, the banks, the landoffices, are all closed on that day, as well as the offices and shops of private individuals. The Post-office alone continues its labours with unremitted activity; and this exception to the rule has recently become the subject of much public attention and warm discussion. Memorials both for and against prohibiting the transportation of the mails and the distribution of letters on Sunday, have been transmitted to Congress. These have been referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads; whose Report, together with a counter-report from the minority of the same Committee, have given rise to the article on Sunday Mails in the number of the North American Review now before us. The Committee are against any alteration in the existing practice, upon two distinct grounds: 1. The tendency of the suspension of the transportation of the mail, and of the distribution of letters on Sunday, to effect a union of · Church and State. 2. The practical inconvenience which 'would result from such a measure, in the diminished activity of the ordinary business of life.'

The latter objection will probably appear to the majority of our readers to be the most reasonable; it is the only one which would be urged in this country as a serious argument. Not so, however, on the other side of the Atlantic, where abstract questions often excite a more intense interest than more tangible and practical matters. The former objection is that on which the Committee insist most strongly, and which they evidently regard as the more important of the two. It is urged, that the suspending of the transportation of the mail on the Sunday, would involve the decision of a religious question in favour of those who prefer a particular system, and would therefore come within the spirit of that clause of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits any legislative preference of one religious sect over another. It does not appear to have occurred to the Committee, that the non-suspension of the transportation of the mail would, according to their own shewing, equally involve a decision of the question at issue, the other way, in favour of the opposite party; that the system complained of is as much a violation of the spirit of the constitution, as the opposite system could be. In point of fact, in neither case has the argument any solidity.

But another argument adduced by the Committee and those who take the same side in the public journals, is to this effect; that, according to the spirit of the Constitution, a political representative ought not in any case to be guided, in the discharge of his official duties, by religious considerations;-and that "the

being influenced in the exercise of temporal power by religious belief', is 'neither more nor less than the union of Church ' and State'; or, as the Reviewer would construe the latter unintelligible assertion, has a tendency to bring about a union of Church and State.' Upon this argument the Reviewer remarks as follows.

It is clear to us, that there is some very singular perversion of language, or obliquity of judgement, implied in these remarks, which, if taken in their natural and obvious sense, are directly at variance with the plainest suggestions of reason, and the letter and spirit of scripture. Instead of being bound to exclude all religious considerations in giving his vote upon a subject connected with religion, the representative is undoubtedly bound, on that and on every other occasion, whether of a public or a private nature, to act under the influence of religious considerations... Religious motives are the best under which we can possibly act, and tend of course to produce the best possible results. If one of these results be the union of Church and State, it could only be, because this union is the best of all possible modes of regulating the relations between religion and government. Hence, the Committee, in affirming that a disposition in individuals to act from religious motives, tends to bring about a union of Church and State, affirm by implication, that this union is an excellent institution; which is probably not their intention, and is, at all events, not the opinion of the people of the United States.'

The same objection, only rather modified, has sometimes been more or less obscurely urged by those persons in this country who deprecate any sort of union between Church and State. It is thought, that the enforcement of the law of the Sabbath by the magistrate, would be an act savouring of such a union. The improper union of clerical and magisterial functions in the same individual, which is, unhappily, so common among us, tends more than any thing else, perhaps, to beget this erroneous idea. But, in point of fact, the magistrate acts as purely in his civil capacity, in enforcing the legislative enactments relating to the observance of the Sabbath, as in issuing his warrant for the apprehension of a felon. He derives no portion of his authority from the Church; he acts in no respect for the Church, or as a minister or member of any church; but simply, in his executive function, as an officer of the State, whose duty it is to enforce the statute law as he finds it.

If there is any union of Church and State in the business, it must lie in the statutes themselves, and in the immemorial practice from which they have sprung. And here we find such a union of Church and State as even the objectors to whom we advert would, we presume, regret to see dissolved. Upon the Sunday, all the legislative and judicial functions of Government are suspended, for no other reason than that ours is a Christian