^ PRINCETON, N. J. iC 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa 
 BV 110 .J87 1867 c.l ^ 
 
 A reply to the Rev. Dr. 
 George Junkin's treatise 
 
/ 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 REV. DR. GEORGE JUNKIN'S TREATISE 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 ^SABBATISMOS;' 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 fomplafnts a« fntlj f)£arlr, JJttpIj fottsibtr'if, 
 anir 5|i££&ils nform'Ji, t^tn is tt)t utmost ioun& of 
 tihil Ufierts attaiit'lr, tbat hiist m£ti look for. 
 
 MILTON. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 T. ELLWOOD ZELL, PUBLISHER, 
 
 17 & 19 S. Sixth St. 
 
 1867. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, 
 
 By T. Ellwood Zell, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 CAXTOPf PRESS OF SHERMAN k CO. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The writer of this " Eeply" at one time held the same 
 views upon the "Sabbath Question," popularly so called, 
 as those entertained by the author of *'Sabbatismos;" 
 having, unfortunately, during many years of his life, 
 taken for granted that that must be true which, without 
 qualification, was so positively asserted. He does not 
 now recollect what excited a spirit of inquiry, but he 
 began and pursued his examinations in silence, knowing 
 that any utterance of dissent from the commonly re- 
 ceived opinions would be denounced as rank infidelity, — 
 an easy and unscrupulous answer, and one, alas ! too 
 often resorted to against those who venture to question 
 the verity of a religious dogma. 
 
 Surprised he was to find how much had been assumed 
 as undeniable, without even the semblance of a proof; 
 how much, he regrets to say, was disingenuously ex- 
 plained ] how much apparently wilfully misunderstood; 
 and how much suppressed. 
 
 When the treatise under review came under his notice, 
 he found that it abounded, to a greater extent than any 
 he had seen, with the same gratuitous assumptions, and 
 some of the other shortcomings to which he has just re- 
 ferfed. And as it was written with the avowed purpose 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 of affecting public opinion upon the religious unlawful-, 
 ness of running street cars on the first day of the week, '] 
 and as no one seemed disposed to reply to it, the writer, 
 whose convictions were the result of much deliberation, 
 and, as he trusts, of candid and unbiassed investigation, 
 determined to do so. 
 
 There is evidently but one alternative with the author 
 of '^Sabbatismos'^ and those who hold similar senti- 
 ments, which is, that you shall accept their doctrine 
 without questioning it, or expect to be charged with 
 skepticism. Is not the Sabbath a good institution, say 
 they; would you wish to see it abolished, as was done 
 during the Eeign of Terror? would not such a result be 
 fraught with disaster to the morals of the community 
 and the good of society? or, in the words of our author,? 
 would you ^^force'^ people "to rush away from the holy ■• 
 sanctuaries int^ haunts of dissipation; the wayside traps ! 
 in the country, whence they return fatigued, wearied, , 
 and worn down with recreation, if not battered, bruised, '■ 
 and bloody, the most natural and not uncommon result 
 of worshipping at the shrine of Bacchus" (p. 204). To 
 this unfair method of exciting the prejudices of one por- 
 tion of the community against another, we object, and 
 reply that the wish of those who favor the removal of 
 the restriction is not to abolish the Sabbath. It is not 
 to induce the people to leave the " holy sanctuaries,'' 
 and who, according to our author, need but the means 
 of escape to return, sad to say, " battered, bruised, and 
 bloody." It is not to undermine the morals of society. 
 It is not to bring ruin upon the state. 
 
 The wish, however, is to abolish a legal restriction 
 which exists, but which is based upon a religious restric- 
 tion which has ceased to exist. 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 As a temporal and political iDstitution, the observance 
 of a stated day of physical rest for man and the animal 
 creation may be, under limitations^ a wise provision, but 
 we claim the largest liberty consistent with the general 
 good. It may be a difficult undertaking to adjust the 
 exact boundary between liberty and license. But this 
 is a problem which has puzzled political philosophers 
 from the infancy of society to our own day. When he 
 is born who shall solve this secret, honors will be lav- 
 ished on him while living; and dead, his memory will be 
 held in veneration by his grateful country, for he will 
 have discovered the perfection of all government; and 
 if the people be virtuous, they will have reached the 
 height of human freedom. 
 
 The opponents of running the cars base their objec- 
 tions mainly upon the supposition that the people are 
 immoral; that they are not to be trusted with their own 
 liberties ; that so corrupt is the heart that the privilege 
 of unrestrained locomotion which one who is able may 
 indulge, without sin, upon a weekday, becomes with him 
 who is unable a sin, should he indulge in it upon Sunday; 
 that the removal of this legal restraint will result in a 
 standing temptation to a breach of the peace and an 
 occasion for the wildest license; that a kind Providence 
 looks with benignant approval upon the conduct of a 
 provident parent who, for the sake of his children, may 
 seek the country upon a secular day, while it frowns in 
 anger upon another who, with no ability to leave his 
 home upon a weekday, shall, from the same motives, do 
 so upon a Sunday. The line between a sinless and a 
 sinful act has a broader and a darker margin than this. 
 The freedom which Boston, in this respect, enjoys, has 
 not, that we have ever heard, injured the morals of that 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 city, nor is tbere, in consequence, any wich to abolish 
 the Sabbath ; nor are worldly avocations pursued to any 
 greater degree than before ; nor do those who leave the 
 city, for the purer air of the country, a^Dpear to return in 
 the sad condition which our author describes, namely, 
 " battered, bruised, and bloody." The advocates of re- 
 striction who thus endeavor to arouse passions and alarm 
 prejudices cannot be sincere, or they would not by their 
 own example violate the law as it now stands or counte- 
 nance its violation in others. Their own conduct shows 
 their insincerity, for they are not willing to accord, the 
 liberty which they claim for themselves. The whole 
 question is resolved into this : Is the fourth command- 
 ment now morally binding f If it is, there is an end of 
 the discussion; and so far from the law of the State 
 being too strict, it is not strict enough, and should be 
 enforced by heavier penalties. Instead of leaving at- 
 tendance upon worship optional, it should then be made 
 compulsory. If, on the other hand, the fourth command- 
 ment is not obligatory, and of no Divine authority for 
 the binding observance of Sunday, then it is as unlawful 
 to restrict the public liberty by preventing the running 
 of cars, as it would be to compel the attendance of every 
 one upon a place of public worship. For it is as wise to 
 assert that the morals will be infallibly corrupted by the 
 one, as to assert that they will be infallibly improved by 
 the other. 
 
 It is our choice to attend a place of worship on Sun- 
 day, and we would concede the same liberty of action, 
 we claim for ourselves, to him who sought the country 
 by public convej^ance. Nor are we willing to admit 
 that, when in church, our nerves are any more disturbed 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 by the running of cars over an iron rail, than by the rat- 
 tling of a carriage over the public pavement. 
 
 The result of our inquiries, and for which no special 
 originality is claimed, will be found in the following pages. 
 The arguments advanced by the author of " Sabbatis- 
 mos" are the same adduced by every writer upon this 
 subject, and which from time to time have been promptly 
 met and refuted, to be again, in due time, proffered, and, 
 like false coin, again rejected. 
 
 There is not a reason urged, nor a quotation given, 
 of which an examination and verification is not earnestly 
 desired. And let the candid reader note, that every re- 
 ligious newspaper that may condescend to comment 
 upon this " Eeply," will begin and end with the charge 
 of infidelity, notwithstanding that every position may 
 be sustained by the testimony of some one or other of the 
 lights of the church, whom they dare not individually 
 thus assail. 
 
 The writer cannot hope to escape the treatment which 
 all have undergone who have been so bold as to question 
 the truth of any long-cherished religious opinion. 
 
 Bigotry cannot trust itself in the light; it becomes 
 dazzled and confused; the glare of truth disarms it. 
 Barely, therefore, does it meet argument with argu- 
 ment ; but prefers the reckless assertion, the disingenu- 
 ous insinuation, the unscrupulous charge of skepticism, 
 feeling assured that such a note of alarm will at once 
 arouse the timid, who seldom reflect, and have, perhaps, 
 neither the courage nor the industry to investigate. If 
 there ever was a tyranny, cruel, defiant, exacting, and 
 unmerciful, and with which it must be instant, unques- 
 tioning assent, or else malignant persecution, it is that 
 of religious intolerance. Following its victim into pri- 
 
Vm PREFACE. 
 
 vate as into public life, and knowing no commiseration 
 or relentings, it would snatch the very crust from the 
 lips of the famished child, because of the alleged offences 
 of the parent. It is as much in contrast with the spirit 
 of the Gospel, and with the holy teachings of our Saviour, 
 as hght is with darkness; as all that is good with all that 
 is bad. A tyranny as fierce now as in the dark ages, 
 and which is, in our midst, as harsh, and unscrupulous, 
 and wicked as ever, and the cause of more doubt and 
 infidelity than all the writings of all the skeptics who 
 have ever lived. 
 
A REPLY 
 
 REV. DR. GEORGE JUNKIN, 
 
 CHAP TEE I. 
 
 1. The reasons alleged for the observance of Sunday noticed. 2. 
 Geologj' in conflict with the scriptural account of the creation 
 so far as relates to our computation of time. 3. Views of the 
 Kev. Baden Powell. 4. Kenrick on Primeval History. 5. 
 Scriptural silence previously to Moses as to the observation 
 of a "Sabbath." 
 
 1. The Doctor asserts, in his first chapter, that the 
 observance of the " Sabbath,'' by which he means what 
 is called by some denominations ''Sunday," and by, 
 perhaps, the majority of Christians, the "Lord's Day," 
 is a permanent and moral obligation; and such for 
 three reasons, which may be briefly stated : 
 
 1st. That the law, ordaining the Sabbath, was the 
 first God ever gave to man. 
 
 2d. That the Creator, having for six days been em- 
 ployed in the creation of the universe, rested upon the 
 seventh day, " from all his works which he had made" 
 and sanctified that day. 
 
 2 
 
10 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 3d. That the figure seven has a ''mystical use;" that 
 it is the "number of perfection." That the seven well- 
 favored and the. seven ill-favored kine, the seven good 
 and seven bad ears on a stock, the seven days and seven 
 priests, bearing seven trumpets, &c., " plainly show the 
 number seven to be peculiarly distinguished in the 
 Scriptures;" and that this number, having been first 
 used with reference to the rest of the Creator from his 
 labors, its after use, in the cases just cited, and in other 
 instances, " amounts to more than a violent presump- 
 tion;" nay, constitutes a ^^ 'proof of the seventh day's 
 consecration as a Sabbath from the beginning !"* As to 
 the last of these grounds, we remark, without further 
 comment, that it appears to savor more of superstition 
 than of proof; and, as to the first, we reply, conceding 
 for the sake of the argument that it was a law, and as 
 such given to man, that the antiquity of a law is no 
 proof of its moral and perpetual obligation. 
 
 And with regard to the second reason, of which more 
 particularly hereafter, there is no evidence, in Genesis 
 or elsewhere, showing the enactment of any law bind- 
 ing man to sanctify the seventh day, after Creation, 
 nor of any patriarchal public or private w^orship. The 
 distin(?tion given to the seventh day occurred before 
 the existence of the necessity of rest to the human race 
 was even intimated^ before the fatal expulsion from Eden 
 and all its joys, and the announcement of that terrible 
 curse, and of man's mortality, "In the sweat of thy 
 face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the 
 ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art 
 and unto dust shalt thou return.'' (3 Gen. 19.) 
 
 2. If, however, the perpetuity of the alleged patri- 
 archal Sabbath is based upon the creation of the world, 
 
 * Page 12. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 11 
 
 according to the division of time, as understood by us, 
 the whole fabric falls, and the best evidence is afforded 
 against the supposition of the enactment of any law 
 whatever. There was a period when to interpret this 
 great mysterj^ in any other sense than that insisted 
 upon in the book we are reviewing, would have been 
 regarded as the grossest infidelity, but science, which 
 concerns the occupation of the highest capacities of the 
 human intellect, is as resistless as are the very ele- 
 ments, when wrought upon by the laws of Him who 
 brought them into being. Geology has long since shown 
 that the Creation was the result, not of one hundred 
 and forty-four hours' work, but of the silent operation 
 of, perhaps, millions of years. Thus does our author 
 condemn his fellow for " the violation of a law" which 
 never had existence upon the interpretation presented 
 by him ; for to credit that it had would involve a dis- 
 belief in that Power which brought perfection out of 
 nothing.* 
 
 In confirmation of our view as to the announcement 
 in Genesis with reference to the history of creation, we 
 present the authority of one of the most distinguished 
 divines of Great Britain, that of the late Eev. Baden 
 Powell, who says in his Christianity without Judaism, 
 
 * We must not be understood as expressing the belief that the 
 Supreme could not have created in the twinkling of an eye our 
 own and the other infinite globes which swim in space, had it 
 been his divine pleasure so to do, but we assert that Geology has 
 proved that such was not his pleasure, and that the theory of a 
 " law " based on the sense which we attach to the word day can- 
 not be received. It is a choice as to which is safer, whether to 
 infer the enactment of a "perpetual and irrevocable law " when 
 the Scriptures are silent as to any such enactment, or to believe 
 that some other sense is to be assigned to the word day, and that 
 it was not used to convey the idea now affixed, but to express a 
 period of time. 
 
12 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 and from which we shall have occasion frequently to 
 quote : 
 
 3. " Some have imagined from the figurative account 
 of the Divine 'rest' after the creation that there was a 
 primeval institution of the Sabbath, though certainly 
 no precept is recorded as having been given to man to 
 keep it up. But since, from the irreconcilable contra- 
 dictions disclosed by geological discovery, the whole 
 narrative of the six days' creation cannot now be re- 
 garded by any competently informed person as histor- 
 ical, the historical character of the distinction conferred 
 on the seventh day falls to the ground along with it. 
 
 " The disclosures of the true physical history of the 
 origin of the existing state of the earth, by modern 
 geological research, as shown in a previous essay, en- 
 tirely overthrows the supposed historical character of the 
 narrative of the six days, and by consequence that respecting 
 the consecration of the seventh day along with it, and thus 
 subverts entirely the whole foundation of the belief ia 
 an alleged primeval Sabbath, coeval with the world, and 
 with man, which has been so deeply mixed up with the 
 preposessions of a large class of modern religionists. 
 Yet without reference to this consideration, even long 
 before the geological discoveries w^ere known, some of 
 the best commentators have regarded the passage as 
 proleptical or anticipatory." {Christianity without Juda- 
 ism. By the Rev. Baden Powell, F.RS., &c., &c., p. 88. 
 London, 1866.) 
 
 We also give the views of Mr. Kenrick, as quoted by 
 Mr. Robert Cox in his able and exhaustive ti-eatise en- 
 titled Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, p. 87, and to 
 whose labors we acknowledge our obligations.* 
 
 * To this gentleman the cause of the Sunday question and of 
 truth owe a heavy debt. With a courage and manliness, which 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 13 
 
 4. '<Thc credibility of every historical writing,'^ says 
 Mr. Kenrick, in the preface to his Essay on Primeval 
 History, " must stand on its own ground ; and not only 
 in the same volume, but in the same work, materials of 
 very different authority may be included. The various 
 portions of a national history, some founded on docu- 
 mentar}^ and contemporaneous evidence, some derived 
 from poetical sources, some from tradition, some treat- 
 ing of a period anterior to the invention of writing, 
 some to the very existence of a nation, and even of the 
 human race, cannot possess a uniform and equal degree 
 of certainty. We cannot have the same evidence of 
 the events of the reigns of David and Solomon and 
 those of the period comprehended in the first eleven 
 chapters of the Book of Genesis; nor can we be sur- 
 prised if, in the necessary absence of documents re- 
 specting primeval times, a narrative should have 
 formed itself reflecting the opinions, partlj' true and 
 partly erroneous, of the people among whom it had its 
 birth. Had the Hebrew literature not borne this char- 
 acter, the phenomenon would have been unparalleled 
 in history; it would have wanted a most decisive stamp 
 
 cannot be too highly praised, he threw himself into the discussion, 
 many years since, upon the moral and scriptural lawfulness of 
 running Sunday trains, an event which intensely agitated the 
 Scottish community. As this was at a time when religious intol- 
 erance ran liigh, he necessarily encountered his full share of pop- 
 ular odium. Nothing daunted, however, for his principles were 
 fixed, he devoted much time to research and produced a treatise so 
 thorough as to leave nothing to be desired. He has the satis- 
 faction of all those who labor in the cause of truth and bide their 
 time, that of seeing many who differed now of the same way of 
 thinking and standing with him on the same broad and unassail- 
 able platform, for the change of sentiment in Scotland on the 
 Sunday question, all things considered, is remarkable. 
 
 2* 
 
14 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 of high antiquity had it exhibited in its earliest pages 
 
 a scientific, not a popular philosophy It is 
 
 the natural consequence of this Divine instruction that 
 their (the Jews) early traditions should be, as we find 
 them, more pure and rational than those of their neigh- 
 bors; but it does not necessarily follow that their pri- 
 meval chronology must be exact, or their history every- 
 where free from exaggeration and misconception. 
 
 *' These opinions may be startling to many persons, 
 by seeming to derogate from an authority concerning 
 which ' sanctius ac reverentius risum credere quam scire.' 
 Yet, I believe it will be found that neither our religious 
 feelings nor our religious belief are necessarily and per- 
 manently affected by the exercise of a freer and more 
 discriminating criticism upon the Jewish records. Cre- 
 ation will still appear to us as an example and proof of 
 omnipotence, though in the limitation of its manifold 
 and progressive operations to a period of six days we 
 have the influence of the Jewish institution of the Sab- 
 bath I am persuaded that there are many 
 
 persons of truly religious mind to whom it will be a 
 relief from painful perj^lexity and doubt to find that the 
 authority of revelation is not involved in the correct- 
 ness of the oj^inions which prevailed among the He- 
 brew people respecting cosmogony and primeval his- 
 tory. They delight to trace the guiding hand of 
 Providence in the separation of this people from amidst 
 the idolatrous nations, in order to preserve the worship 
 of a spiritual Deity, and in all the vicissitudes of their 
 history till its consummation. They admire the wis- 
 dom and humanity of the Mosaic institutions, and 
 acknowledge this dispensation as the basis of the 
 Christian ; they feel the sublimity and purity of the 
 devotional, moral, and prophetic writings of Scripture; 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 15 
 
 but they can neither close their eyes to the discoveries 
 of science and history, nor satisfy their understandings 
 with the expedients which have been devised for recon- 
 ciling them with the language of the Hebrew records. 
 I know that this is the state of many minds ; the secret, 
 unavowed, perhaps scarcely self-acknowledged convic- 
 tions of many others are doubtless in unison with it. 
 And such views would be more general, were it not for 
 a groundless apprehension that there is no medium be- 
 tween implicit undiscriminating belief and entire un- 
 belief. It has been my object to show that between 
 these extremes there is ground firm and wide enough 
 to build an ample and enduring structure of religious 
 faith."* 
 
 5. The silence of Scripture as to the sanctification of 
 the seventh day, from the first mention of it in Gen- 
 esis until its second announcement in the time of Mo- 
 ses, must have its weight ; but our author, while 
 strenuously insisting that there is evidence of the day 
 having been observed by the patriarchs, and of its con- 
 tinued observance during succeeding years, speaks of 
 the revival and restoration of the Sabbath law. That 
 cannot be revived and restored, which has not pre- 
 viously fallen into disuse. 
 
 In this connection Dr. Junkin animadverts upon the 
 Rev. Dr. Norman Macleod,"(" whom, with much bitter- 
 
 * An Essay on Primeval History. By John Kenrick, M.A. 
 London, 1846. Pp. xviii-xxii. 
 
 f We find the following explanation of Dr. Macleod's course 
 in an able article on " Sundaj^," by the Eev. E. H. Plumtre, A.M., 
 in the January number, for 1866, of the " Contemporary Re- 
 view," London. 
 
 " The North British Railway Company having come into pos- 
 session of the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow, signalized 
 
16 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ness, he styles the " Ghisgow Colenso," and accuses of 
 open infidelity, because,- among other reasons, that gen- 
 its new proprietorship by running Sunday trains where none had 
 run before. The clergy and many of the laity of Glasgow were 
 alarmed at what seemed to them to threaten a revolutionary 
 change in the national observance. A meeting of the Presbytery 
 of the Established Church was convened, and it was agreed to 
 issue a pastoral address on the subject. The language of the ad- 
 dress was temperate ; that of the speakers far from violent. Their 
 case was rested, however, on the assumption that the Fourth Com- 
 mandment was at once the ground and the rule of the observance 
 of the Lord's day, and an amendment, with a view to the omission 
 of the clause affirming this, was moved by Dr. Norman Maclcod, 
 of the Barony Church, Glasgow, the well-known editor of Good 
 Worlds. At an adjourned meeting, on November 16th, he sup- 
 ported the amendment in a speech, which took three hours in 
 delivery, and which has since been published. 
 
 It is pleasant to be able to acknowledge, as Dr. Macleod him- 
 self has done, the Christian courtesy, candor, and gentlemanly 
 bearing, which characterized the discussion of the Presbytery. 
 There was little or nothing of the bitterness, which has so often 
 disgraced controversies on this subject; a total absence of the ex- 
 travagance which led the Presbytery of Strath bogie, in 1658, to 
 condemn an offender, accused of Sabbath-breaking, for saving the 
 life of a sheep ; and which, in 1863, prompted the Free Church 
 Presbytery of the same district (as though their teeth were still set 
 on edge with the sour grapes which their fathers had eaten), to 
 present Good Words to the General Assembly of the Free Church, 
 because it had admitted a paper "by Mr. Thorold, the excellent 
 Rector of St. Giles', London, advocating, among other things, 
 the practice of allowing boys at school to write letters to their 
 parents, on the leisure hours of Sunday. The speeches of Dr. 
 Macduff, Mr. -Charteris, and others, we may add, also, the paper 
 on this subject, by Dr. Hanna (the son-in-law and biographer of 
 Thomas Chalmers), in the Sunday Magazine for December last, 
 present a refreshing contrast to this unintelligent narrowness. 
 Concessions were made which would have startled those who, in 
 the General Assembly of 1834, declared a Sunday walk (' wan- 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 17 
 
 tleman can find no evidence of the keeping of the 
 Fourth Commandment, from the time of Adam to that 
 of Mosea. The offence of Dr. Macleod, one of the bright- 
 est intellects and best men in Scotland, is explained 
 in the subjoined note. "Nothing," says the Eev. Mr. 
 Pluratre, in speaking of Dr. Macleod's views, " is 
 easier for those who simply want a 'cry to go to the 
 country with,^ than to repeat incessantly that Dr. 
 Macleod sets aside the authority of the Ten Com- 
 
 dering in the fields,' grouped together with 'riot, drunkenness, 
 and other immoralities'), to be a breach of the commandment. 
 Dr. Macduff spoke with approval of the opening of the parks of 
 Glasgow, 'when the Sabbath services are over.' It was allowed 
 by Mr. Charteris that some cabs and omnibuses might legitimate- 
 ly ply on the Lord's day ; that one morning and one evening 
 train might, if there were fair evidence of their being wanted, 
 legitimately run. In practical suggestions for the observance of 
 the day Dr. Macleod and his opponents were, for the most part, 
 of one mind. What startled and alarmed them, was that he 
 threw overboard the principle on which they laid stress, — that 
 the Lord's daj^ rests upon the Fourth Commandment ; that he went 
 on, with a Luther-like boldness, to declare that the Decalogue 
 itself, qua Decalogue, was no longer binding on those who accept- 
 ed the law of their Master, Christ; that the moral elements of 
 it are of perpetual force, not because they are there^ but because 
 they are moral, part of the eternal will of God, incorporated with 
 the teaching of our Lord. To them the former position seemed 
 to undermine the onlj'^ ground on which the holiness of the Lord's 
 day could be maintained; the latter to let in an unbridled Anti- 
 nomianism. It is to their honor, that in spite of their fears, they 
 continued to use the language of courtesj^ and calmness. The ve- 
 hemence of popular religious feeling, however, has gone far beyond 
 the moderation of the Presbytery, and Dr. Macleod is probably, at 
 present, the best abused man in Great Britain. Journal after 
 journal declaims against him, as English religious newspapers 
 have declaimed (with more reason, it must be owned), against the 
 Bishop of Natal, and the writers of 'Essays and Reviews.' " 
 
18 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 mandments. Those who do not shrink from low jest- 
 ing on the gravest questions, will add to that cry that, 
 if his teaching gains ground, they must lock up their 
 spoons, &c. Men who wish to deal with facts, as they 
 are, will recognize that what he maintains is simply 
 this, that every commandment but the fourth was 
 binding before the law was given on Sinai, would have 
 been binding now, even if that law had never been 
 given, and is actually binding on the consciences of 
 Christian men, not because it was then written on 
 tables of stone, but because it was written on the 
 'fleshy tables of the heart,' and has been confirmed 
 and expanded by the teaching of our Saviour Christ. 
 To represent the moral laws of God as depending on 
 the thunders of Sinai for their validity, and all laws so 
 given as equally binding, must lead either to Judaism, 
 if we believe the Sabbatic law, as such, to continue, or 
 to Antinomianism, if we believe it, as such, to have 
 passed away." 
 
 It appears that the position of Dr. Macleod, for 
 maintaining which with such courage and honest frank- 
 ness, he is so violently and uncharitably assailed as an 
 infidel, is impregnable. The laws of the Decalogue, 
 other than that of the Fourth Commandment, are not 
 binding because they are there, but because their founda- 
 tion is laid in the everlasting principles of right, were 
 binding before the giving of the law, and will be until 
 the end of time, together with the other precepts and 
 prohibitions, which, though not mentioned with the 
 nine, yet stand in as indissoluble relation to man and 
 his duty to his God and his fellows, as do any of the 
 nine delivered at the Mount. 
 
 It is therefore maintained by the author of " Sabba- 
 tismos'^ that the Sabbath was patriarchal, and as such is 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 19 
 
 morally binding through all time. If it be conceded 
 that the Sabbath, as a day of worship^ was instituted in 
 the age of the patriarchs, there is no proof that because 
 of this it is morally binding upon mankind throughout 
 all time. If, as is alleged, the light of nature makes 
 known to mankind not the duty of worshipping at all 
 times, but that of consecrating the seventh as the least 
 portion of time that could be properly set apart for the 
 worship of God, how is it that the light of nature did 
 not impart this to Socrates and to other good men 
 among the ancients, and to Luther, Milton or Chilling- 
 worth, and other good men among the moderns whose 
 moral sense of right and wrong, judging from the pu- 
 rity of their lives, should have taught them as readily 
 as others that the seventh day was the least division 
 that should be devoted to the worship of the Deity ? 
 (Cox, p. 219.) 
 
 The pious and conscientious Dr. Owen regards the 
 doctrine, which so much as to doubt our author pro- 
 nounces rank infidelity and worthy of a Colenso, as one 
 l^resenting but a " high degree of probability.'' He 
 observes : 
 
 " And, as is said of Abraham, that he taught his 
 household and children after him to keep the way of 
 the Lord, and to do justice and judgment (Gen. xviii, 
 19). If, then, the observance of the Sabbath be a stat- 
 ute and ordinance and was made known to Abraham, 
 it is certain that he instructed his household and 
 children, all his posterity, in their duty with respect 
 thereunto. And if so, it could not be revealed unto 
 them at Marah. Others, therefore, of the (Jewish) 
 Masters do grant, as we observed, also the original of 
 the Sabbath from the Creation, and do assert the j^atri- 
 archal observance of it upon that foundation. The 
 
20 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 instances I confess which they make use of are not 
 absolutely cogent, but yet, considered with other cir- 
 cumstances wherewith they are strengthened, they may 
 be allowed to conclude unto a high probability." {Expo- 
 sition of Hebrews. By John Owen, D.D., i, 630. Lond., 
 1840.) 
 
 The eminent theologians who hold the reverse of 
 what our author so dogmatically insists upon as beyond 
 the reach of contradiction, and who could not see 
 even the " high probability " of Dr. Owen, are numer- 
 ous, and their views will be quoted in the course of this 
 " Eeply/' The language of the learned and distinguish- 
 ed Dr. Isaac Barrow is so comprehensive and to the 
 point that we here cite what he says upon the subject: 
 
 "As circumcision was the seal of the covenant made 
 with Abraham and his posterity, so keeping the Sab- 
 bath did obsignate the covenant made with the children 
 of Israel after their delivery out of Egypt." .... 
 
 After referring to Exod. xxvi, 16; Ezek. xx, 11, 12, 
 20 ; Neh. ix, 13, 14 ; Exod. xvi, 29, Barrow says : 
 
 " Where making known to them the Sabbaths, as also 
 otherwhere giving them the Sabbath, are expressions 
 (together with the special ends of the Sabbath's ap- 
 pointment, which are mentioned in those places), con- 
 firming the judgment of the ancient Christians, Justin 
 Martyr, Irenaeus, TertuUian, &c., who refer t\\Q first in- 
 stitution of the Sabbath to Moses, affirming (that which 
 indeed the history by its total silence concerning the 
 Sabbath before him sufficiently doth seem to confirm) 
 that the patriarchs were not obliged thereto nor did 
 practise it." (^Exposition of the Decalogue. Barrow's 
 Works, vol. ii, p. 570. Edinburgh, 1839.) 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 21 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 1. Proof that the Fourth Commandment, or "Jewish Sabbath," 
 is not morally binding. 2. Absence of any scriptural distinc- 
 tion between the "Sabbath" and the "seventh day." 
 
 1. The Doctor asserts that the Decalogue has been 
 held, since the period of its promulgation, " by all who 
 knew it, a brief compend of the moral law" (p. 39). 
 And while admitting it was given to the Jews, insists 
 that it is equally binding now, as when first delivered; 
 that the commandments "are a transcript of the moral 
 attributes of God (p. 32), and as unchangeable as his 
 own eternal nature." That nothing short of this can be 
 inferred from the material and the writing; that the 
 Sabbath, not the sanctification of the seventh day, is as 
 old as the creation; that of the Ten, the Fourth is the 
 central one. He acknowledges, after making all these 
 statements, that the Sabbath was not the " discovery 
 of reason ; but when proposed to reason, secured its 
 conviction to this amount, — that it is a law of God, 
 the Creator, given for man's benefit." (p, 39). The con- 
 tradictions involved in these assertions must be appar- 
 ent to the most casual observer, for it must be presumed 
 that, in using the words, " moral laAV," &c., he intended 
 to employ them in the accepted sense. The fallacy of 
 his position, and the exposure of which solves the whole 
 difficulty, lies in confounding the natural impulse of 
 man (be he savage or civilized, to worship an overrul- 
 ing or supreme Existence, or that which he deems such, 
 
 3 
 
22 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 whether it be the sun or an idol of his own creation, 
 or the Great Spirit), with the worship of the Christian, 
 recurring at stated intervals, and for a reason which 
 must appear arbitrary: for it would have seemed as 
 reasonable had the tenth or twentieth da}^ been selected 
 as a season of rest, as that the seventh should have 
 been. The worship of God, therefore, or to the unen- 
 lightened of some God, or superior Eeing, may be re- 
 garded as a moral imj^ulse of the human breast; but 
 the worship of God upon every returning seventh day 
 is a commandment of si, positive nature, and, therefore, 
 cannot be moral. 
 
 " The moral law revealed itself in the infancy of so- 
 ciet}^; philosophers are its expounders, not its creators; 
 their voice is but the echo of conscience." Encyc. Amer., 
 Tit. Moral Philosophy. Yet we are told, by the Doctor, 
 that the command to hallow one day in seven, was of 
 itself sufficient to prove the precept moral; that is, the 
 " echo of conscience," yet a precept not '' discoverable 
 by our reason!" 
 
 The fact that there is a consciousness of wrong in 
 stealing or in bearing false witness, proves the existence 
 of a sense of the breach of a perpetually binding and 
 moral law. Whereas it would be the height of the ab- 
 surd to allege that there would be any such conscious- 
 ness, were we, from preference or the force of circum- 
 stances, to keep every tenth rather than every seventh 
 day, or every Friday rather than every Sunday. The 
 very statement shows the distinction between the viola- 
 tion of a moral law and a positive statute. The moral 
 law is eternal ; the statute which was once law, has now 
 ceased to exist. 
 
 It is naturally good to obey our parents, and to ab- 
 stain from murder or adultery. It is naturally good to 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 23 
 
 worship our Maker. But the ^' very light of reason and 
 principle of nature" teaches us to avoid the disohedience 
 to parents, or the commission of murder or adulter}^, 
 always, and to worship our Maker and hold him in 
 reverence alwa^'s. It does not, however, on the one 
 hand, teach us that we may intermit the duty, or wor- 
 ship or perform it at some arbitrary interval of time, 
 and on the other render a commission of the offences 
 named either more or less unlawful at one time than 
 at another. 
 
 This view of the question is well put by the Eev. 
 Baden Powell, who remarks : "The tendencies to Juda- 
 ism, arising from mistaken views of Scripture, and a 
 want of due recognition of Christianity in its primitive 
 simplicit}^ and purit}^, as disclosed in the apostolic writ- 
 ings, are powerfully' seconded and upheld by the tenden- 
 cies of human nature; and though there is no foundation 
 for sabbatisni in morality or Christianity, there is a 
 deep-seated foundation for it in the formalism and su- 
 perstition so congenial to the human heart. 
 
 " Of all corrupt notions, that of relegating religious 
 duties to certain fixed periods or days is one of the 
 most grateful to human nature, but most radically hos- 
 tile to Christian principles, though often defended on 
 the plea, that what is left to be done at any time will 
 never be done; whereas the true argument is, that it is 
 to be done at all times. 
 
 " Those who are not religious habitually^ will seek to 
 be so occasionally ; those who do not keep up continual 
 holiness, will seek j)eriodical sanctitj^. Those who do \ 
 not make their lives ho\j, can punctiliously keep days] 
 holy. It is easier to sanctify times and places than our 
 hearts; human nature clings to religious formalism, and 
 
24 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 especially of sabbatism, as an easy mode of compound- 
 ing for a worldly, if not irreligious life/' 
 
 Again : 
 
 "The distinction adopted by many modern divines 
 between the ' ceremonial ' and the ' moral ' law appears 
 nowhere in the books of Moses. No one portion or 
 code is there held out as comprising the rules of moral 
 obligation distinct and apart from those of a positive 
 nature. In the low stage of the advancement of the 
 Israelites such a distinction would have been unintel- 
 ligible to them ; and ' the Law ' is always spoken of, 
 both in the Old Testament and in the New, as a whole, 
 without reference to any such classification ; and the 
 obligations of all parts of it are indiscriminately urged 
 on the same grounds, and as of the same kind. 
 
 " In particular, what is termed the moral law is cer- 
 tainly in no way peculiarly to be identified with the 
 Decalogue, as some have strangely imagined. Though 
 moral duties are sjDCcially enjoined in many places of 
 the Law, yet the Decalogue most assuredly does not 
 contain all moral duties, even by remote implication, 
 and on the widest construction. It totally omits many 
 such, as e. g., beneficence, truth, justice, temperance, 
 control of temper, and others; and some moral pre- 
 cepts omitted here are introduced in other places. But 
 many moral duties are hardly recognized; e. g., it is 
 difficult to find any positive prohibition of drunkenness 
 in the Law. In one passage only an indirect censure 
 seems to be implied (Deut. xxix, 19). The prohibition 
 in respect to the priests (Lev. x, 9), and the Nazarite 
 vow, were peculiar cases (Deut. vi, 3)." (Powell's Chris- 
 tianity without Judaism, pp. 187, 188, 104.) 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 25 
 
 Dv. South Bays : 
 
 . . . . " I conceive that the matter of all the com- 
 mandments (the fourth only, as it determines the time 
 of God's solemn worship to the seventh day, excepted)^ 
 is of natural moral right, and carries with it a neces- 
 sary and eternal obligation." {Sermo?is by Robert /South, 
 D.I)., i, 224. London, 1859.) 
 
 Mr. Cox has the following quotations which properly 
 belong to this division of our subject : 
 
 '' If the duties prescribed in the fourth command- 
 ment rest upon a law written on the heart and grafted 
 on the constitution of man, how Avas it possible for the 
 acute and learned Baxter to declare that they are ' but 
 a positive institution and not naturally known to man,' 
 as other duties are?" (Works, vol. ix, p. 186.)* How 
 can Dr. McCrie affirm that " it is onlj^ from the law of 
 revelation that we learn sabbatical duty?" (Memoirs of 
 Sir A. Agnew, p. 152.) And how could the accomplished 
 Dr. Barrow conclude that, seeing in its own nature the 
 Fourth Commandment different from the rest of the 
 Ten Laws, the obligation thereto being not, discernibly 
 to natural light, grounded in the reason of the thing, 
 " we can nowise be assured that a universal and pcr- 
 
 * Baxter has also these remarks. It is of the law of nature 
 (that is, known by natural light without other revelation), 1. 
 That God should be worshipped ; 2. That societies should assemble 
 to do it together ; 3. That some set time should be separated sta- 
 tedly to that use ; 4. That it should be done with the whole heart, 
 without worldly diversions or distractions. But I know nothing 
 in nature alone from whence a man can prove that. 1. It must 
 be either just one dny in seven ; 2. Or, just what day of the seven 
 it must be ; 3. Nor just what degree of rest is necessary : though 
 reason may discern that one day in seven is a very convenie^it pro- 
 portion. ( Woi'ks, vol. xix, p. 187. Quoted in Cox, p 217.) 
 
 3* 
 
26 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 petual obligation thereto was intended, or that its obli- 
 gation did extend further than to the Jews, to whom 
 it was a formal law delivered, and upon special consid- 
 erations severely inculcated ; to whose humor, con- 
 dition and circumstances it might also, perhaps, be par- 
 ticularly suited ?" {Exposition of the Decalogue, Works, 
 ed. 1847, vol. ii, p. 572.) According to Eishop Jeremy 
 Taylor, the rest which the Jews were commanded to 
 observe on the Sabbath, " being only commemorative 
 of their deliverance from the Egyptian servitude, was 
 not moral nor perpetual; it could be dispensed with at 
 the command of a prophet; it was dispensed with at 
 the command of Joshua, — it was broken at the siege 
 of Jericho, — it always yielded when it clashed with the 
 duty of any other commandment; it was not observed 
 by the priests in the Temple, nor in the stalls by the 
 herdsmen, nor in the house by the ' major-domo ;' but 
 they did lead the ox to water, and circumcised a son ; 
 that is, it yielded to charity and to religion, not only to 
 a moral duty hut to a ceremonial, and therefore could not 
 oblige us. But that which remained was imitable; the 
 natural religion which was used upon the Jewish festi- 
 vals was fit also for the holidays of Christians." (Dwc- 
 tor Duhitantium, B. ii, ch. 2, rule C, § 58 ; Works, vol. 
 xii, p. 425.) 
 
 Even in so orthodox a journal as the Presbyterian 
 Review (vol. i, p. 503, Jan. 1832), the following broad 
 admission is made, the writer afterwards adding truly, 
 that a ceremonial law may, however, be of perpetual 
 and universal obligation. The question is simply 
 whether God has made it such? "And here," says 
 the Review, "we readily admit that the Sabbath is a 
 ceremonial institution, and that the Fourth Com- 
 mandment cannot be strictly termed a moral law. It 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 27 
 
 forms no part of the law written on the heart, and has 
 no natural and inherent obligation upon the conscience. 
 This would never have been disputed had it not been for 
 its position among the Ten Commandments, which are 
 essentially moral. But that which is in its own nature 
 positive and ceremonial, can never become otherwise 
 by any solemnity of announcement, or by any associa- 
 tion with what is moral. The reluctance of good men 
 to admit so plain a point is easily accounted for, and 
 has led Owen and others to attempt a compromise be- 
 tween the two opinions, affirming that it is both moral 
 and ceremonial; moral, because it is a dut^^ to give 
 some portion of our time to God, and ceremonial, as to 
 the seventh portion. The same, however, might be 
 said of the Levitical law regarding tithes, since it is a 
 moral duty that those who serve at the altar should, 
 live by the altar. The whole Jewish ritual is, in this 
 respect, moral ; for that God is to be worshipped in 
 some way is a moral duty, and that he is to be wor- 
 shipped in the way of his own appointment, is an 
 equally clear moral principle ; yet what is ceremonial, 
 if the Jewish ritual be not ? The spirit of the Fourth 
 Commandment is not the acknowledgment of God's 
 right to some portion of our time, for this is acknowl- 
 edged in every act of worship ; but it is an acknowl- 
 edgment of His right to the seventh portion of it, — 
 an arrangement in which there is nothing moral, — a 
 fifth or a tenth portion of our time being, for aught we 
 know beforehand, as acceptable to God. To prove the 
 ceremonial and positive nature of the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, it is only necessary to adduce our Saviour's 
 declaration, ' that the Sabbath was made for man, not 
 man for the Sabbath.' This could never have been said 
 of any of the other Ten [nine ?] Commandments. They 
 
28 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 were not made for man, but man was made for them, 
 that thereby he might glorify God; and heaven and 
 earth shall pass away, nay, Grod himself be changed, 
 ere one jot or tittle of the moral law can be departed 
 from." (See Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties^ by 
 Eobert Cox, p. 217 and note at p. 490. Edinburgh, 1852.) 
 The Doctor maintains that " the preamble to a reso- 
 lution, a law, a constitution, is the index to its inter- 
 pretation, — it gives the reason beforehand, and that 
 the same is true when the reason is given anywhere" 
 [p. 67], that the commandment is moral and j)er- 
 petually binding, and " that it were perfectly easy to 
 throw it into the form of a preamble," thus, "Whereas, 
 in six days the Lord, &c., wherefore the Lord blessed 
 the rest-da}^" i. e. the seventh. Let us, therefore, in 
 answer to this alleged general application, and to show 
 that the commandment was designed only for the Jews, 
 use the form set forth in Deut. v. 15, which is al- 
 ready to our hand in the form the Doctor approves, 
 that of a preamble. Whereas, in remembrance, " That 
 thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt and that the 
 Lord thy God brought thee (i. e. the Israelites), out 
 thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out 
 arm, therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep 
 the Sabbath-day." It follows, from the Doctor's own 
 showing, and as the result of the preambular method, 
 that in the form the Fourth Commandment is set forth 
 in Deuteronomy, it fatally makes against his hypothe- 
 sis, and from his own mode of reasoning, annihilates 
 his position at p. 67, " That the Fourth Commandment 
 is a moral law, and not in any sense restricted to the 
 Jewish people, is manifest from the reason embodied 
 within it. The preamble to a resolution is the index 
 to its interpretation !" 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 29 
 
 2. The Doctor insists, and we cannot perceive the 
 cause of his solicitude upon this head, nor even the dis- 
 tinction which he endeavors to enforce, that it was the 
 Sabbath, and not the seventh da}^, which the Lord 
 blessed and made holy, and that the phrase "seventh 
 day " is not used in the Bible as the name of the day 
 of holy rest. 
 
 This commandment shows that it was intended that 
 the Sabbath should be devoted to rest, because it was 
 the seventh day. " Six days shalt thou," &c., " but 
 the seventh is the Sabbath," &c., showing that the 
 " seventh " and " Sabbath " are convertible terms. 
 
 The effect of the dilemma, by his endeavor to draw 
 a distinction where none exists, will be perceived when 
 he insists that the commandment is purel}^ moral, and 
 therefore binding through all time, upon all mankind, 
 and equally upon the Jew as upon the Gentile, because 
 it related to the seventh day. " In six days the Lord 
 made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh daj^, 
 wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day," that is 
 because it was the seventh da}", " and hallowed it." 
 Incredible, therefore, as it may appear, it is not the less 
 true, that in this enlightened age, the main reason 
 w^hich he again gives why the Fourth Commandment 
 is a moral law, and not in any sense restricted to the 
 Jewish people, is because the earth was made in six 
 days, entirely ignoring, in this connection, the explana- 
 tion given in another portion of the Old Testament 
 why the seventh day was set apart as a day of rest, 
 namely, to commemorate the deliver}^ of the Jews 
 from their bondage in the land of Egypt (Deut. v. 14, 
 15), showing the ordinance was of entirely Jewish ap- 
 plication ; and although in this portion of his book, he 
 claims the general application of the Fourth Com- 
 
30 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 mandment, he subsequently admits its enactment " was 
 a sign between God and the children of Israel forever," 
 (page 90), thereby showing its special application only. 
 
 " The observance of the Sabbath," says Powell, " is 
 always expressed and regarded not as of one day in 
 seven, but specificallj^ of the seventh day of the week, as 
 such, in commemoration of the rest after the creation, 
 though, in one respect, also, it is afterwards urged as 
 reminding the Israelites of their deliverance out of 
 Egypt." (Deut. v. 15.) 
 
 " These distinctive institutions and peculiarities con- 
 stituted at once their securitj^ and unity as a people, 
 and supplied their motives of obedience. The law, 
 throughout, is a series of adaptations to them, and their 
 national character and position; ^^et by many theo- 
 logians it is, YQvy strangely and unaccountabl}^, spoken 
 of as something general, as ' a preliminary education 
 of the human race,' as a part of the general system of 
 instruction and advance of mankind. But the plain 
 history discloses nothing but the separation of one 
 single people for a specific purpose." — Christianity with- 
 out Judaism, 102. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. , 31 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 That the Fourth Commandment, if binding, is so in all its 
 strictness. 
 
 If the fourth commandment is binding as a moral 
 law, and which to prove Doctor Junkin has devoted 
 great labor, it is binding in all its strictness or it is not 
 binding at all. But we are met by the terrible words, 
 " Thou shalt nof," without the least hint of any allevia- 
 tion in their rigor. 
 
 With what consistency, therefore, can one so fond, 
 as is the Doctor, of allusion to legal enactments, whose 
 book, page after page, is darkened with texts setting 
 forth the awful penalties against the people of Israel — 
 who describes the solemnities under which the law (of 
 which he says the fourth commandment is central) 
 was proclaimed amidst "thunders and lightnings," 
 "fire and smoke," "the grandest and most sublime 
 scene our earth ever witnessed" (p. 29) — with what 
 consistency can he afterwards assert that so positive a 
 statute, given without qualification or proviso, may yet 
 be explained, qualified, and softened; be subject to 
 gloss, and modified to suit a state of afi'airs evidently 
 not contemplated when it was given, but which might 
 arise ages after its promulgation. 
 
 He is, therefore, here estopped and remitted to his 
 first and favorite ground of argument, that the fourth 
 commandment is a moral law. But can a moral law be 
 the subject of changes ? A moral law is as immutable 
 
32 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 as are the eternal principles of right. That which was 
 moral in the time of Moses is moral now; so that the 
 Doctor himself, and all of us, are upon every Sunday in 
 the practice of violating the fourth commandment, in 
 the sense in which Moses understood it. A law which 
 permits of modification, and makes that right now 
 which would have been wrong in the eye of Moses, 
 cannot be a moral law. How, consequently, are we to 
 understand the Doctor, when in one place he asserts 
 that the fourth commandment has been the subject of 
 modification and change, and in another that it is "a 
 transcript of the moral attributes of God, and as un- 
 changeable as his own eternal nature" (p. 32), and that 
 nothing short of this can be inferred from the ^'material 
 and the writing" of the tables. 
 
 The admission by the author of Sabbatismos, that by 
 consent the observance of Sunday may be transferred 
 to any other day, is fatal to his argument. 
 
 The author of Sabbatismos has, in one unfortunate 
 sentence, relinquished all for which in one hundred and 
 seventeen pages of his book he has been strenuously 
 contending. "We admit," he says, "that any other 
 day" than Sunda}^ — "Tuesday, Thursday, if agreed 
 upon over the whole country and the world, would an- 
 swer as well" (p. 118). What he means by the "whole 
 country and the world" he does not tell us. Whether 
 he would demand the unanimous consent of each Pres- 
 byterian professing Christian, or that of each of all de- 
 nominations. Whether he would include every being 
 capable of a decision, whether professing Christianity 
 or not. Whether he means a unanimous assent of the 
 entire Christian population of the globe, or merely such 
 a concurrence as would be obligatory upon a legislative 
 body to secure the passage of a law, he does not state. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 33 
 
 This is clear, however, the unanimous decision of all 
 the good men in Pennsylvania^ by an agreement to 
 abandon the observance of Sunday and to substitute 
 that of Thursday, with Jewish severity, would not be 
 in his eyes sufficient to justify the change. The unani- 
 mous consent, however, giving the most liberal inter- 
 pretation, would, in his judgment, sanction a revocation 
 of that which he has so constantly and earnestly main- 
 tained was an "irreversible decree of the Almighty;" 
 and the ink was not dry with which he wrote this ad- 
 mission, when in the very next sentence he affirms, as 
 if repenting his liberality, though unconscious of his 
 inconsistency, " Instead of leaving man to settle the 
 question by experiment and consultation, constitutional 
 adjustment and agreement, God was pleased to decide 
 it for us." 
 
 Two such contradictor}- postulates, we imagine, have 
 rarely in so small a space of type, been presented by 
 any writer on this subject. We are told by him that 
 the fourth commandment is binding because of the 
 reasons set forth in it, yet that notwithstanding the 
 duties enjoined on the seventh, it is proper to pretermit 
 and to perform them on another day, which is to be 
 kept holy, not because God ceased from all his works 
 on that day, but because our Saviour rose from his 
 tomb. The observance of one day is abandoned by 
 the Doctor, notwithstanding the '• irrevocable'' reasons 
 for its institution, and that of another is enjoined upon 
 a ground entirely different ; — That all the strictness 
 which adhered to the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath, 
 for the special reasons set forth at the time of its en- 
 actment, and upon which foundation the superstructure 
 rested, is to be imported into the observance of another 
 day, and which observance Avas established for causes 
 
 4 
 
34 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 entirely distinct from those which ordained obedience 
 to the seventh. Here is contradiction in our author 
 beyond the power of the most astute theologian to re- 
 concile. If a law be passed for reasons set forth in its 
 '' preamble'' embodying severe restrictions, and another 
 be passed for grounds set forth in its preamble, differing 
 entirely from those announced in the first law, and which 
 shall repeal the first law, it is worse than absurd to tell 
 us, and thus mislead the consciences of men, that both 
 laws are binding. The repeal is operative, or it is in- 
 operative ; if operative, the seventh day is obliterated, 
 with all its incidents, and for reasons set forth in the 
 '^ preamble" of the repealing act (although upon Gen- 
 tiles the said law is not acknowledged by us ever to 
 have been binding) ; if inoperative, we are again rele- 
 gated to the Jewish Sabbath. 
 
 So strong a hold upon the early Christians had the 
 notion of the duty to regard the Jewish Sabbath, a 
 notion which, as we shall see, was fated to be revived 
 by the Puritans in the seventeenth century, who con- 
 founded the seventh day with the first, that these early 
 Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath as well as that 
 which they designated as the Lord's Day. 
 
 There is still a sect of Christians, who cannot con- 
 scientiously find, in Scripture, the sanction of this 
 change, and who consequently retain the Jewish Sab- 
 bath. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 35 
 
 CHAPTEE lY. 
 
 That there is no Scriptural warrant for the assertion that the ob- 
 servance of Saturday under the Fourth Commandment was 
 transferred to the first day of the week. 
 
 " Christ finishing his work/' sa^^s Dr. Junkin, " for 
 the salvation of lost men. is followed by his entering 
 into his rest and securing a Sabbatismos for his people. 
 Thus the creation-example is imitated ; and this is a 
 most satisfactory reason of the change. Jesus rose from 
 the dead and went to his heavenly glory, and thus con- 
 secrated the first day to holy services. His church 
 obeyed his command, and followed his example." (p. 
 119.) 
 
 We are told by the Doctor that the reason given is 
 satisfactory for the change. What change ? " That 
 Jesus rose from the dead, and thus consecrated the first 
 day to holy services." He was crucified upon Friday, 
 and a sacrifice in the view of the great mass of 
 Christians, essential to man's salvation, should render 
 Friday as proper a day for perpetual observance as 
 Sunday. "His church obeyed his command^ and fol- 
 lowed his example." AYhat command, and what exam- 
 ple ? If he means a command to consecrate the first 
 instead of the seventh day, and to transmute the obliga- 
 tion of the fourth commandment from the seventh to 
 the first day, we say that a more serious assumption, 
 and so unsupported by a particle of Scriptural proof, 
 cannot be condemned in terms too strong. 
 
36 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 It is to US repugnant beyond expression, that any one 
 should have the boldness to allege in the presence of 
 those who have their eyes upon him, and their Testa- 
 ment in their hands, that there is any, the slightest proof, 
 of a command, or even so much as the faintest intima- 
 tion of one, on the part of our Lord, that we should 
 consecrate the first instead of the seventh day by his 
 prospective resurrection. 
 
 He never, during the course of his ministry, made 
 allusion to any coming change, and there is not the 
 fragment of a proof that the idea of substituting one 
 day for the other ever crossed the mind of a disciple. 
 We defy the author of Sahhatismos to show any such 
 intention, and are willing to rest the case here. They 
 are, one and all, entirely silent upon the subject. The 
 Jewish Sabbath and the obligation of the fourth com- 
 mandment fell, upon the resurrection of our Lord, into 
 the womb of the past. It had fulfilled its mission — 
 was at an end forevermore, and any attempt to revive 
 it, comes within the line of condemnation, which St. 
 Paul has marked, in Eomans and Galatians, in sharp 
 letters of living light, and which shall blaze through 
 all time, for man's warning and his guidance. 
 
 The author of Sahhatismos further states: "Then the 
 same day at evening, being the first day of the week, 
 when the doors were shut, where the disciples were as- 
 sembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in 
 their midst, and saith unto them. Peace he unto you." 
 (John XX. 19.) " The law being changed, the day must 
 also be changed; and here is the express sanction of it. 
 The disciples were assembled : and for what ? No man 
 can doubt — for religious worship. And the Master en- 
 ters by a miracle, giving a new proof of his divine mis- 
 sion and power." (p. 119.) 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 37 
 
 Here we are told that the law was changed. What 
 law ? If he means the law of the fourth commandment, 
 we supposed he had been striving to show that the law 
 had not been changed, but instead of " being" binding 
 upon the seventh was binding upon the first day, and 
 that all the stringency of the fourth commandment 
 was merely transferred from one day to the other. 
 
 On the other hand, he may mean that the law was 
 changed by the alleged substitution of the seventh for 
 the first; but that would be equivalent to the truism — 
 the day having been changed^ the day must be changed^ 
 or the day was changed, because it was. 
 
 But he asserts that the day was changed, and that 
 the appearance of our Lord was the sanction for it. 
 Where is the proof of this, and how does this comport 
 with his previous assertion, that the day was actually 
 changed by the command of our Saviour ? And, then, 
 after the positive assertion that the day was changed 
 by divine command^ but evidently under the belief that 
 a doubt would naturally arise in the mind, he asks, who 
 can doubt but that they were assembled for religious 
 worship ? We reply, that hundreds of the most devout 
 Christians have doubted, and still doubt, because they 
 saw no proof of it in Scripture. 
 
 Mark, however, another inconsistency of the Doctor. 
 The disciples were assembled, for religious worship, on 
 the day of our Lord's resurrection, and this assembling 
 is adduced as proof of the change of day; how, there- 
 fore, could there have been an agreement to change 
 the day, or the sanction for a change, when the war- 
 rant for the change did not arise until afterwards, 
 namely, the appearance of our risen Lord, for the first 
 time, to the sight and knowledge of his disciples. 
 
 The disciples were constantly together after the cru- 
 
38 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 cifixion. They were watched and surrounded by their 
 enemies, doubtless ready and disposed to take their lives, 
 as they had that of their Lord. Impulse, fraternity 
 sympathy, and apprehension drew and kept them to- 
 gether. 
 
 A perusal of the four narratives of the same event, 
 our Saviour's first appearance to his disciples as they 
 were gathered together, or in the words of the author- 
 ity, "at meat," with closed doors, /or /ear 0/ the Jews, 
 must convince any reasonable mind that their convo- 
 cation had no relation to his resurrection. In truth, 
 they did not all know of the resurrection until he aj)- 
 peared in their midst, and even then their disbelief of 
 his resurrection was a source of anguish to their risen 
 Lord. 
 
 " When we proceed," says Powell, " to consider the 
 actual ministrations of Christ, during his sojourn on 
 earth, in his teaching we find no repeal of an old dis- 
 pensation to substitute a new, but a gradual method of 
 preparation, by spiritual instruction, for a better sys- 
 tem. . . . Yet he offered no disparagement to the law, 
 as such. While he insisted on its weightier matters, 
 he would not have its lesser points neglected. (Luke 
 xi. 42.) . . He particularly and repeatedly reproved 
 the Pharisaical moroseness in the observance of the 
 Sabbath ; himself wrought cures on it, and vindicated 
 works of charity and necessity (Matt. xii. 1; Luke xiii. 
 15; John V. 9, &c.); yet only by such arguments and 
 examples as the Jewish teachers themselves allowed, 
 and their own Scriptures afi*orded authority for; but 
 he did not in any way modify or abolish it, or sub- 
 stitute any other for it. At the same time, he fully 
 asserted his power to do so. He declares himself Lord, 
 also, of the Sabbath, i. e., he had power to abrogate it 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 39 
 
 partially or wholly, if he thought fit; but he did not at 
 that time use such power. And more precisely, he 
 added (Mark i. 29), the Sabbath was made for the man, 
 didrbv avOpwnov, not the man for the Sabbath {0 w^OpwT.oq)\ 
 it was an institution enjoined by way of adapation to 
 the case of those to whom the precept was given, but 
 of no inherent obligation in itself." Again, the truth 
 of the following reflections, from the same author, will 
 correct the error into which, as the reader has already 
 noticed, man}^ theologians have fallen — a disposition to 
 regard the fourth commandment as abrogated under 
 the new dispensation, when such was the case so far 
 only as the Jews were concerned, but which, as to the 
 Gentiles, and, therefore, as to us, never had existence. 
 It would be just as proper to speak of the repeal of an 
 early law of the Colony of Maryland, as affecting Penn- 
 sylvania, when as to the latter the statute never was 
 in force. It is of moment that this distinction should 
 be kept before us. 
 
 " Yet we cannot but notice among the larger portion 
 of the Protestant testimonies, whether of public for- 
 mularies or of individual opinion, indications of that 
 primary confusion of thought which seems all along to 
 have led them to imagine some previous obh'gation of 
 Old Testament ordinances on the Gentiles, which was 
 at length abrogated or had ceased, instead of the simple 
 admission, that no such obligation had ever existed. 
 This idea seems to have more or less hampered all 
 their expositions and arguments. Thus, in many such 
 statements we find the idea of a change or substitutioji 
 made by the Christian Church of the Lord's day for the 
 Sabbath, inculcated, as if it were possible for any hitman 
 authority to change a 6?ii;me ordinance, or as if the Chris- 
 
40 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 tian Church, by any known declaration, had ever pre- 
 tended to make such a change. 
 
 "The notion of the complete identification of the 
 Lord's day with the Sabbath seems to have been first 
 formally propounded in this country by Dr. Bound 
 (1595), a divine of great authority among the Puritans; 
 from whom it was adopted by the Westminster Assem- 
 bly in their Confession, and thence has become a recog- 
 nized tenet of the Scottish and other Presbyterian com- 
 munions in Great Britain, and imported by them to 
 America, though as wholly unknown to the continental 
 Protestants as to the old unreformed church." — FowelVs 
 Christianity;' &c., 117, 120, 171. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 41 
 
 CIIAPTEE Y. 
 
 The compulsory observance of the first day of the week. 
 
 The attempt to enforce, upon every citizen, as a 
 moral law, and for reasons not applicable under the 
 new dispensation, to compel, we say, an observance of 
 the first day of the week, no matter what may be the 
 religious convictions, or the light in which the subject 
 may be viewed, is a tyranny which language can hardly 
 be found adequate to describe. There is a broad, well- 
 defined line between the enactment of a law from mo- 
 tives of public policy, and the enactment of a law which 
 derives its sanction mainly from religious grounds. 
 
 Upon a question as to what would or what would 
 not promote the public welfare, men may honestly dif- 
 fer; but when we are compelled by law to desist from 
 an act on one day of the week, which, if done upon any 
 other, would be proper, nay, perhaps, commendable, 
 because its performance offers, in the opinion of some^ 
 a violation of the law of God, such compulsion becomes 
 oppression. 
 
 We speak with deliberation and warning, and believe 
 that the judgment of the intelligent and unbiassed 
 reader of history will sustain us, when we say, that 
 prohibitions upon religious grounds, especially where 
 the reasons given admit of question as to soundness, 
 have, and always will end, in a reaction unfriendly to 
 the progress of sacred truth, and fearfully prolific of 
 latitudinarianism and infidelity. 
 
 The strictness of the enforcement of the "law of the 
 Sabbath'' as it once prevailed would not be now endured, 
 but if such could be sustained by a strength of argu- 
 
42 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ment not to be gainsaid, if it were shown beyond the 
 power of refutation that the fourth commandment is 
 transferred to the first day of the week and is morally 
 and religiously binding, upon all mankind, then, as we 
 have already said, its observance should be compelled, 
 come what might. When, however, it is attempted to 
 impose on a community an observance which many 
 view as abrogated^ which others are convinced never 
 had existence as to the Gentile world, and which even 
 the most rigid do not with strictness regard; — when 
 upon the assumption that the fourth commandment is 
 binding, an invidious distinction is made between its 
 breach by the rich Christian (we regret to use the term, 
 but truth compels us) and its violation by the poor, and, 
 which, if not in every case sanctioned by the ministers 
 of religion, is at all events not by them condemned. 
 Indeed, when they in their own persons, and perhaps 
 unwittingly, in many ways, violate the letter of the 
 fourth commandment, and overlook its violation in 
 others, and yet resist that which, if permitted would 
 amount to no worse a violation than that they sanction 
 or do not censure ; the inconsistency becomes so enor- 
 mous that the spirit rebels against it. 
 
 How damaging, therefore, to the public morals, and 
 what a hinderance to the spread of religion is the 
 imposition of a religious ordinance which is taught to 
 be binding, but which is in letter and spirit violated 
 by teacher and people many times before the Sunday 
 ends. So persuaded was St. Paul of the danger of a 
 slavish and superstitious adherence to a commandment 
 intended for a state of things which had passed to re- 
 turn no more, that he denounced it upon several occa- 
 sions, especially in those celebrated passages in Eomans, 
 Galatians, and Colossians. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 43 
 
 CIIAPTEE YL 
 
 The Three Texts. 
 One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteemeth 
 
 EVERY DAY ALIKE, LeT EVERY MAN BE FULLY PERSUADED IN HIS OWN 
 MIND. 
 
 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ; and he 
 that regardeth not the day, to the lord he doth not regard it. 
 
 He THAT EATETH, EATETH TO THE LORD, FOR HE GIVETH GOD THANKS ; 
 AND HE THAT EATETH NOT, TO THE LORD HE EATETH NOT, AND GIVETH 
 
 God THANKS. — Romans, xiv. 5, 6. 
 
 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 
 i am afraid op you, lest i have bestowed upon you labor in vain. — 
 Galatians, iv. 10, 11. 
 
 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect 
 
 OF A HOLYDAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SaBBATH days : 
 
 Which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ. — 
 Cohssiaus, ii. 16, 17. 
 
 These texts are formidable obstacles to those who, 
 dogmatically, assert that the fourth commandment is 
 morally binding. Some Sabbatarian writers, knowing 
 that any attempt at exposition would be but to confute 
 all that they had previously maintained, discreetly pass 
 them without even so much as an allusion ; others, re- 
 lying upon the docility of their reader, or his supposed 
 willingness to accept any gloss that might appear to 
 interpret a difficulty felt by a mind read}- to believe 
 anything in support of a foregone conclusion, have 
 boldly ventured to grapple with these texts and to ex- 
 plain them away, but sadly to their discomfiture, and 
 
44 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 the strengthening of the hands of their opponents; 
 others, again, to their immortal honor, and whose 
 names should be held in precious remembrance by 
 the just, have frankly acknowledged their full force 
 and plain import as proving either the entire abroga- 
 tion of the fourth commandment or its inapplicability 
 to the Gentile world, and this at the risk of being de- 
 nounced infidels or schismatics. 
 
 After these admissions, by so many divines, of the 
 lion in the path, I was curious to know how Dr. Junkin 
 met these cogent texts. 
 
 Out of a book of two hundred and eleven pages he 
 devotes but two to the discussion of the most essential 
 points in the whole controversy, and this he does in 
 the most superficial and perfunctory manner, while the 
 rest of the volume is filled with citation upon citation 
 from Deuteronomy, Leviticus, &c., which, after what 
 the apostle has written, have as much to do with the 
 subject, as the Temple of Solomon has with St. Paul's 
 Cathedral. 
 
 As to Eomans, he omits the sixth verse altogether; 
 a vital omission, in the connection, and skims lightly 
 over the fifth, as if the less he had to do with it the 
 better for himself The words " every day" do not, in 
 his opinion, mean the weekly Jewish Sabbath, but the 
 " annual Sabbaths." The first day of the week, our 
 present Sunday, which the Doctor insists was then ob- 
 served — having, as is alleged, been substituted for the 
 seventh — St. Paul, he says, does 7iot mean, but Christ- 
 mas, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day; to 
 which he appears to have antipathy, " in this enlight- 
 ened age," he insists that St. Paul does mean. We can- 
 not understand by what process he arrives at this ap- 
 plication of the text, while he insists that the words 
 
THK SUNDAY QUESTION. 45 
 
 ^^ every day" mean the annual Sabbaths; rejecting the 
 only interpretation of which the text is susceptible, 
 unless in the possession of some occult source of knowl- 
 edge, and through which he now informs us that al- 
 though St. Paul did not intend to apply the words every 
 day to the seventh, or to the first days of the week, he 
 did mean to apply them to Christmas, Good Friday, &c. 
 
 The Doctor can find the "command" of our Saviour, 
 that we should keep the first, instead of the seventh 
 day, when none is given, nor even the allusion to one 
 made, and yet can persuade himself that every day does 
 not mean every day, although there is no qualifying 
 word justifying such conclusion. The passage in Colos- 
 sians is despatched in as business-like and off-hand 
 manner as that in Eomans. 
 
 After some preliminary allusions, the object of which 
 no one would suspect, because no one could anticipate 
 their application to the passages in question, he says — 
 (and mark well the casual air, the "jaunty" mode, in 
 which he treats the topic, as if it were impossible, nay 
 preposterous, to have other than one opinion, and that 
 the one he entertains) : "And just here, whilst these facts 
 are before us, we may as well dispose of an argument, on 
 which great stress is laid by the opponents of the holy 
 day; and whose entire force is destroyed by the dis- 
 tinction here presented" (that of the annual Sabbaths). 
 "It is built on Col. ii. 16, 'Let no man therefore judge 
 you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy da}-, 
 or of the new moon, or the Sabbaths.' It is obvious, 
 at a glance, that the Apostle is cautioning his readers 
 against Judaizing teachers^ — persons disposed to enforce 
 
 * The Doctor seems happily unconscious that he is painting his 
 own portrait. 
 
 5 
 
46 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 observances of the ceremonial law." . . "The Sabbaths 
 are those we have just been discussing; the three holy 
 days, including the new moons; and the four feasts, 
 which we have seen are Sabbaths, but not the weekly 
 rest-days" (page 83). 
 
 In the quotation he takes a liberty with the author- 
 ized version, and the second verse of the text is omit- 
 ted (pp. 83, 84). 
 
 We fear that this exegesis of some of the clearest 
 sentences in Holy Writ will weaken the confidence of 
 the reader in the soundness of our author's theology. 
 " And just here," and " we may as well," &c., as if the 
 solemn warning of St. Paul could be " disposed" of in 
 this incidental, trivial, and dogmatic manner. 
 
 The Evangelists have not a word uj^on the observ- 
 ance of the first day of the week ; nor has Paul one 
 word upon the subject; while in three different epistles, 
 as if his heart was torn with anguish at the Judaizing 
 spirit of teacher and people, he expostulates and ex- 
 hprts against stated observances, such as had but now 
 ceased to exist, well knowing the earthly preference to 
 worship God at stated times, and not to keep him in 
 remembrance and worship him at all times. 
 
 Such was Paul's despondency, that in those few 
 words to the Galatians, all allusion to which the Doc- 
 tor has passed over, he reiterates his warning, 
 
 "Ye observe Days, and months, and times, and 
 years. 
 
 " I AM AFRAID OF YOU, LEST I HAVE BESTOWED UPON 
 YOU LABOR IN VAIN." 
 
 To recur to the language of the author of " Sab- 
 batismos," it will be seen with what apprehension he 
 views any other interpretation of the passages in Ro- 
 mans and Colossians than that he has assigned, namely, 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 47 
 
 that the Apostle does not mean to instance weekly 
 Sabbaths, claiming that the entire force of the argu- 
 ment against him is destroyed by the distinction which 
 he draws. It must be admitted, therefore, that if his 
 distinction has, by some of the leading authorities of 
 his own as well as by those of other denominations, 
 been j^ronounced unsound, his case is gone. He has 
 made the issue, and must abide the result. 
 
 And now let us see how the leading commentators 
 interpret these texts, and regard the distinction which 
 our author attempts to make, and upon which he seems 
 80 much to pride himself. 
 
48 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 CHAPTEE YII. 
 
 The opinions of commentators on The Three Texts. 
 
 In the standard commentary of Blackley and Hawes, 
 the passage in Colossians ii. 16, is thus treated: ^^Jjet 
 no man judge — Metonomy (the antecedent for the con- 
 sequent) — to disregard any one who wishes to judge 
 you ; see verse 18. Therefore — a deduction from verse 
 18, 15; see verse 16; comp. note on verse 20, chap. iii. 
 1512. In ineat — Tapeinosis (less said than meant). In 
 respect of a holy day. The phrase in respect of appears to 
 have a separate force. Some might harass the faithful 
 about meat and drink ; others, again, about holy days. 
 The holy day is annual; the new moon monthly; the 
 Sabbath weekly; comp. Gal. iv. 10, note; or of the 
 Sabbath days — the plural for the singular. Matt. xii. 1, 
 used here in a more significant sense. The several 
 days of the week are called Sabbaths, Matt, xxviii. 1 ; 
 consequently Paul implies that all distinction of days 
 is removed, for on no occasion has he written more 
 plainly on the Sabbath. After Christ, the Lord of the 
 Sabbath came; he, before his Passion, clearly taught 
 freedom from the Sabbath. After his resurrection he 
 made a more open declaration through the mouth of 
 Paul. Up to the present time it has not been definitely 
 shown how much is due to the Sabbath, and how much 
 to the Lord's day. This has been left as a measure of 
 every man's faith. The observance of the Sabbath is 
 not praised and is not commanded. An appointed day 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 49 
 
 is needful and useful for all occupied in worldly mat- 
 ters. Those who enjoy a perpetual Sabbath Gnjoy more 
 freedom. The Sabbath is a type of eternity : Heb. iv. 
 3, 4; nevertheless its binding force does not on this ac- 
 count continue under the New Testament ; for, if so, the 
 new moon observance should also be retained: Is. Ixvi. 23." 
 "The Critical English Test, &c., showing the Precise 
 Eesults of Modern Criticism and Exegesis. Vol. ii. 704. 
 Edited by W. L. Blackley, M.A., and Eev. James 
 Hawes, M.A. London and New York, 1866." 
 
 It will be perceived that this language gives no color 
 to the Doctor's assertion, that the words " Sabbath 
 days" mean annual Sabbaths. 
 
 Powell forcibly remarks upon the passages in Colos- 
 sians and in Romans: 
 
 " The distinction of meats, clean or unclean, of days 
 to be kept holy or not, remained actuall}^ in force to 
 the Jewish Christians until their convictions became 
 sufficiently enlightened to see the designed abolition of 
 those distinctions. To the Gentile, it was equally clear 
 that they were not obligatory on Azm, while his service 
 was a spiritual one in faith. Under no such obligation 
 originally, he did not now incur it; and (if it were 
 needed) a still more positive declaration of his freedom 
 from such ordinances is made by St. Paul, who places 
 the Sabbaths in exactly the same predicament as new 
 moons and distinctions of meats; and distinctly de- 
 clares all alike to be shadows (Col. ii. 18). Even 
 among those who had conformed to the law, in Sab- 
 baths and meats each might judge for himself (Rom. 
 xiv. 5, 6). There was no moral immutable obligation, 
 no natural or eternal distinction ; but neither party was 
 to judge the other. Each acting in faith was accepted 
 in doing so; to act otherwise would be sin (Rom. xiv. 
 
 5* 
 
50 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 23). But each was exhorted to mutual charity, a line 
 of conduct preeminently recommended by the Apostle's 
 own example (1 Cor. x. 23; viii. 13, &c.). But there 
 was no compromise of essential truths. We cannot but 
 be struck with the contrast of the Apostle's liberality 
 of sentiment with his strenuous assertion of Christian 
 freedom — his anxiety to avoid tempting a weak brother 
 to offend, and his stern refusal to give way to those 
 who sought to impose the obligations of the law on the 
 Gentiles — his charity in practice contrasted with his 
 firmness in teaching — his conciliation in conduct con- 
 trasted with his uncompromising boldness in doctrine." 
 
 Again : 
 
 "All the original Christian institutions were inde- 
 pendent and simple. We must carefully distinguish, 
 from the more essential and permanent, some minor 
 ordinances of a purely temporal and occasional charac- 
 ter, which certainly bear a more formal appearance, 
 but were evidently adapted for the sake of peace and 
 union, and especially for the great object of mutually 
 conciliating the Jewish and Gentile converts, or from 
 a wish, not abruptly to violate existing customs, as e. g. 
 the injunction in the apostles' decree (Acts xv.), already 
 referred to, and some of those given by St. Paul to the 
 Church at Corinth (as throughout 1 Cor. v-vii.), and to 
 Timothy (1 Tim. v., &c.)." 
 
 The same may be said of the practice of fasting, 
 though retained by the apostles on some occasions, yet 
 there does not exist a single precept or hint for its 
 general adoption by Christians; much less is there 
 any sanction for other ascetic observances which soon 
 claimed an availing merit at variance with the spirit of 
 the Gospel. So far as they had begun to prevail they 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 51 
 
 met with unequivocal censure (Col. ii. 18, 23 ; I Tim. 
 iv. 3, 8, 7) from St. Paul. Of other institutions of 
 Christian worship very little can be collected from the 
 New Testament. At first the disciples met daily for 
 prayer and communion (Acts ii. 26). In one instance, 
 afterwards, some think it may be implied that they as- 
 sembled peculiarly on the first day of the week (Acts 
 XX. 7. See Jahns' Biblical Antiq., § 398, and He^^lin's 
 Hist, of Sabb. ii. 25). Though the inference is a very 
 doubtful one; and in the latest period of the New Tes- 
 tament age 'the Lord's day'* is spoken of once, but 
 wholly without explanation, though the expression is 
 understood by some in a totally different sense. Thus 
 the evidence from this observance amounts to little or 
 nothing." Christianity without Judaism, 135, 136, 149. 
 
 Chalmers, of Scotland, in his Commentary on Eomans, 
 N. Y., 1863, p. 486, gives no explanation whatever of 
 the word " every day." 
 
 Dr. Hodge, of the American Presbyterian Church, 
 in his Commentary on Eomans, says: "Paul does not 
 mean the Christian Sabbath, that is, the ' Lord's day, or 
 first day of the week.' " — Hodge on Romans, Phila., 1864. 
 
 This distinguished divine, although difi'ering in his 
 views from those entertained by his friend, the Eev. 
 Jas. W. Alexander, of his own church, and by Luther 
 and Calvin, does not agree with our Doctor in believing 
 that by the words "Sabbath," "every day," &c., Paul 
 meant " once a year,'' and has, therefore, a better opinion 
 of that apostle's soundness and consistency than appears 
 to be entertained by our author. 
 
 The Eev. Albert Barnes, in his Commentary on 
 Eomans, does not think the Apostle had reference to 
 
 * I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, &c. — Kev. i. 10. 
 
52 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 the Christian Sabbath; but does not say, as our author 
 does, that the words do not apply to the Jewish weekly 
 Sabbath (Col. ii. 16, 17). 
 
 "As concerning," bsljs Daill:^, " the Sabbath, that is, 
 the seventh day of every week, which we call Saturday, 
 no one is ignorant with what devotion it was observed 
 and kept holy by the Jews, according to the ordinance 
 of God, repeated in various parts of the books of Moses, 
 and even registered among the ten articles of the Deca- 
 logue. ... So you see here the Apostle points at all 
 three kinds of Jewish feasts; those of the year, which 
 he calls simply festivals, namely, the Passover, Pente- 
 cost, and the Tabernacles ; those of months, which were 
 new moons; and, finally, those of the weeks, which were 
 Sabbaths. . . . 
 
 " But these men put them in subjection to days and 
 months, and reduce them under the yoke of the Jews, 
 and make their piety to depend on the Almanac. If 
 they do not observe all the days of the year ; if they 
 fast not one day; if they eat not on another; if one day 
 they do not perform penance; if they make not mirth 
 on another; though upon the former they should have 
 ceased to rejoice in G-od, and upon the latter to afflict 
 themselves for their sins or their suiferings, they com- 
 mit a heinous sin, though they did it without contempt 
 or scandal. . . . 
 
 " Was ever a discipline less reasonable and more con- 
 trary to the doctrine of Paul, who would not have 
 Christians condemned for the distinctions of a festival 
 day^ of a new moon, or of the Sabbath; who reprehends 
 the Galatians for their observing days, and months, and 
 times, and years (Gal. iv. 10), and counts it for a weakness 
 or fault to esteem one day above another (Eom. xiv. 5). 
 
 "Neither may it be replied here that we always dis- 
 criminate Sundays, and Easter, and Christmas, and 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 53 
 
 Pentecost. We observe them for order's sake, not for 
 religion's; for the polity of the Church, and not upon 
 scruples of devotion.* For what a confusion would 
 there be, if we had no da^^s appointed for the assem- 
 bling of the faithful ! It is for our mutual edification, 
 and not for the worth and value of the days that we 
 observe them." — An Exposition of the Epistle to Colos- 
 sians. By the Eev. Jean Daille, Minister of the French 
 Eeformed Church at Charenton. A.D. 1639, pp. 376, 
 382. Presbyterian Board. 
 
 Scott in his commentaries in regard to the words 
 "Sabbath days," in Colossians ii., says: "Doubtless 
 they related principally to the weekly Sabbaths, which, 
 as observed on the seventh daj", was now become a 
 part of the abrogated Jewish law." He, therefore, does 
 not sanction our author's interpretation. 
 
 Gillies offers no comment whatever on the texts in 
 Eom. xiv. and Gal. iv. ^^ New Testament. John Gillies, 
 D.D., late one of the ministers of Glasgow." London, 
 1810. 
 
 " " It is much to be regretted that the author should have been 
 influenced by the prevailing opinion of the times as not to dis- 
 tinguish the Sabbath above other festivals as a Divine institution 
 of perpetual obligation." — Editor, Presbyterian Board. 
 
 We cannot pass without observation the above extraordinary 
 note ; as if the text of the excellent and devout Daille of Charen- 
 ton were poison and needed this antidote. The editor, when thus 
 speaking, dogmatizes and deserves censure for the iinscholarly 
 proceeding ; for when he writes of the " prevailing opinion of the 
 times," as if the views of Daille's were a temporary heresy, he 
 "ignores" the fact that Paul, the "Pathers," Calvin, the great 
 light of the editor's own division of the Church, and we may say 
 all of any note to the period of the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century, thought as did this worthy commentator. That which 
 the editor condemns is orthodoxy, and that, we regret to say, which 
 he commends is the heresy. 
 
54 ' THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 Calvin. "He that regardeth the day," &c. . . . " For- 
 asrauch/' says Calvin, " as Paul knew certainly that the 
 observation of da3^s proceedeth for the not knowing of 
 Christ, it is not credible that he did not wholly defend 
 such a compliance; and yet the words seem to import 
 that he sinneth not, which observeth the day, for noth- 
 ing can be acceptable to God unless it be good." Cal- 
 vin on Romans. 
 
 Stuart of Andover is candid enough to admit in 
 effect that the words " every day" are by some sup- 
 posed to refer to the first day of the week, although 
 not a few think otherwise. He remarks: 
 
 " Whether the Apostle means to include the Sabbath, 
 or rather the Lord's day, under what he says here of the 
 special observance of particular days, has been called 
 in question by not a few distinguished commentators 
 and divines. It is well known that in the early ages of 
 the Church a distinction was made between Sabbath 
 and Lord's day. The former was the Jewish weekly 
 Sabbath, i. e. the seventh day of the week. It em- 
 braced all the occasional fasts and feasts presented by 
 the Mosaic law (comp. Col. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 10). Such 
 was the Jewish use of Sahbaton. But the earlj^ Chris- 
 tians, in order to distinguish this from the first day of 
 the week, on which they held their religious assemblies 
 of worship (1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; Acts xx. 7), called the first 
 day of the week (Jj xupiaxi] ■^p.ipa?) Lord's day, in the 
 writings of the ecclesiastical fathers. That it was very 
 early made, even in apostles' times, is sufiiciently evi- 
 dent from comparing Col. ii. 16, and Eev. i. 10." Com- 
 mentary on Romans. By Moses Stuart. Andover, 1835. 
 
 Calvin, with his usual boldness, treats the passage 
 in Colossians, which, with the other texts, the Doctor 
 thinks has so little to do w4th this important question, 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 55 
 
 in a mode the candid will perhaps admit completely 
 " disposes" of an}^ further doubt upon the subject. In 
 discussing the passage in Colossians, he observes that 
 what St. Paul had "previously said of circumcision he 
 now extends to the difference of meat and days. He 
 says, therefore, that it was not in the power of men to 
 make us subject to the observance of rites that Christ 
 by his death abolished and exempted us from their 
 yoke; that we allow not ourselves to be fettered by 
 the laws which they have imposed. But some one will 
 answer that we still keep up observances. I answer 
 that we do not, by any means, observe days as though 
 there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it 
 were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect 
 is paid to government and order, not to days." Calvin's 
 Commentaries on Philippians, Colossians, &c., p. 192. Trans- 
 lated by the Eev. John Pringle. Translated for the 
 Calvin Translation Society. Edinburgh, 1851. 
 
 It were in our power, did we deem it necessary, to 
 add many additional authorities in ojDposition to our 
 author's interpretation of these texts, but the reader 
 will doubtless agree with us in thinking those which we 
 have cited are sufficient. 
 
 Having now proved that the three texts, as explained 
 by many eminent commentators, do not sanction the 
 interpretation put upon them by the author of " Sab- 
 batismos," we proceed to show how formidable these 
 passages (especially that in "Eomans") are regarded; 
 so much so, that the most strenuous and accomplished 
 advocates of the opposite side of the question deem 
 discretion the better part, preferring, as the lesser 
 difficulty, suppression to any attempt to remove the 
 obstacles from their path. Mr. Cox, in his treatise, at 
 page 56, says : 
 
56 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 "As far as Dr. Lorimer's treatise on what he calls 
 the Protestant and Popish Sabbaths permits us to 
 know, he has not yet discovered the existence, in the 
 Bible, of this the most explicit and, perhaps, only ab- 
 solute declaration which it contains on the subject of 
 the controversy (the text, Eomans xiv.); and I am 
 compelled to add, that in nine-tenths of the Sabbatarian 
 treatises and sermons which I have read (and they are 
 not a few), its existence is similarly ignored. Either 
 the writers thought the passage of no importance, or 
 they did not; if they did, their notion is strange and 
 unaccountable ; if they did not, then by passing over 
 it in silence, while huddling together from the Old 
 Testament and the New, but principally from the Old, 
 a number of passages which, when tested by those 
 rational principles of interpretation which are con- 
 stantly applied in every department of literature but 
 the theological, and are professed even by theologians 
 who forget them in practice, evidently have no bearing 
 whatever on the question at issue — by following, I say, 
 this remarkable course, they plainly confess that the 
 apostolic declaration is conclusive against them. 
 
 The absence of these words of St. Paul from the texts 
 quoted in the Scottish Confession and Catechisms, is 
 not to be wondered at ; for, as we shall afterwards see, 
 it was not till these famous productions were completed 
 by the divines at Westminster, that the scriptural texts 
 which were thought to establish the doctrines there 
 stated were added in the margin, by command of the 
 Parliament, under whose authority the Assembly were 
 acting. Of course nothing of a hostile tendency could, 
 in such circumstances, be included among the "proofs,'' 
 nor, indeed, could inconvenient texts, in any circum- 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 57 
 
 Btances, have found admission into such manifestoes as 
 these. 
 
 Even the able Dr. TVardlaw, in his Discourses on the 
 Sabbath, makes no attempt whatever to remove this 
 stumbling-block in the way of the perplexed Sabba- 
 tarian. He extracts from Belsham's Review of Wilber- 
 force, p. 139, a passage in which the words, "every day 
 alike," are quoted and given effect to; but, instead of 
 attempting to ^rove that an erroneous interpretation is 
 there put upon them, what does he do? He tries to 
 divert attention from the difficulty, and to weaken the 
 force of Belsham's observations by the mean device of 
 rousing the orthodox prejudices of his readers against 
 the writer as a Socinian ! " We need not," says he, 
 " be greatly astonished, that one who could not find in 
 the Scriptures the divinity and atonement of Christ, 
 the depravity of human nature, and the existence and 
 influences of the Holy Spirit, should have been little at 
 a loss to exclude from them the duty of sanctifjdng the 
 Lord's day ; and that, even as to the public worship of 
 that day. he should have made light of the admitted 
 example of the apostolic churches, commending it, in- 
 deed, as a ' laudable and useful custom,' and conde- 
 scending to 'approve of its continuance,' but not at 
 all allowing in it any obligation of divine authority." 
 — Discourses on the Sabbath, by Ealph Wardlaw, D.D., 
 p. 100. Glasgow, 1832. 
 
 This is all that Dr. Wardlaw can say to neutralize 
 the words of the Apostle; and it is a plain confession 
 of inability to propound a syllable to the purpose. He 
 might as well have referred to Mr. Belsham's hair, or 
 the rotundity of his person, as presumj^tive evidence 
 against his opinion about Sunday; nay, he might, by 
 
 6 
 
68 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 this kind of logic, assail with equal success the philos- 
 ophies of Newton and Locke, who were as much So- 
 cinians as Mr. Belsham was. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, a still more famous minister than Dr. 
 Wardlaw, treats of the Sabbath in three of his Congre- 
 gational Sermons, vol. ii, p. 252 et seq. Here, not a 
 word "of every day alike" is to be found! "But," it 
 may be suggested, "he wrote, also, Lectures on the 
 Epistle to the Eomans. What says he fAere .^ Look at 
 Lecture 95, vol. iv, p. 329, and you will see that the 
 bearing of the passage upon the Lord's day is com- 
 pletely ignored." 
 
 Mr. Cox proceeds to state that there was published 
 in Scotland a Cyclopaedia, conducted by biblical scholars 
 of far higher rank than any who had previously con- 
 tributed to such a work, in which the passage under 
 consideration was discussed, but that in an abridged 
 edition by another " Glasgow minister!" it was omitted. 
 
 "About the same time, a biblical Cyclopaedia was 
 published by a fifth Glasgow minister, Dr. John Eadie. 
 There is, of course, an article on the Sabbath; and that 
 article contains a classified list of references to Scrip- 
 ture texts bearing upon the subject. But, according to 
 custom, the passage in Eomans xiv is not referred to, 
 either there or in any other part of the article; nor is 
 mention made of certain other texts, which will be no- 
 ticed below. This omission, in a formal array of refer- 
 ences^ of the most important text of all, is quite inde- 
 fensible; even though the writer has provided himself 
 with a reply to the charge o^ positive misrepresentation, 
 by introducing his list as one containing references only 
 to texts which ' are among the leading authorities of the 
 Bible, respecting the Sabbath and its proper observ- 
 ance. ' " 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 59 
 
 There is a line in Young's Night Thoughts, which 
 says, 
 
 "Truth never was indebted to a lie." 
 
 And I cannot help thinking that the striking disen- 
 genuousness of this special pleading is not a whit better 
 calculated than a " lie" to serve her cause. 
 
 Mr. Cox goes on to quote other instances in which 
 the same process of suppressing these important texts 
 is pursued; but the reader is, doubtless, by this time 
 satisfied that we have brought forward sufficient evi- 
 dence to show the utter abhorrence Sabbatarian writers 
 have to grapple with these texts; a silence which con- 
 fesses that they involve a complete reply to all their 
 arguments, and a humiliating admission of inability to 
 prove the fourth commandment obligatory. 
 
60 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 CHAPTEE VIIL 
 
 The Primitive Christians. 
 
 The primitive Christians, to some extent, observed 
 both the Jewish Sabbath and the first da}^ of the week; 
 the latter as a festival day and a day of rejoicing. It 
 was the observance of the former that, as we have seen, 
 St. Paul in several places condemns, particularly the 
 attaching of any superstitious importance to the sev- 
 enth, or to the first day, in preference to any other day. 
 
 We must, however, be careful to note that there was 
 not, among the early Christians, any idea of the trans- 
 ference of the duties enjoined by the fourth command- 
 ment from the Sabbath to Sunday. 
 
 In the language of Neander, " All speculations were 
 abolished at the resurrection." " The Christian wor- 
 ship claiming for itself the entire life, and flowing from 
 a conversation in Heaven that depended not on the 
 elements of the world, was no longer to be confined ex- 
 clusively to any particular place or time. In the fulfil- 
 ment of the law by the New Testament, ^. e. the perfect 
 sanctification of the whole life, in which every day alike 
 is consecrated to God, the Old Testament law of the 
 Sabbath must find its repeal. Kot barely the observ- 
 ance of Jewish feasts, but all forms and modes of par- 
 ticularizing the Christian life, by an exclusive reference 
 to certain times, are rej^resented by the Apostle Paul 
 as a Jewish practice, a bondage under the elements of 
 the world. And if, notwithstanding, men did from the 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 61 
 
 very first set apart certain days, with which they as- 
 sociated the remembrance of the great facts of the his- 
 tory of the redemption, and to which the whole Chris- 
 tian life was to be referred, by its making them the 
 central points of Christian fellowship, this was not by 
 any means inconsistent with the fundamental tendency 
 and intuition of Christianity. It was only a condescen- 
 sion to human weakness from the height of pure spirit- 
 uality."* 
 
 The practice, by the early Christians, of observing 
 the first day of the week as a festival, or day of re- 
 joicing, not in pursuance of any divine authority, ac- 
 cording to Neander, the leading authority, but as a 
 measure of propriety and expediency, failed to receive 
 the sanction of the civil power until the reign of Con- 
 stantine. 
 
 The Eev. Baden Powell observes, as to the decree 
 of this emperor: "The celebrated edict of Constantine 
 has been differently interpreted. It certainly contains 
 no reference to the Christian religion, or its ordinances. 
 It simply enjoins that, 'on the venerable day of the 
 sun, the magistrates, and citizens, and all business, shall 
 be at rest' {quiescant). The labors of agriculture, how- 
 ever, may be continued as the season may require. In 
 the same year, also, he made a decree for the better 
 regulation of the heathen sacrificial ceremonies. Also 
 to conciliate both Jews and Jewish Christians, he up- 
 held and protected them in the observance of the Sab- 
 bath, for which he is much commended by Eusebius" 
 (tit. Const iv, 18). 
 
 * Neander's History of the Church, i, 406; Id. 408-9, Bohn's 
 edition. See, also, Neander's History of Planting of Christian 
 Church, vol. i, p. 159 ; ii, p. 321, Bohn's ed. 
 
 6* 
 
62 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 " The former edict relative to Sunday, has been sup- 
 posed to have been called for by the great and incon- 
 venient increase of festivals among the Romans." — 
 Powell, 229. 
 
 The spirit of the observance of the first day of the 
 week was entirely different, with the early Christians, 
 from that which obtains now. It was kept by them as 
 a "festival of joy," in preparation of which every Wed- 
 nesday and Friday, but which are not observed now, 
 were consecrated as days of prayer and fasting, in 
 memory of Christ's betrayal and passion (Necmder, i, 
 408). The proof that Sunday was thus acknowledged 
 is abundant, from the writings of the early Christians, 
 a fact to which writers upon this question have not 
 generally ventured to call the attention of their readers. 
 
 For example : TertuUian, two hundred years after 
 Christ, says, on Sunday we give ourselves to joy. 
 ^^ Diem Solis Icetitioe indulgemus" {Apol., ch. 16, p. 688; 
 works fol. Paris, 1580). 
 
 St. Barnabas, fifty years after Christ, says : " We 
 keep the eighth day with gladness" (Epist. CathoL, 
 § ii, ]). 244. Amster., 1646). And Ignatius, in his Epistle 
 to the Magnesians, p. 35, Amster., 1646 : " We observe 
 the Lord's day, banishing everything on the day that 
 has the least tendency to, or the least appearance of 
 sorrow or grief, inasmuch that now they esteem it a 
 sin either to fast or kneel.'' Even the Montanists, with 
 which sect our author appears to sympathize, "those 
 rigid observers of Fasts and Abstinences, abstained 
 from fasting on this most glad and joyful day." Justin 
 Martyr declares against the Judaical observation of 
 even "the seventh day, although both, that is, the 
 seventh as well as the first, were observed by some of 
 the early Christians" (JDial. cum Tryphon). 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 63 
 
 It is thought that the works of the last-named 
 writer clearly afford the proof, that it was more than a 
 century after Christ that the first day began to be 
 generally observed among the Christians; and that the 
 day was kept free from that Judaizing spirit which 
 afterwards proved a source of corruption and danger 
 to the Church {Cox on Sabbath, p. 282, in note. See, 
 also, what Justin Martyr says in his ^'Apologies," &c., 
 p. 274-6 ; translated by the Eev. Temple Chevallier, 
 Cambridge, 1833). 
 
 The Eev. Baden Powell has some learned remarks 
 in this connection, which we cannot omit to quote : 
 
 " The writers of those times (that is, of the Fathers) 
 often speak of the Lord's day in conjunction with the 
 Sabbath; but always in the way of contrast, and as ob- 
 viously distinct institutions. . . But though a certain 
 kind of assimilation between the two institutions was 
 carried farther by some later writers, yet neither was the 
 observance itself ever pushed to the extent which has 
 since been sometimes contended for; nor was it possi- 
 ble for that confusion of ideas between the two insti- 
 tutions to arise which in modern times has extensively 
 prevailed. Indeed, from the mere fact of this twofold 
 observance of the Sabbath and the Lord's day, which 
 prevailed with some churches, one thing is perfectly 
 manifest, viz., that there could not have existed the 
 slightest notion of the obligation of the one institution 
 having been transferred to the other, as imagined by 
 many in later times.* There is, again, a wide differ- 
 
 * " Yet so inveterate has the absurd idea hecome in the minds 
 of modern divines, that even so acute and independent a writer as 
 Bishop Warburton, arguing, too, expressly against the tSabbatists, 
 
64 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ence between 'keeping a day holy' and simply com- 
 memorating an event upon it; yet the latter easily 
 degenerates into the former idea. Down to the later 
 times we have some remains of the observance of the 
 Sabbath in the solemnization of Saturday as the eve 
 or vigil of the Lord's day." 
 
 " The constant reference to the Old Testament law, 
 on the part of the Jewish converts, not unnaturally led 
 to the disposition to find in it at least some sort of alle- 
 gorical application to the Gentiles. Thus, guided pos- 
 sibly by the figurative language of the Apostle (Heb. 
 iv, 4), and the fondness for what they termed evangeliz- 
 ing the Old Testament, some of the Fathers adopted 
 the idea of a metaphysical interpretation of the fourth 
 commandment (where, of course, the literal sense could 
 not apply), in the case of Gentile converts, as meaning 
 the perpetual service of a Christian life, preparatory^ to 
 eternal rest."* — PowelVs Christianity, &c., p. 160. 
 
 The early Christian writers had no better means of 
 interpreting Scriptures than we have. Indeed, when 
 we consider the concentration of various minds upon 
 
 speaks incidentally of ' a change in the day having been made by 
 the primitive church' {Div. Leg., 434, note), which most assuredly 
 there never was, nor could have been, except by divine authority. ' ' 
 
 * " Thus, Justin Martyr {Dialog, cum Trypho. 229) says : " The 
 new law obliges us to keep a perpetual Sabbath." And later, to 
 the same effect, Augustin, whose opinions approached towards 
 modern Calvinism (Ep. 119), observes: "Inter omnia decem 
 prsecepta solum id quod de Sabbato positum est figurato obser- 
 vatum prsecipitur." Among all the ten comtnandm,ents, that alone 
 respecting the Sabbath is to be observed figuratively. 
 
 Athanius, also, says: "We keep no Sabbaths, as the ancients 
 did ; looking for an eternal Sabbath." Quoted by Heylin, ii, 183. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 65 
 
 the same passages of Sacred "Writ, the accumulation of 
 centuries of theological lore, the aid afforded by the 
 press in giving us at one view, as it were, for the sake 
 of collation, the entire text, our means of forming a 
 correct judgment as to Scripture difficulties are better 
 than were those of the early Christians. 
 
 But, with respect to a narrative of facts, or a descrip- 
 tion of the usages of the early Church, as handed down 
 by the fathers and primitive writers, we do not see 
 how we can refuse to give them credence, so far as 
 the facts or the usage are presented and described, as 
 happening or existing within their own knowledge and 
 experience. We, therefore, have the amplest evidence 
 that they did not regard the observance of the first as 
 a substitution for the observance of the seventh. That 
 many who kept the first also observed the seventh ; that 
 St. Paul taught them not to regard the Jewish Sab- 
 bath ; that succeeding writers^ in succeeding centuries, 
 condemned in turn that which was cause of condemna- 
 tion with their predecessors, which condemnation, as 
 we have seen, they followed up in practice by rejoicing 
 upon their festival day or Sunday, and eschewing wor- 
 ship on the seventh altogether. 
 
 The existence of a day of rejoicing, in remembrance 
 of a civil event in the history of our own country and 
 people, will occur to the reader, when, before the Eevo- 
 lution, many of the loyal colonists were accustomed to 
 celebrate the birthday of their reigning j^i'ince, whom 
 they chose to regard as the fountain of power and the 
 head of the Church, but which celebration after the 
 Declaration of Independence, and the severance of the 
 tie which bound them to the mother country ceased, 
 and another day was kept, but not substituted, in token 
 
QQ THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 of the birth of a new nation and of deliverance from 
 an order of things which had forever passed away.* 
 
 * " Wherever the cessation of the Law is spoken of, it is as a 
 whole, without reference to any destinction of moral or ceremo- 
 nial, letter or spirit. "We find no such qualification as that ' the 
 Law, as being of Moses, was abrogated, yet, as the law of the 
 spirit, still binding,' as some have represented it. The whole 
 tenor of the argument and language of St. Paul is utterly opposed 
 to any such idea. It was an entire system which passed away, to 
 give place to a new one based on a different ground.^ ^ — Powell, p. 
 141. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 67 
 
 CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 The Puritan "Sabbath." 
 
 The interpretation which had been grafted by the 
 usage of the fathers upon the observance of the early 
 Christians continued to be held in respect onward during 
 the progress of centuries — no one thought of doubting 
 that which time had so long sanctioned, until after the 
 period of the Reformation, when the public mind becom- 
 ing affected with a change of sentiment, the current of 
 religious feeling ran violently in a new direction. The 
 cheerful view of duty which man owed to his Creator 
 in the aj^propriation of a portion of the week to his 
 service passed into one of gloom and asceticism. The 
 scene shifted from the bright landscape into one hung 
 with clouds and darkness. The New Testament, with 
 all its cheering inspirations and comfortable hopes, be- 
 came of less account, and the Old, with its ceremonial 
 law, its Jewish sanctions, its terrible retributions, rose 
 into high esteem. Hallam well depicts the change: 
 " The founders of the English Reformation, after abol- 
 ishing most of the festivals kept before that time, had 
 made little or no change as to the mode of observance of 
 those they retained. Sundays and holidays stood much 
 on the same footing, as days on which no work, except 
 for good cause, was to be performed. The service of the 
 church was to be attended, and any lawful amusement 
 might be indulged in. A just distinction, however. 
 
68 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 soon grew up. An industrious people could spare time 
 for very few holidays; and the more scrupulous party, 
 while they slighted the church festivals as of human 
 appointment, prescribed a stricter observance of the 
 Lord's day. But it was not till about 1595, that they 
 began to place it very nearly on the footing of the 
 Jewish Sabbath, interdicting not only the slightest 
 action of worldly business, but even every sort of pas- 
 time and recreation. A system which once promulga- 
 ted, soon gained ground, as suiting their atrabilious 
 humor, and affording a new theme of censure on the 
 vices of the great.* Those who opposed them, on the 
 High Church side, not only derided the extravagance 
 of the Sabbatarians, as the others were called, but pre- 
 tended that the commandment having been confined to 
 the Hebrews, the modern observance of the first day 
 of the week as a season of rest and devotion, was an 
 ecclesiastical institution, and in no degree more vener- 
 
 * The first of these Sabbatarians was a Dr. Bound, whose ser- 
 mon was suppressed by Whitgrift's order. But some years before, 
 one of Martin Marprelate's charges against Aylmer was for play- 
 ing at bowls on Sundays ; and the word Sabbath, as applied to 
 that d&j, may be found occasionally under Elizabeth, though by 
 no means so usual as afterwards ; it is even recognized in the 
 Homilies, One of Bound's recommendations was that no feasts 
 should be given on that day, " except by lords, knights, and per- 
 sons of quality ;" for which unlucky reservation his adversaries 
 did not forget to deride him. {Fuller's Church History, p. 227.) 
 This writer described, in his quaint style, the abstinence from 
 sports produced by this new doctrine, and remarks what a slight 
 acquaintance with human nature would have taught Archbishop 
 Laud, that "the more liberty people were oflEered, the less they 
 used it; it was sport for them to refrain from sport." (See also, 
 Collier, 643; Neal, 386; Siri/j^e's Whitgrift, 530; May's Hist. Par- 
 liament, 16.) 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 69 
 
 able than that of the other festivals, or the season of 
 Lent, which the Puritans stubbornly despised." . . . . 
 " A circumstance that occurred in the session of 1621, 
 will serve to prove their fanatical violence," (that of 
 the House of Commons). "A bill having been brought 
 in ' for the better observance of the Sabbath, usually 
 called Sunday,' one Mr. Shepherd, sneering at the Pu- 
 ritans, remarked that, as Saturday was dies Sabbati, 
 this might be entitled a bill for the observance of Satur- 
 day, commonly called Sunday. This witticism brought 
 on his head the wrath of that dangerous assembly. He 
 was reprimanded on his knees, expelled the house, and, 
 when he saw what befell poor Floyd, might deem him- 
 self cheaply saved from their fangs with no w^orse 
 chastisement. Yet when the Uj^per House sent down 
 their bill, with 'the Lord's day' substituted for 'the 
 Sabbath,' observing, 'that people do now much incline 
 to words of Judaism,' the Commons took no exception. 
 The use of the word Sabbath instead of Sunday, be- 
 came, in that age, a distinctive mark of the Puritan 
 party." — Constitutional Hist. Bng., I, pp. 388, et seq. 
 Boston, 1865.* 
 
 * The Episcopal Church, notwithstanding it has incorporated 
 into its service the use of the Commandments, with a praj^er for 
 their observance, holds to a more Scriptural view of the Fourth 
 Commandment than is laid down in the Westminster Confession. 
 We are aware, however, that each " receives its appropriate 
 Christian sense, and the meaning annexed to the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, and the duty stated to be inculcated in it, is simply 
 this : ' To serve God truly all the days of my life,' — not one day 
 in seven, but every day." We are also aware, that " the existing 
 authorized formularies were designed to be comprehensive, and are 
 characterized on these points by the omission of topics in dispute. 
 While the Decalogue was inserted to satisfy one party, the Chris- 
 tian exposition of it, in which its Judaical tendency is neutralized, 
 
 7 
 
70 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 We must take occasion to remark upon an admission 
 which, though small in compass, covers the entire 
 ground under discussion and yields it in our favor, and 
 we do it with the more pleasure because from the pen 
 of one whose authority the author of Sabbatismos should 
 feel inclined to respect, happening to belong with him 
 to the same branch of the same religious denomination, 
 and professing to hold in all their strictness the same 
 views of this interesting question. 
 
 The Eev. Dr. Coleman, who is regarded as authority, 
 says : 
 
 " But it is not a little singular that the Church, 
 though right in theory and to some extent in practice, 
 continued through successive centuries down to the 
 age of the Eeformation, and even beyond it, wrong in 
 principle in that she disowned the sanctity of the law 
 of the Sabbath. In other words, the divine authority 
 of the Sabbath neither was recognized by the ancient 
 fathers nor by Luther or Calvin or the early Eeformers. 
 It was reserved for the Puritans,^^ &c. Ancient Christi- 
 
 must be assented to by all." {Powell^ 170.) The Sabbath is not 
 once mentioned in the Prayer-Book. There is, however, an in- 
 congruity, to the perception of which, long familiarity has dead- 
 ened the mind. The hoar of antiquity has toned down that, 
 which in its newness, must have seemed harsh and repulsive ; for 
 what is really more inconsistent than to ask, without qualification, 
 that the heart may be inclined to keep the seventh day, or Jewish 
 Sabbath, when by that church it never has been kept, but is, and 
 has always been, utterly repudiated. Nothing is more distressing 
 than the existence of a tarnish, or a blemish, which we know it is 
 entirely possible to remove. A defect so obvious in a service, as 
 to excite the observation of the merest neophyte, and to place any 
 sensible explanation beyond the ability of the most astute, much 
 retards the progress of religion and truth. We regret that the 
 attention of the body which has the authority to make the change, 
 has not long since been directed to the necessity in this regard. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 71 
 
 ayiiiy Exemplified. By Eev. Lyman Coleman, p. 532. 
 Pliiladelphia, 1856. 
 
 We feel not a little grateful that we are in such good 
 company as that of the ancient fathers, and of Luther; 
 and particularly of Calvin. There is a talismanic in- 
 fluence connected with the name of the latter great 
 Eeformer, which we shall be pardoned for regarding, 
 however dangerous the reliance upon any mere human 
 authority in a question of conscience, and which, from 
 the lights before him, every one must decide for him- 
 self 
 
 We presume the" writer of Christianity Exemplified 
 meant to say that the Church was wrong in theory as 
 well as principle, for we cannot perceive how she could 
 be right in theory had she been wrong in principle. 
 And we are now, for the first time, taught that the 
 ancient fathers, those who lived so near the period of 
 the apostles, and who had, if any, the right to speak 
 with confidence upon the subject, were wrong, as were 
 Luther and Calvin; and all having failed to discover 
 that the observance of Suadaj^ was not by divine au- 
 thority, but merely by that of the Church, it was due 
 to the Puritans (after mankind had groped in darkness 
 and been immersed in error for fifteen centuries), that 
 the one was discovered and the other dissipated. Sur- 
 prising discovery ; wonderful Puritans ! 
 
 What a consolation, that the text of Scripture re- 
 mains through all time the protection of the innocent 
 and of the oppressed, an everlasting wall of defence 
 against heresy, superstition, tyranny, and error; that 
 we have but to display the great Apostle's warning 
 words of earnest exliortation to the Romans, the Co- 
 lossians, and Galatians, when the eye of the bigot is 
 averted, and his confidence abashed. 
 
72 THE SUNDAY QUESTION, 
 
 CHAPTEE X. 
 
 The testimony of the Keformers and others of more recent times 
 against the doctrine held by the author of " Sabbatismos" and 
 his adherents. 
 
 That the Sabbath was exclusively a Jewish institu- 
 tion, and is not binding upon us, is maintained by 
 an array of authorities which, in the exercise of the 
 sacred right of private judgment, we dare not say 
 should silence further controversy, but which we do 
 say is entitled to a candid consideration. "We have in 
 support of this view the testimony of Luther, Calvin, 
 Melancthon, Beza, Bucer, Zuinglius, Cranmer, Eidley, 
 Frith, Knox, Chillingworth, Jeremy Taylor, Baxter, 
 Barrow, Milton, Barclay, Limborch, and, in more re- 
 cent times, of Paley, Arnold of Eugby, Whately, Eobert- 
 son of Brighton. In America, that of Bishop White, 
 the Eev. Dr. James W. Alexander, &c., &c. 
 
 In presenting the convictions of some of those we 
 have named, and whose opinions have already to some 
 extent been adduced, we shall have occasion to com- 
 mient upon the Doctor's " vindication" of Luther, Cal- 
 vin, and others. For in his appendix he endeavors to 
 repel the "c/mr^e" that these regarded the "Sabbath" 
 of the fourth commandment as a purely Jewish ordi- 
 nance and not binding upon Christians. 
 
 The candid reader will, in the course of our remarks, 
 be able to decide how far the Doctor in his "vindica- 
 tion" is successful. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 73 
 
 LUTIIER. 
 
 Luther's language is very strong: "As for the Sab- 
 bath, or Sunday, there is no necessity for its observ- 
 ance; and if we do so, the reason ought to be, not be- 
 cause Moses commanded it, but because nature likewise 
 teaches us to give ourselves, from time to time, a day 
 of rest, in order that man and beast may recruit their 
 strength, and that we may go and hear the word of 
 God preached." Works, 11, 16; quoted in HazlitVs 
 Translation of Michelefs Life of Luther, p. 271. London, 
 1846. 
 
 The following is a translation of the same passage 
 by another hand: . . . " As regards the Sabbath, or 
 Sunday, there is no necessity for keeping it; but if we 
 do, it ought to be not on account of Moses' command- 
 ment, but because nature teaches us, from time to time, 
 to take a day of rest, in order that men and animals 
 may recruit their strength, and that we may attend 
 the preaching of God's word." Michelefs Life of Luther. 
 Translated by G. H. Smith, F.G.S. Whittaker & Co., 
 London. 
 
 Again, Luther says : " The Gospel regardeth neither 
 Sabbath nor holidays, because they endured but for a 
 time, and were ordained for the sake of preaching, to 
 the end God's word might be tended and taught." Col- 
 loquia Mensalia, or Table Talk. Translated by Captain 
 Henry Bell, chap, xxxi, p. 357. London, 1652. 
 
 Still further: ''Keep the Sabbath holy for its use 
 both to body and soul; but if anywhere the day is 
 made holy for the mere day's sake — if anj'where one 
 sets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation — then, 
 I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it^ 
 to feast on it, to do anj^thing that shall remove this 
 
 7* 
 
74 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 encroachment on the Christian spirit and liberty." 
 Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century^ p. 20. London, 
 1846. (See Cox, p. 121.) 
 
 And this last passage, the Doctor exclaims with earn- 
 estness, is " quoted in the nineteenth century to sustain 
 a breach of the laws of Pennsylvania and of God;" 
 complaining at the same time that no authority is 
 given for the quotation, a deficiency which we now 
 supply. Much has been written in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury which is not the less w^orth citing in the nine- 
 teenth, if while pertinent it shall vindicate Christian 
 liberty and expose that spirit of Judaism which it is 
 sought to countenance, and that the progress of time 
 has so much ameliorated although not as yet sup- 
 pressed. 
 
 There is an authority much older than that of Lu- 
 ther, though none the worse for its antiquity, and just 
 as applicable in this, the nineteenth century, as were 
 the words of Luther in the sixteenth, for the language 
 was directed to the same end: "Let no man therefore 
 judge you, in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy 
 day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which 
 are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of 
 Christ." Colossians ii, 15, 16. 
 
 Again. The Doctor remarks, " Does any one of the 
 one hundred and forty-three clergymen who signed 
 the letter to the Mayor, &c., advocate the ascetic and 
 gloomy observance of the first day of the week ?" They 
 may not; but it cannot be denied that the Doctor does, 
 and not in the way that Luther recommends; for he 
 who for six days of the week has toiled in the close 
 and impure atmosphere of the factory, or pursued his 
 calling within sight of brick walls, " is but recruiting 
 his strength" if he does, as the Doctor says, even " rush 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 75 
 
 out to the country and worship nature." But how lit- 
 tle faith in the toiling thousands (who desire a change 
 of scene and place, and who may not lose a day in the 
 pursuit of honest industry without the curtailment of 
 some necessity, not luxury), does he exhibit, when in 
 such sweeping and unguarded language he asserts that 
 all such who "rush into the country" do it but "to 
 worship in the grog-shops, at the shanties by the way, 
 promoting employment by the policemen and magis- 
 trates?" We are pleased to say that our faith in the 
 sons and daughters of toil is greater than the Doctor's, 
 and fear that those who wish to worship nature in the 
 mode he indicates would in any event seek a gratifica- 
 tion of their longings at shrines nearer at hand. 
 
 Luther says, "As for the Sabbath, or Sunday, there is 
 no necessity for its observance," &c. ; upon which the 
 Doctor remarks. What does Luther mean ? We reply, 
 it is plain enough what he means ; but the Doctor re- 
 plies, that he means "what all evangelical men, clergy 
 and laity, mean, — that the Sabbaths of the Jews (of 
 which five are mentioned in Leviticus xxiii., which are 
 called Sabbaths"), &c., are the Sabbaths to which Lu- 
 ther refers. We recollect but one parallel to this, and 
 that, we fear, is fiction, where a judge, in a celebrated 
 case, jiot that of Specht versus Commonwealth, which 
 the Doctor cites, insisted that the name of the witness 
 was not as witness had distinctly pronounced it, but as 
 his Honor had written it, and so it should remain. We 
 take no particular exception to this contradiction ; but 
 we do to the assertion that the Doctor's interpretation 
 is " that of all evangelical clergymen," &c. 
 
 He further tells us that the moral law of the third 
 commandment, has, in Levit. xxiv. 16, a death penalty 
 appended (p. 157), and are asked, whether in abandon- 
 
76 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ing this "Jewish foundation," we also abandon the 
 moral law of the third commandment? We reply, 
 that we have never heard before, that the penalty of 
 the law was its foundation. Were it so, we apprehend 
 criminal legislation would be as impracticable and use- 
 less as the attempt to rear a superstructure before that 
 was provided on which, by the law of nature, the 
 superstructure should rest. 
 
 Much effort has been made by him to prove that " the 
 fourth precept of the moral law does not bless the sev- 
 enth day, and hallow it, but the tSabbath day" (p. 
 186). We have offered our comments on this else- 
 where, but we thank the Doctor for quoting Luther 
 in our aid, when, using Luther's words, he says, " That 
 after the fall, God sanctified the seventh day," &c. 
 (p. 189). 
 
 In conclusion, we observe that the opinions of Lutlier 
 upon the Sabbath are directly opposed to those of the 
 Doctor, and we could adduce page upon page in sup- 
 port of this allegation; we shall be obliged, however, 
 to content ourselves with but one, and that from his 
 larger Catechism. We do this because it contains a 
 distinct summary of his views, and is, at the same 
 time, an answer to the Doctor's assertion, that Luther 
 meant, when he used the words Sabbath or Sunday^ 
 " not what all evangelical men mean,'' — the five Levitical 
 Sabbaths, — but that he meant our present Sunday, or 
 in other words, if it is a truism, the Doctor compels us 
 to use it, that Luther meant what he says he meant ! 
 
 This is what Luther says, " God set aj)art the seventh 
 day, and appointed it to be observed, and commanded 
 that it should be considered holy above all others ; and 
 this command, as far as the outward observance is con- 
 cerned, was given to the Jews alone, that they should 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 77 
 
 abstain from hard labor, and rest, in order that both 
 man and beast might be refreshed, and not be worn 
 out by constant work. Therefore, this commandment, 
 literally understood, does not apply to us Christians ; 
 for it is entirely outward, like other ordinances of the 
 Old Testament, bound to modes and persons, and times 
 and customs, all of which are now left free by Christ. 
 But, in order that the simple may obtain a Christian 
 view of that which God requires of us in this com- 
 mandment, observe that we keep a festival, not for the 
 sake of intelligent and advanced Christians, for those 
 have no need of it; but first, /or the sake of the body, 
 because JN^ature teaches us that the working-classes, 
 servants and maids, who have spent the whole week in 
 their work and occupation, absolutely require a day 
 in which they can leave off work and refresh them- 
 selves; and chiefly, in order that men may, on such a 
 day of rest, have time and opportunity, such as they 
 could not otherwise have, to attend to the worship of 
 God, that so they may come in crowds to hear the 
 word of God, and practise it, to praise God, and sing 
 and i^ray. But this is not bound to any particular time, 
 as with the Jews, so that it must be this day or that ; 
 for no day is in itself better than any other; but it 
 ought to be performed daily, only, because this would 
 be impossible to the mass of the people, we must at 
 least devote one day to this purpose. And because 
 Sunday has been appointed from the earliest times, we 
 ought to keep to this arrangement, that all things may 
 be done in harmony and order, and no confusion be 
 caused by unnecessary novelties." Hengstenberg on the 
 Lord's Bay, translated by James Martin. London, 1853, 
 p. 63. Quoted by Cox, p. 503. 
 
 The Eev. Baden Powell has the following pertinent 
 
78 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 observations on the freedom of Luther as well as Cal- 
 vin from sabbatical formalism : 
 
 " But against all tenets of a legal and sabbatical for- 
 malism, Luther, with his accustomed masterly grasp of 
 the breadth and depth of evangelical principles, most 
 strenuously contended, as also, still more remarkablj^ 
 (considering his princij^les), did Calvin (^Instit., lib. ii. 
 chap. 8, § 28-34), especially denouncing the notion of 
 the moral obligation of the Sabbath, as one of the follies 
 of false prophets Qiugoe ;pseudo-prophetaru7ii) ; and more 
 forcibly still in his French version, as mensonges des 
 faux docteurs, — the lies of false teachers. 
 
 "Luther claimed a freedom to retain or dispense with 
 the observance of days just as it might be found to 
 tend to spiritual edification, or to superstition ; and in 
 this strenuous repudiation of Judaical subjections in 
 general, and sabbatism in particular, he and Calvin 
 were supported by the most eminent Eeformers on the 
 continent, both among the Calvinists, as Beza, and the 
 Lutherans, as Chemnitz and Bucer. Similar views 
 were professed by several of the English Eeformers, as 
 Tyndal and others ; and at a later period by the greater 
 minds of the Eeformed school: by Grotius {De Veiit., 
 chap. 5) and Limborch; as by Milton (^Christian Doc- 
 trine, 128, Ed. Sumner), Prideaux, Heylin, and others 
 in England." PowelVs Christianity , &c., p. 167. 
 
 In the vindication of Melancthon and Cranmer, and 
 which forms a part of the Doctor's apjoendix (p. 195), 
 he ventures to call The Press to account for arraying 
 Melancthon against the Sabbath — because the editor, 
 in using the precise words of that Eeformer, does not 
 happen to state whence they were derived — whereupon 
 the Doctor remarks, " here is unfairness again." 
 
 Our author is too much inclined to presume (an error 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 79 
 
 into which so old a controversialist should less fre- 
 quentl}' fall) that the object of his opponent in citing a 
 passage from the pages of any eminent authority, who 
 differs from the Doctor in his views, is to array such 
 authority against all Christian observances whatever. 
 This we do not understand to be the purpose, but on 
 the contrary to show that w^hen a clergyman, conspic- 
 uous for godliness, learning, and abilities, of position 
 unassailable, and who from every motive that could 
 properly impel would be inclined to hold the strictest 
 notions of Sabbath sanctification, is at the same time 
 unwilling to yield his prejudices to such compliance, 
 his testimony, above that of all others, deserves to be 
 received with the utmost readiness and cordiality. 
 
 The passage from Melancthon which The Press offers, 
 and it might have produced much that would have been 
 even more to the purpose, is from the celebrated Augs- 
 burg Confession, which that great Eeformer framed, and 
 in which Luther also had a part. This Confession, in 
 almost the next sentence after his condemnation of The 
 Press for having cited, the Doctor cites himself. We are, 
 therefore, forced to one of two conclusions, — either that 
 he had not read the whole of what Melancthon says, 
 or, knowing whence the extract was derived, did not 
 choose to admit his knowledge ; and of these inferences 
 we prefer the former. 
 
 In this Confession we have, on the one part, Melauc- 
 thon's positive convictions, proclaimed with delibera- 
 tion, under circumstances the most solemn, and in a 
 document whose promulgation illumined, as it were, 
 his age, and threw a glory around his name, and 
 upon the other we have sentences torn plainly from 
 their context, by which it is attemjDted to be proved 
 that Melancthon held opinions which were in unison 
 
80 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 with those of our author. The eminent Eeformer, as 
 dealt with by the Doctor, is therefore open to the 
 charge of vacillation; but these selections, if given in 
 their integrity, would clear him of such suspicion. 
 
 One fact cannot be questioned, that prominent writ- 
 ers on the "Sabbath" always speak of the Eeformers 
 as entertaining the belief that as Jewish and ceremonial 
 it came to a close with the Mosaic dispensation gen- 
 erally, and Dr. Hetberington, a celebrated advocate of 
 the same notion held by our author, opposes, in his 
 Christian Sabbath Considered in its Various Aspects (Ed- 
 inburgh, 1850), the theory of the Eeformers upon the 
 ground that (m his opinion, of course) they held an er- 
 roneous doctrine. 
 
 The Eev. Baden Powell gives the following brief 
 history of Melancthon's Formulary, and also some ex- 
 tracts from the Heidelberg and other catechisms, on the 
 subject of the fourth commandment, which we present 
 in the same connection : 
 
 "As indicative of the state of opinions among the 
 great branches of the Eeformed Church, the celebrated 
 Augsburg Confession stands preeminent. In reference 
 to our present subject, it first makes some allusion to 
 the controversies which had existed, bearing on the 
 extent of the authority of the Church to change ordi- 
 nances." 
 
 Afterwards, speaking of points ordained by the au- 
 thority of the Church, this Formulary proceeds : 
 
 "Such cases are, the observance of the Lord's day, 
 Easter, Pentecost, and other like festivals and rites. 
 For those who judge that by the authority of the 
 Church, instead of the Sabbath the observance of the 
 Lord's day was instituted as essential, are greatly in 
 error. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 81 
 
 "The Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath, wliich 
 teaches that all Mosaic ceremonies, after the revelation 
 of the Gospel, may be omitted. And yet, since it was 
 necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people 
 might know when to assemble together, it appears 
 that the Church appointed for that end the Lord's 
 day, which seems, on this ground, to have been the 
 more acceptable, that men might have an example of 
 Christian libert}^, and might know that the observance 
 neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is neces- 
 sary. There have been great disputes on the change 
 of the law; on the ceremonies of the new law; on the 
 change of the Sabbath; all which have arisen from the 
 false persuasion that the worship of the Church ought 
 to be similar to the Levitical" {Confessio Augustcma, 
 1531, §vii; Sylloge Confessionum, p. 156, Ed. Oxford, 
 1827). 
 
 ]S"otwithstanding (says Powell) the plainness with 
 which all idea of sabbatism is here repudiated, it yet 
 cannot but be noticed how much the prevailing con- 
 fusion of thought remains in the reasons and grounds 
 assigned; that the Mosaic ceremonies "maybe omit- 
 ted" when the question is, what should enforce them? 
 or how the Gentiles could have anything to do with 
 them ? or could have any ground for imagining that 
 Christian worship ought to resemble the Levitical. 
 The real fundamental "false persuasion," which might 
 have been referred to, is that of not seeing the distinc- 
 tion between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. All that 
 is here said might well apply to the Jewish converts. 
 
 The original form from which the above is cited was 
 that adhered to by the Lutherans. But, in 1540, an 
 altered version was made to suit the views of certain 
 other parties. In this version the passage quoted re- 
 
 8 
 
82 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 mains the same, with the exception of the sentence be- 
 ginning, " The Scripture has abrogated," &c., which 
 here stands thus: "The Scripture allows that the ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath may now be a matter of lib- 
 erty; for it teaches that the Mosaic ceremonies, after 
 the revelation of the Gospel, are not necessary; and 
 yet," &c, {Sylloge Confessionum, p. 230), an assertion 
 certainly of the safest nature. 
 
 The Palatine, or Heidelberg Catechism (1563), after 
 stating " the Decalogue" to be " the law of God," in 
 answer to the question, "What does the fourth com- 
 mandment enjoin ?" replies : 
 
 " First, that the ministry of the Gospel and of the 
 School should be preserved; that, as well as other 
 times, so particularly on festival days, I should studi- 
 ously attend divine assemblies; should diligently hear 
 the Word of God ; should add my prayers to the public 
 prayers; and, according to my ability, should con- 
 tribute something for the poor. 
 
 "Lastly, that through all my life I should abstain 
 from wicked actions; yielding to the Lord, that, by 
 the Holy Spirit, he will do his work in me ; and thus, 
 that I may, in this life, begin the eternal Sabbath." 
 {Syl Con,, p. 388.) 
 
 <' The Eacovian Catechism, after quoting the fourth 
 commandment, puts the questions following : — 
 
 <' < Q. What think you of this precept? 
 
 "'A, That it is taken away under the New Cove- 
 nant, as well as other ceremonial observations. 
 
 " ' Q. Did not Christ institute that we should cele- 
 brate the day commonly called the Lord's day, instead 
 of a Sabbath ? 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 83 
 
 " ' By no means; since the Christion religion, as it 
 taketh away other ceremonial observations, so also the 
 difference of days. (See Col. ii. 18.) But, forasmuch as 
 we see the Lord's day to be of old celebrated by Chris- 
 tians, we permit the same liberty to all Christians.' " 
 (Ed. Amsterdam, 1652, p. 91.) 
 
 It is here remarkable how, even in the freedom 
 wdiich this Formulary asserts, there still lingers the 
 fundamental misapprehension of dwelling on the aboli- 
 tion of an ordinance, which, to the Gentile, never was 
 in force, or of introducing the Decalogue at all. 
 
 The French Protestant Catechism, while it regards 
 the Decalogue in general as obligatory, yet makes the 
 fourth commandment peculiar^ and as not tu be taken 
 literally, and holds that the ceremonial part of it is 
 abolished by the coming of Christ ; that it is typical of 
 spiritual rest ; yet that it has reference to the observ- 
 ance of ecclesiastical ordinances, and the relief of ser- 
 vants from labor. (See La Forme des Pritres et le Cate- 
 chisme, &c., annexed to the French Testament. Ed. 
 Leyden, 1687.) 
 
 A similar view is upheld at the present day by one 
 of the most able French Protestant writers, Athanase 
 Coquerel, who maintains that there is "no specific 
 time — no consecrated day — assigned in the Gospel." 
 (^Christianity, &c., p. 380; transl. London, 1847.) 
 
 On the other hand, the formal expression of that pri- 
 mary confusion of ideas which has so peculiarly beset 
 the whole conception of the divine law in modern the- 
 ology, may be fully traced in the Helvetian Confession, 
 A.D. 1536. 
 
 It first (§ xii.) recognizes the natural moral law writ- 
 
84 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ten in the hearts of men, and then the divine written 
 law in the two tables of Moses; and this is distin- 
 guished again into "the moral law compreliended in 
 the Decalogue," the ceremonial, and the judicial or po- 
 litical. 
 
 But " this law is not given to men that they may be 
 justified by its observance; but rather by its indica- 
 tions that they may acknowledge their infirmity, their 
 sin, their condemnation, and thus be led to faith in 
 Christ. . . . Thus far the law is abrogated, that it no 
 longer condemns us, or works wrath in us. 
 
 . . . "We know that the scripture of the law is use- 
 ful, if it be expounded by the Gospel ; thus the reading 
 of it is not to be abolished." (Sylloge Confessionum, pp. 
 42, 43.) 
 
 " It may be readily understood how this kind of dog- 
 matizing prepared the way for the deeper subtleties 
 and Judaical aberrations and enormities of the West- 
 minster Assembly." {PoweWs Christianity, &c., pp. 229 
 to 234.) 
 
 Cranmer. 
 
 The production of Cranmer's testimony by The Press 
 has excited the strong disapprobation of the author of 
 Sabbatisrnos, who characterizes the attempt as an act of 
 "effrontery and decejjtion, which merits some sharp- 
 ness of rebuke." It would have been surprising had 
 it disregarded the authority of so stron'g a supporter 
 as Cranmer. These are the opinions of Cranmer, as 
 given by our author : " The fourth commandment is 
 distinguished from the other nine, the latter being 
 merely moral, the former ceremonial, as regards ' rest 
 from bodily labor on the seventh day,' which belonged 
 only to the Jews ; but moral as regards the spiritual 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 85 
 
 rest from sin, which binds Christians at all times. The 
 command, however, binding also to rest from all bodily 
 labor, and to the exclusive service of God at certain 
 times." We have, however, the avowal that the fourth 
 commandment is ceremonial, and moral so far as it is 
 our duty to worship God, and we cannot but commend 
 the Doctor's candor in adducing so strong a condemna- 
 tion of his own chief position. It would exhibit an 
 equal want of candor on our part, did we forbear to 
 state that the Doctor enters his "caveat" against the 
 damaging part of Cranmer's statement, while grate- 
 fully accepting that which accords with his own views, 
 for the Doctor says, " owr doctrine is distinctly stated, 
 along with so7ne points which are not connect." (See 
 2)0St, p. 104.) 
 
 Baxter. 
 
 The Doctor is of opinion that also Baxter is strongly 
 with him, and it might be supj^osed from the para- 
 graphs presented from the writings of that divine, that 
 no Puritan could go further in strictness of sabbatical 
 ideas. The author of Sabbatismos has, however, omit- 
 ted to mention that Baxter is opposed to his interpre- 
 tation of the texts in Eomans and Colossians, and 
 cannot find that St. Paul has reference to other Jewish 
 Sabbaths than those referred to in the fourth com- 
 mandment. (TForA'S, vol. xiii. 367.) Baxter believed 
 that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished, and that the 
 Lord's day took its place b}^ Divine appointment. Bax- 
 ter, no less firmly than Cranmer, believed that the 
 fourth commandment was not morally binding in the 
 sense that it should be kept on the first da}^ of the 
 week only : although he thought that "it is of the law 
 of nature that God should be worshipped," he did not 
 
 8* 
 
86 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 think that the law taught the observance of '^ one day 
 in seven, or just on what day of the seven it should be," 
 '' although reason^'' he says, " may discern that one day 
 in seven is a very convejiient proportion." (^Works, vol. 
 xix. p. 186; Cox, 217.) 
 
 Calvin. 
 
 In the whole range of ecclesiastical authorit}^ we do 
 not know where to find a more complete answer and 
 emphatic censure of the notions which the author of 
 Sabbatismos so earnestly endeavors to enforce, than are 
 contained in the clear and lofty language, the liberal 
 doctrines, and eminently catholic sentiments of Calvin's 
 "Exposition" of the fourth commandment. 
 
 In his commentary on this commandment he says '- 
 (xxviii.) "The end of this precept is, that, being dead to 
 our own affections and works, we should meditate on 
 the kingdom of God, and be exercised in that medita- 
 tion in the observance of his institutions. But, as it 
 has an aspect peculiar and distinct from the others, it 
 requires a little different kind of exposition. The 
 fathers frequently called it a shadoivy covunandment, 
 because it contains the external observance of the day 
 which was abolished, with the rest of the figures, at 
 the advent of Christ. And there is much truth in 
 their observation, but it reaches only half of the sub- 
 ject, wherefore, it is necessary to seek further for an 
 exposition, and to consider three causes, on which, I 
 think, I have observed this commandment to rest. For 
 it was the design of the Heavenly Lawgiver, under the 
 rest of the seventh day, to give the people of Israel a 
 figure of the spiritual rest, by which the faithful ought 
 to refrain from their own works, in order to l^ave God 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 87 
 
 to work within them. His design was, secondly, tluit 
 there should be a stated day in which they might as- 
 semble together to hear the law and perform the cere- 
 monies, or, at least, which they might especiallj^ devote 
 to meditations on His works -, that, by this recollection, 
 they might be led to the exercise of piety. Thirdly, 
 He thought it right that servants, and persons living 
 under the jurisdiction of others, should be indulged 
 with a day of rest, that they might enjoy some remis- 
 sion from their labor, (xxxi.) . . . But all that it 
 (the Sabbath) contained of a ceremonial nature was, 
 without doubt, abolished by the advent of the Lord 
 Christ. For He is the truth, at whose presence all 
 figures disappear ; the body, at the sight of which all 
 the shadows are relinquished. He, I say, is the true 
 fulfilment of the Sabbath. Having been buried with 
 Him by baptism, we have been planted together in the 
 likeness of his death ; that, being partakers of His res- 
 urrection, ' we may walk in newness of life' (JAom. 
 vi. 4, &c.)- Therefore, the Apostle ssljs in another place, 
 that ' the Sabbath was a shadow of the things to come; 
 but the body is of Clirist' (Col. ii. 16, 17); that is the 
 real substance of the truth, which he has beautifully 
 explained in that passage. This is contained not in 
 one day, but in the whole course of our life, till, being 
 wholly dead to ourselves, we be filled with the life of 
 God. Christians, therefore, ought to depart from all 
 superstitious observance of da^^s. (xxxii.) As the two 
 latter causes, however, ought not to be numbered 
 among the ancient shadows, but are equally suitable to 
 all ages. Though the Sabbath is abrogated, yet it is 
 still customary among us to assemble on stated days 
 for hearing the Word, for breaking the mystic bread, 
 and for public prayers, and, also, to allow servants and 
 
88 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 laborers a remission from their labor. That in com- 
 manding the Sabbath, the Lord had regard to both 
 these things, cannot be doubted. The first is abun- 
 dantly confirmed, even by the practice of the Jews. 
 The second is proved by Moses, in Deuteronomy, in 
 these words, ' That thy man-servant and maid-servant 
 may rest as well as thou;' 'And remember that thou 
 wast a servant in the land of Egypt;' also in Exodus, 
 ' That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of 
 thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.' 
 Who can deny that both these things are as proper for us 
 as for the Jews ? Assemblies of the church are enjoined 
 in the Divine word, and the necessity of them is suffi- 
 ciently known, even from the experience of life. Un- 
 less there be stated days appointed for them, how can 
 they be held ? According to the direction of the 
 Apostle, ' all things ' are to be done ' decently and in 
 order' among us. But, so far is it from being possible 
 to preserve order and decorum without this regulation, 
 that, if it were abolished, the church would be in im- 
 minent danger of immediate convulsion and ruin. But 
 if we feel the same necessity, to relieve which the Lord 
 enjoined the Sabbath upon the Jews, let no one plead 
 that it does not belong to us ; for our most provident and 
 indulgent Father has been no less attentive to provide 
 for our necessity than for that of the Jews. But why, 
 it may be asked, do we not rather assemble on everyday, 
 so that all distinction of days may be removed ? I sin- 
 cerely wish that this were practised; and truly spiritual 
 wisdom would be well worthy of some portion of time 
 being daily allotted to it; but if the infirmity of many 
 persons will not admit of daily assemblies, and charity 
 does not permit us to require more of them, why should 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 89 
 
 we not obey the rule which we have imposed upon us 
 by the will of God? 
 
 (xxxiii.) " I am obliged to be rather more diffuse 
 on this point, because, in the present age, some unquiet 
 spirits have been raising a noisy contention respecting 
 the Lord's day. They complain that Christians are 
 tinctured with Judaism, because they retain any obser- 
 vation of days. But I reply, that the Lord's day is not 
 observed by us upon the principle of Judaism ; because, 
 in this respect, the difference between us and the Jews 
 is very great, for we celebrate it, not with scrupulous 
 rigor as a ceremony, which we conceive to be a figure 
 of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a remedy 
 necessary to the preservation of order in the church. 
 But, they say Paul teaches that Christians cire not to 
 be judged in the observance of it, because it is a shadow 
 of something future (Col. ii. 16, 17). Therefore, he 
 is 'afraid lest' he has 'bestowed' on the Galatians 
 ' labor in vain' because they continued to observe days 
 (Gal. iv. 10, 11). And in the Epistle to the Eomans 
 be asserts him to be 'weak in faith' who 'esteemeth 
 one day above another' (Eom. xiv. 5). But who, these 
 furious zealots only excepted, does not see what obser- 
 vance the Apostle intends? For they did not observe 
 them for the sake of political and ecclesiastical order; 
 but when they retained them as shadows of spiritual 
 things, the}' were so far guilty of obscuring the glory 
 of Christ and the light of the gospel. They did not, 
 therefore, rest from their manual labors, as from em- 
 ployment which would divert them from sacred studies 
 and meditations, but from a principle of suj^erstition, 
 imagining, then, cessation from labor to be still an ex- 
 pression of reverence for the mysteries formerly repre- 
 sented by it. 
 
90 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 " This preposterous distinction of days the Apostle 
 strenuously opposes, and not that legitimate difference 
 which promotes the peace of the Christian church ; for 
 in the churches which he founded the Sabbath was 
 retained for this purpose. He prescribes the same day 
 to the Corinthians for making collections for the relief 
 of the brethren at Jerusalem. If superstition be an 
 object of fear, there was more danger in the holy days 
 of the Jews than in the Lord's day now observed by 
 Christians. Now, whereas, it was expedient for the 
 destruction of superstition that the day which the Jews 
 kept holy was abolished, and, it being necessary for 
 the preservation of decorum, order and peace in the 
 Christian church, another day was appointed for the 
 same use. 
 
 (xxxiv.) " However, the ancients have not, without 
 sufficient reason, substituted what we call the Lord's 
 day in the room of the Sabbath. For, since the resur- 
 rection of the Lord is the end and consummation of 
 that true rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient 
 Sabbath, the same day which put an end to the shad- 
 ows, admonishes us Christians not to adhere to a 
 shadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress 
 on the septenary number, that I would oblige the 
 church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will I con- 
 demn those churches which have other solemn days 
 for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance 
 from superstition ; and this will be the case, if they be 
 only designed for the observance of discipline and well- 
 regulated order. Let us sum up the whole in the fol- 
 lowing manner : As the truth was delivered to the 
 Jews under a figure, so it is given to us without any 
 shadows ; firsts in order, that during our whole life, we 
 should meditate on a perpetual rest from our own 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 91 
 
 works, that the Lord may operate within us, by Ilis 
 spirit; secondly^ that every man, whenever he has 
 leisure, should diligently exercise himself in private, in 
 pious reflections on the works of God; and, also, that 
 we should, at the same time, observe the legitimate 
 order of the church appointed for the hearing of the 
 word, for the administration of the sacraments, and for 
 public prayer; thirdly, that we shall not unkindly op- 
 press those who are subject to us. Thus vanish all the 
 dreams of false prophets, who, in past ages, have in- 
 fected the people with Jewish notions, affirming that 
 nothing but the ceremonial part (which, according to 
 them, is the appointment of the seventh day), has 
 been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is 
 the observance of one day in seven, still remains. But 
 this is only changing the da}^ in contempt of the Jews, 
 while they retain the same opinion of the holiness of a 
 day; for, on this principle, the same mysterious signi- 
 fication would still be attributed to particular days 
 which they formerly obtained among the Jews. And, 
 indeed, we see what advantages have arisen from such 
 a sentiment; for those who adhere to it, far exceed the 
 Jews in a gross, carnal and superstitious observance of 
 the Sabbath; so that the reproofs we find in Isaiah, 
 are equally applicable to them in the present age, as to 
 those the prophet reproved in his time. But the prin- 
 cipal thing to be remembered is the general doctrine, 
 that lest religion decay or languish among us, sacred as- 
 semblies ought diligently to be held, and that we ought 
 to use those external means which are adapted to sup- 
 port the worship of God." (Calvin's Institutes. Book ii, 
 ch. viii. Presbyterian Board Pub., pp. 354 to 359.) 
 
 The author of " Sabbatismos," at page 189, essays to 
 vindicate the memory of Calvin from the serious charge 
 
92 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 of holding sentiments differing from his, the author's.* 
 This is, at least, the result of his mode of criticism. 
 All that Calvin says upon the subject, in his Institutes, 
 is now before the reader, and The Press having quoted 
 this passage — " The false prophets have said that noth- 
 ing was abrogated, but what was ceremonial in the 
 commandment ; but the moral part remains, to wit : 
 the observance of one day in seven. This is nothing 
 else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and 
 yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus 
 
 * The reader will have observed how frequently Luther and 
 Calvin have been referred to by writers as holding convictions 
 directly opposed to those entertained by the advocates of the per- 
 petual binding efficacy and moral obligation of the fourth com- 
 mandment. Yet Dr. Junkin, with a most censurable want of 
 fairness and candor, would fain persuade his readers that he and 
 Luther and Calvin think precisely alike upon this question, and 
 deems it necessary to ^^ vindicate'' their memory from an opposite 
 opinion. We have, in addition to the testimony already produced, 
 that of two clergymen of the Doctor's own branch of the Church 
 — the conclusions of Rev. Dr. James W. Alexander, soon to be 
 quoted, and the following language of Rev. Dr. Rice : 
 
 " Unhappily for the cause of religion, the Reformers, Luther 
 and Calvin, seem not to have admitted the identity of the Lord's 
 day with the original Sabbath, They have observed the form 
 rather as a matter of necessity or expediency than as divinely 
 commanded." After quoting from Calvin, he says: "These 
 views of the Sabbath go far for accounting for the sad decay of 
 vital piety ; for it is in vain to hope for any profitable observance 
 of Sunday, if it be admitted that its appointment is not of divine 
 authority." {Rev. iV. L. Rice, D.D., of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian 
 Church, on the Oingin and History of the Sabbath, p. 68. New York, 
 1862.) We sympathize with Dr. Rice as to Calvin's unsoundness, 
 and that a pillar of such fine proportions, and on which reposes 
 so much in doctrine of all which that church holds dear, should 
 swerve in the slightest from the perpendicular ; but we do not see 
 how, at this late day, the matter is to be remedied. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 93 
 
 retaininfj; the same tyj^ical distinction of days as had 
 phicc among the Jews," — the author of " Sabbatismos" 
 accordingly ventures this comment upon it: "The 
 reader will see how garbled and unfair is The Press 
 quotation, forcing a meaning upon Calvin's language 
 the contrary of what he does in reality mean. In this 
 thirty-fourth section Calvin reprobates and repudiates 
 the superstitious observance of the Jews, in regard to 
 the seventh day, and rebukes those who, in past ages, 
 changed the day, but retained the superstitions. This 
 utter 2:)erversion will further appear from the following 
 testimony of Calvin, from other parts of his writings," 
 &c. (p. 192) :* 
 
 •5^ The encouragement by Calvin of sports, such as "bowling 
 and shooting," on the Lord's day, will surprise some of our readers, 
 but will not those who shall have carefully read his " Exposition." 
 
 "If Mr. Baxter," says Archbishop Bramhall, " thinks that no 
 recreations of the body at all are lawful or may be permitted 
 upon the Lord's day, he may call himself a ' Catholic ' if he please ; 
 but he will find very few churches of any communion whatever, 
 old or new, reformed or unreformed, to bear him company. 
 
 " No. No. Even among churches of his own communion, 
 which he calleth the holiest parts of the Chui^ch upon earth, he 
 will find none at all to join with him except the churches of New 
 England, and Old England, and Scotland, whereinto this opinion 
 has been creeping, by degrees, the last half century of years, or 
 somewhat more. Before that time, even our greatest Disciplin- 
 arians in England abhorred not private recreations, so they could 
 practise them without scandal. And Calvin himself^ disdained 
 
 1 In the edition of Bramhall's works published by Parker, Oxford, 
 1844, in 5 vols., there are, at p. 576, vol. ill, the following notes, which 
 we do not recollect seeing in the edition we consulted. The texts pre- 
 cisely agree, and the notes are appended to the passages indicated : 
 
 " • Ut servis et operariis sua detur a labore remissio,' is one purpose 
 of the Christian Sabbath, according to Calvin Inst., lib. ii. c. 8, § 32. 
 (Op. torn. ix. p. 99, 6 ; and compare his denunciation of a Judaical Sab- 
 bath, ib. § 34, p. 100, a. b.)" 
 
 9 
 
94 ' THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 It gives us pain to say that, in all our reading upon 
 controversial subjects, we have never met a comment 
 so uncalled for and so unfair as this. Is it in truth the 
 case, as is alleged ? Let the candid reader again ex- 
 amine all that Calvin has said in the sections quoted 
 by us, in full^ and in snatches by the Doctor, and ask 
 himself whether Calvin meant to rebuke those only 
 who " in PAST AGES changed the day but retained 
 the superstitions," when, in the very next sentence 
 after the words which The Press quotes, and in the 
 same connection, Calvin says "Those who cling to 
 their constitutions go twice as far as the Jews, in the 
 gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism, so that the 
 rebukes which we read in Isaiah apply as much to 
 those of the present day as to those to whom the Prophet 
 addressed them ?"* 
 
 This is most inexcusable. In other words, what 
 Calvin says is this: 
 
 That the false prophets, who by the way are as plen- 
 
 not to countenance and encourage the hui^gers of Geneva hy his own 
 presence and examjyle at these public recreations, as bowling and 
 shooting upon the Lord's dag, after their devotions at church were 
 ended. In Germany, Switzerland, Trance, and the Low Coun- 
 tries, all the churches of his own communion do enjoy their 
 recreations. And in sundry of them their prayers and sermons 
 on the afternoon of the Lord's day are but lately introduced ; 
 whereas, formerly, not the vulgar only, but the most eminent 
 persons did use to bestow the whole afternoon upon their recrea- 
 tions. "^ — Archbishop BramhalV s Vindication of Grotius. Works, p. 
 638, tom. i, div. iii. ch. 9. Dublin, 1676. 
 
 * The translation here used is that of Henry Beveridge. Edin- 
 burgh, 1845. That ante, p. 91, line 25, differs little. 
 
 1 " See Heylin's Hist, of Sabbath, p. ii. c. 6, § § 9, 10, and Hist. ofPresb.f 
 bk. ii. U 10, 11." 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 95 
 
 tiful as in the Eeformer's day, admit that the ceremonial 
 part of the commandment, or the observation of Satur- 
 day, or the Jewish Sabbath, is abrogated, but that the 
 moral part, or the keeping of one day in the week, is 
 still required, an obligation w^hich Calvin contemptuously 
 (there is no other word so fit to apply to it) repudiates, 
 alleging that to abandon Saturday and yet retain some 
 other day of the seven is but to reflecit upon the Jews 
 by repudiating their day and still to attach a ^^ holiness'' 
 and "mysterious signification" to another day. The 
 Eeformer, however, admits that for order's sake Chris- 
 tians should still, at proper times, assemble for worship. 
 A controversialist should be held to strict accounta- 
 bility, w^hen after alleging unfairness and dishonesty he 
 fails to sustain the charge. In his attempt to show that 
 Calvin has in one place pronounced false that w4)ich in 
 another Calvin has solemnly declared to be true, he 
 offers an affront to, not a ^^vindication'' of, the memory 
 of the great Eeformer of Geneva. 
 
 Barclay. 
 
 We not seeing any ground in Scripture for it, cannot 
 be so superstitious as to believe that either the Jewish 
 Sabbath now continues or that the first day of the 
 week is the anti-type thereof, or the true Christian 
 Sabbath ; which, with Calvin, we believe to have a 
 more spiritual sense; and therefore we know^ no moral 
 obligation by the fourth command, or elsewhere, to 
 keep the first day of the w^cek more than any other, or 
 any holiness inherent in it. But 1st, forasmuch as it is 
 necessary that there be some time set apart for the 
 servants to meet together to wait upon God ] and that 
 2dly, it is fit at some times they be freed from their out- 
 
96 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ward affairs; and that, Sdly, reason and equity doth 
 allow that servants and beasts have some time allowed 
 them to be eased from their constant labor; and that, 
 4thly, it ajDpears that the apostles and primitive Chris- 
 tians did use the first day of the week for these pur- 
 poses, we find ourselves sufficiently moved, for these 
 causes, to do so also, without superstitiously straining 
 the Scripture for another reason ; which that it is not 
 to be there found, many Protestants — yea, Calvin 
 himself — upon the fourth command hath abundantly 
 evinced. And though we, therefore, meet and abstain 
 from working upon this day, yet doth not that hinder 
 us from having meetings also for worship at other 
 times." Barclay's Apology^ sect, iv, p. 327. Philadelphia, 
 1850. 
 
 Milton. 
 
 The Doctor's attack upon the character of Milton is 
 discreditable to his taste and judgment, his reading, 
 and his charity. 
 
 Paradise Lost, nor any of the masterpieces of this, 
 by many esteemed the greatest of all Englishmen, he 
 has evidently never read ; or, if he has, not carefully 
 read. 
 
 It is plain, however, that he has confidingly imbibed 
 all that the malignancy of Johnson records against this 
 glory of his day and generation, and of all time; that 
 unscruj)ulous and prejudiced critic and " stern moralist," 
 who is better known as the calumniator of Milton than 
 as the author of the poem "London, a Satire." 
 
 The Eev. H. J. Todd, in his Life of the Poet (Lon- 
 don, 1826, p. 253), says "Milton adorned with every 
 graceful endowment, highly and holily accomplished as 
 he was, appears, in the dark coloring of Johnson, a 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 97 
 
 most nnamiable being; but could he revisit earth in his 
 mortal character, with a wish to retaliate, what a pic- 
 ture might be drawn, by that sublime and offended 
 genius, of the great moralist who has treated him with 
 such excess of asperity. The passions are powerful 
 colorists, and marvellous adepts in the art of exaggera- 
 tion ; but the portraits executed by Love (famous as he 
 is for overcharging them) are infinitely more faithful 
 to nature than gloomy sketches from the heavy hand 
 of Hatred, a passion not to be trusted or indulged even 
 in minds of the highest purity and power; since hatred, 
 though it ma}' enter the field of contest under the ban- 
 ner of justice, yet generally becomes so blind and out- 
 rageous, from the heat of contention, as to execute, in 
 the name of virtue, the worst purposes of vice. Hence 
 arises that species of calumny the most to be regretted, 
 the calumny lavished by men of talents and worth on 
 their equals or superiors, whom they have rashly and 
 blindl}^ hated for a difference of opinion." 
 
 Now listen to Dr. Junkin, and, we ask, could any- 
 thing be more wretched in taste, or much worse in its 
 spirit: "Milton, like most men of his day, and many 
 in our day, was befogged in the Red Sea ; they have 
 not been able to see the difference between the regular 
 seventh-day rest and the extra Sabbaths of the Israel- 
 ites, of which you have five in Lev. xxiii." (Unfortunate 
 Milton !) " Milton was a splendid linguist and a great 
 poet. He has never enjoyed the reputation of a pious, 
 godly man. He is claimed, by them of that creed, as a 
 Unitarian, and all that sect go in for a lively, slack, 
 and sportive Sabbath." . . . Quoting from Dr. Johnson, 
 he says: "Milton grew old without any visible wor- 
 ship. In the distribution of his time there was no 
 hour of prayer, either solitary or with his household; 
 
 9* 
 
98 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 omitting public prayer, he omitted all." (Page 207.) 
 " It is fortunate for the Sabbath," further says the Doc- 
 tor, "that Milton was not its friend." (Page 208.) 
 
 'Now hear what Milton, himself, says : '* Although it 
 is the duty of believers to join themselves, if possible, 
 to a church duly constituted (Heb. x. 25), yet such as 
 cannot do this conveniently, or with full satisfaction of 
 conscience, are not to be considered as excluded from 
 the blessing bestowed by God on the churches." (Book 
 i. chap. 29, Of the Visible Church.) This is an important 
 passage. Dr. Sumner says, " because it discloses Mil- 
 ton's real views upon a point in which his opinions 
 have been represented in a more unfavorable light 
 than they seem to have deserved." 
 
 After quoting from some observations of Bishop 
 Newton, his biographer remarks, " It has been candidly 
 and judiciously stated in a note upon this passage, by 
 Mr. Hawkins," to which Dr. Sumner refers, " that the 
 reproach which has been thrown upon Milton, of fre- 
 quenting no place of public worship, in his latter days, 
 should 'be received, as Dr. Symmons observes, with 
 some caution. His blindness, and other infirmities, 
 might be, in part, his excuse; and it is certain that his 
 daily employments were always ushered in by devout 
 meditation and study of the Scriptures." (Todd, 
 page 332.) 
 
 " His favorite book was the Book of God. To Milton, 
 when a child, Eevelation opened not her richest stores 
 in vain. To devotional subjects his infant strains were 
 dedicated; and never did ' his harp forget' to acknowl- 
 edge the aid he derived from the muse of sacred 
 
 inspiration It must gratify everj^ Christian 
 
 to reflect," Mr. Hagley observes, " that the man of our 
 country most eminent for energy of mind, for intense- 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 99 
 
 ness of application, and for frankness and intrepidity 
 in asserting whatever he believed to he the cause of truth, 
 was so confirmedly devoted to Christianity, that he 
 seems to have made the Eible not only the rule of his 
 conduct, but the prime director of his genius." Yes, 
 he says of himself, " I am among the free and ingenu- 
 ous sort of such as evidentlj^ were born for study, and 
 love learning for itself, not for lucre, or any other end 
 but the service of God and truth, and, perhaps, that last- 
 ing fame and perpetuity of praise, which God and good 
 men have consented shall be the reward of those whose 
 published labors advance the good of mankind." {Areo- 
 pagltica. Todd, page 248.) 
 
 Such was Milton, the devout student of the Scrip- 
 tures; the ardent seeker after truth; the profound 
 theologian; one of the ripest scholars and brightest in- 
 tellects of his own, or of any age ; and above all, as the 
 highest title, the sincere Christian. And what is his 
 grave offence? Why should the author of Sabbatismos 
 declare it fortunate that, as to Sunday, Milton "was not 
 its friend?" "We repl}^, simply because he held the 
 same convictions on this question as did Luther, Calvin, 
 Whately, White, Alexandei-, — no more! 
 
 As if it should be a matter of congratulation and of 
 gratitude, a "/or^imrtYe" circumstance, that an institu- 
 tion of God.' Q perpetual appointment (were it such), de- 
 pended upon the puny skill of the advocate for or 
 against it, thus placing it upon the lowest foundation 
 conceivable, as you would a cause in court, to be gained 
 not by the evidence and the law, but b}'' the good ^^ for- 
 tune " of your choice of an advocate. Could any ad- 
 mission, or an}' language, be more unhappy for the pur- 
 poses intended. 
 
 AVe cannot close this hv'iQi ^^Vindication'' of the mem- 
 
100 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ory of John Milton, without quoting the noble lines of 
 Wordsworth : 
 
 '' Milton ! thou shouldst be living at this hour. 
 
 Return to us again, 
 
 And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power. 
 
 Thy soul was like a star, and dwelt apart ; 
 Thou hadst a voice, whose sound was like the sea : 
 Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free; 
 So didst thou travel on life's common way, 
 
 In cheerful Godliness^ and yet thy heart 
 The lowliest duties on herself did lay." 
 
 Archbishop Whately. 
 
 Of all those who have discussed the " Sabbath ques- 
 tion," no one has written with more precision and 
 conclusiveness than Archbishop AYhately. Of singularly 
 penetrating understanding, logical mind, great breadth 
 and clearness of view, a large share of theological 
 knowledge and eminent piety, he was prepared to speak 
 with some degree of authority. 
 
 The argument which we quote at some length, will 
 please the reader as possfessing all the qualities which 
 might be expected from the pen of one so thoroughly 
 equipped. It does not, however, constitute all that 
 Whately has written upon this topic, and a reference to 
 his other works will reward the student who desires to 
 pursue his investigations on this subject. 
 
 " I have already," says Whately, '• hinted m}^ sus- 
 picions, that some persons, who do not really believe 
 the Mosaic law relative to the Sabbath to be binding on 
 Christians, yet think it right to encourage, or tacitly 
 connive at, that belief, from views of expediency, for 
 fear of unsettling the minds of the common people. 
 But there are many, no doubt, who maintain the same 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 101 
 
 tenet from sincere conviction. Some again there are, 
 who conceive the observance of the Lord's day to be 
 founded, not on the authority of the Decalogue, but on 
 a supposed command given to all mankind at the cre- 
 ation, the force of which, as it was antecedent to the 
 Mosaic law, cannot, of course, be affected by its aboli- 
 tion. These views, though I cannot' coincide with 
 them, are not, it is plain^ at all at variance with what 
 has been said in the fifth essay. 
 
 " But the op>inion that Christians are bound to the 
 hallowing of the Lord's day, in "obedience to the fourth 
 commandment, goes to nullify all that I have there 
 urged, since it implies that there is a part^ at least, of 
 the Mosaic law binding on Christians. I should say 
 thQ whole ; for, since the fourth commandment is evi- 
 dently not a moral, but a positive precept (it being a 
 thing in itself indifferent, antecedent to any command, 
 whether the seventh day, or the sixth, or the 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' (in their 'Con- 
 fession of Faith,' chap. xxi. §7), that the observance of 
 the Sabbath is a part of the moral law, is to me utterly 
 unintelligible. Yet, unless we assent to this, adopting 
 some such sense of the term 'moral' as it is difficult 
 even to imagine, I do not see on what principle we 
 can, consistently, admit the authority of the fourth 
 commandment, and yet claim exemption from the prohi- 
 bition of certain meats, and of blood, the rite of circum- 
 cision, or, indeed, any part of the Levitical law. But 
 to those who fear that the reverence due to the Lord's 
 daj" would be left without support, should we deny the 
 obligation of the Mosaic law, 1 would suggest two con- 
 
102 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 siderations, either of which would be alone 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 suf- 
 ficient to sanction and enforce the observance. 
 
 " To seek, therefore, for the support of 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.' 
 
 "In saying that there is no mention of the Lord's 
 day in the Mosaic law, I mean that there is not only 
 no mention of that specific festival which Christians 
 observe on the first day of the week, in memory of our 
 Lord's resurrection on the morning following the Jew- 
 ish Sabbath, but there is not (as has sometimes been 
 incautiously stated), any injunction to sanctify one day 
 in seven. Throughout the whole of the Old Testament 
 we never hear of keeping holy some one day in every 
 seven, but the seventh day, ^s the day on which ' God 
 rested from all His work.' The difference, accordingly, 
 between the Jews and the Christians, is not a difi'erence 
 of reckoning^ which would be a matter of no impor- 
 tance. Our computation is the same as theirs. They, 
 as well as we, reckon Saturday 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 presumptu- 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 103 
 
 ous to say that we are at liberty to alter a divine com- 
 mand, whose authority we admit to be binding upon 
 us, on the ground that it matters not whether this day 
 or that be set apart as a Sabbath, provided, that we 
 obey the divine injunction to observe a Sabbath." 
 
 Whately then instances the offence of ''Jeroboam, 
 the son of Nebat," who had made Israel to sin, " by 
 instituting a feast that he had devised of his own heart;" 
 that of the Samaritans, when they built a temple on 
 Mount Gerizim, &c., and proceeds to say, " I cannot, 
 therefore, but think that the error was less of those early 
 Christians, who, conceiving the injunction relative to 
 the Sabbath to be binding on them, obej'ed it just as it 
 was given (provided, they did not, contrary to the 
 Apostle's injunction, Eom. xiv. 2-6, presume to judge 
 their brethren who thought differently), than of those 
 who, admitting the eternal obligation of the precept, 
 yet presume to alter it on the authority of tradition. 
 Surely, if we allow that the 'tradition of the church' 
 is competent to change the express commands of God, we 
 are falling into one of the most dangerous errors of the 
 Eomanists; and this, while we loudly censure them for 
 presuming to refuse the cup to the laity at the Lord's 
 supper, on the authority of their church, though Christ 
 said to his disciples, ' drink ye all of this,' and for 
 pleading tradition in behalf of saint-worship, &c. But, 
 in the present case, there is not even any tradition to 
 the purpose. It is not merely that the Apostles left us 
 no command perpetuating the observance of the Sab- 
 bath, and transferring the day from the seventh to the 
 first. Such a change certainly would have been author- 
 ized by their express injunction, and by nothing short 
 of that, — since an express divine command can be ab- 
 rogated or altered only by the same power, and by the 
 
104 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 same distinct revelation, by which it was delivered. 
 But, not only is there no such apostolic injunction^ than 
 which nothing less would be sufficient, there is not even 
 any traditioyi of their having made such a change ; nay, 
 more, it is even abundantly j^lain that they made no 
 such change. 
 
 "There are, indeed, sufficiently plain marks of the 
 early Christians having observed the Lord's day as a re- 
 ligious festival, even from the very resurrection (John 
 XX. 19, 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Eev. i. 10); but so 
 far were they from substituting this for the Jewish Sab- 
 bath, that all of them who were Jeivs actually continued 
 themselves to observe not only the Mosaic Sabbath, but 
 the whole of the Levitical law, while to the Gentile con- 
 verts they said, ' Let no man judge you in meat, or in 
 drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new 
 moon, or of the Sabbath-day, which are a shadow of 
 things to come ; but the body is of Christ.' And, if we 
 come down to later ages of the church, we not only 
 find no allusion to any such tradition, but we find the 
 contrary distinctly implied, both in the writings of the 
 early fathers, and in those of the most eminent of the 
 founders of our Eeformation; e. g. in Cranmefs Cate- 
 chism, published in 1548, viz., the first year of Edward 
 YI. we find the following passage : ' And here note, good 
 children, that the Jewes, in the Old Testament, were 
 commanded to keep the Sabbath-da}^, and they ob- 
 served it every seventh day, called the Sabbat, or Sat- 
 terday. But we Christian men, in the New Testament, 
 are not bound to such commandment of Moses' law 
 concerning differences of times, days, and meats, but 
 have liberty and freedom to use other dayes for our 
 Sabbath-dayes, wherein to hear the word of God, and 
 keep an holy rest. And, therefore, that this Christian 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 105 
 
 liberty may be kept and maintained, we now keep no 
 more the Sabbatb on Saturday, as the Jews do; but we 
 observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the mag- 
 istrates do judge convenient whom in this thing we 
 ought to obey.' 
 
 " By the authority of the magistrates, Cranmer evi- 
 dently meant that of the church, &c., &c. In fact, the 
 notion I am contending against, seems, as far as I can 
 collect, to have originated with the Puritans not mucli 
 more than two hundred years ago, and to have been, 
 for a considerable time, confined to them; though it 
 was subsequently adopted by several members of our 
 
 church But if any persons are convinced that 
 
 it was given to Adam, and also conclude thence that it 
 must bind all his posterity, they are, of course, at least 
 equally bound by the (recorded) precept to Xoah, rela- 
 tive to abstinence from blood He who acknowl- 
 edges 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 the mode of observance If we ad- 
 mit 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 
 which are written; for instance (Exod. xxxv. 2, 3), 'Ye 
 shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the 
 Sabbath-day,' no one can pretend is a traditional pre- 
 cept ; yet I know of no Christians who profess to ob- 
 serve it If the positive institutions of the 
 
 Old Testament are wholl}^ abrogated, then, (and not 
 otherwise) all days become in themselves indifferent, 
 and in such a case, the Church has, as I have above 
 
 10 
 
106 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 remarked, full power to sanctify any that may be 
 thought more fitting; but, on the other hand, the 
 Church has not power to ordain anything 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, in- 
 stead of the seventh, becomes an unwarrantable pre- 
 sumption. This, therefore, is a case in which (unless 
 we consecrate two Sabbath-days in each week), we 
 must absolutely make our choice between the law and 
 the Gospel." {Note to Archbishop Whately's Essays 
 on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul; p. 
 45, and Appendix 337. London, 1830.) 
 
 We had proposed to here insert some extracts from 
 the sermons and letters of that eminent divine, the 
 late Frederick W. Eobertson, of Brighton, England. 
 We shall endeavor to print them in an appendix, if the 
 space, which we have allotted ourselves, will permit. 
 
 Bishop White. 
 Bishop White, in his lectures on the Catechism of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, after reciting the 
 fourth commandment, and noticing the difficulty which 
 attends the statement, that the " Sabbath" was observed 
 by the patriarchs, and expressing the belief that the 
 institution ceased in relation to the Jewish converts 
 to Christianity, quotes the text in Col. ii. 16, in proof 
 of it. He also remarks, " And this may show the rea- 
 son on which our Church avoids the calling of her day 
 of worship — 'the Sabbath.' It is never so called in 
 the New Testament. And in the primitive Church, 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 107 
 
 the term ' sabbatizing' carried with it the reproach of 
 a leaning to the abrogated observances of the law. 
 But on the ceasing of the Sabbath, with the moral rea- 
 son of it remaining — that is, in the duty of social wor- 
 ship, and in the utility of there being regular returns 
 of opportunities of it, the Apostles of our Saviour ap- 
 pointed, that there should be, as before, one day in 
 seven thus appropriated; but preferring the first day 
 of the week, in memory of the resurrection. Hence it 
 is called in one place in Scripture, ' the Lord's day ' 
 (Eev. i. 10). And there are other places which show 
 that the first day of the week was the stated time 
 to assemble for public worship. Perhaps the Lord's 
 day may be considered as the most suitable name for 
 the Christian Sabbath. And yet there is uo need for 
 such stiffness in this matter, as to fault the use of the 
 word ' Sunday,' which prevails in our Liturgy. The 
 early Christians conformed to the customs of their 
 heathen neighbors, in the calling of the days and the 
 months. In proof of this I shall refer to one authority 
 only. It is that of Justin, a blessed martyr, quoted in 
 a preceding lecture, as writing within half a century 
 after the last of the Apostles. Justin, in describing the 
 worship of Christians, as then performed on the first day 
 of the week, applies to it the name of 'Sunday.' 
 
 " It is hoped that the view here taken of the subject, 
 will enable us to answer the third question: How far 
 the appointment of the Sabbath is now binding on the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 "If the principles stated be correct, it follows, that 
 whatever rests only on any precept to the Israelites is 
 done away. But the object now being simpl}^ the uses 
 attached to public and private devotion, and to relig- 
 ious instructions received or given, the spirit of the 
 
108 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 appointment remains, dictating the means the best 
 adapted to the accomplishing of these uses, and pro- 
 hibiting whatever interferes with the same. This is 
 to be understood, w4th the exception of works of ne- 
 cessity, and those of mercy, so that in the present 
 state of society, differing materially, as it does, from 
 the circumstances of the Jewish people, if there be any 
 employment conducing to the civil weal, which cannot 
 be suspended on the Lord's day without the defeating 
 the very object; it seems to follow, that the suspension 
 may be dispensed with under such regulations of al- 
 ternate labor, as will be consistent with the interests 
 of civil life, without destroying, although, doubtless, 
 abridging the religious privileges of the persons so em- 
 ployed. In addition to this, the latitude here taken 
 embraces such occasional occupation, as may prevent 
 great loss : such as the gathering in of the harvest, 
 when it might otherwise be ruined, or materially dam- 
 aged, by an unfavorable state of the weather. 
 
 "This instance is here given in consequence of find- 
 ing, that on the conversion of the Eoman emperors, and 
 when they began to make laws for the hallowing of 
 the Lord's day, this was one of the exceptions ; which 
 would not have been made, had it been alien from the 
 sense of the Church, in her state then existing, and to 
 which she had attained after the fiery trials of her 
 heavy persecutions. What has been here said, is 
 deemed to be nothing more than what is consonant to 
 the saying of our Saviour, that the ' Sabbath was made 
 for man, and not man for the Sabbath.' 
 
 " Cases of difliculty and emergency being out of the 
 question, there can be nothing clearer, than that per- 
 sons who have their time, and their conduct at their own 
 disposal, are bound to spend the Lord's day in such a 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 109 
 
 maimer as shall answer the purposes of the appoint- 
 ment. It is not here said — for it is not thought — that 
 they are bound to a degree of precision, affected by some, 
 forbidding the ordinary civilities of life ; or such exercise 
 of the limbs of persons in sedentary employment, as may 
 be beneficial to their health. But all habits of living, 
 which prevent either masters and mistresses of families, 
 or their children, and their servants, from the devo- 
 tions of the Church, and of the closet; and anything 
 under the name, either of business or amusement, hav- 
 ing the same effect, is contrary to the Christian char- 
 acter; contrary to it in a point Avhich wise men have 
 always held essential to the maintaining of the visible 
 profession of Christianity; and not only this, but to 
 the maintaining of a popular regard to law, to order, 
 and to decorum." 
 
 By the phrase, the " moral reason of the Sabbath 
 remaining," w^e presume is meant that the duty of 
 worshipping our Creator is unalterable, and does not 
 depend upon the existence or non-existence of the 
 obligation of the fourth commandment. As to the ideas 
 of "substitution," and the alleged appointment by the 
 Apostles of the first day of the week, the subject has 
 alreadj^ been discussed, and the reader, with the New 
 Testament before him, is as capable of forming a cor- 
 rect judgment as the most acute theologian. 
 
 Though the thoughts expressed by the Bishop are ap- 
 parently less liberal than those of Luther and Calvin, 
 we think, upon examination, they will not be found so. 
 This, however, will the candid yield, that it is not the 
 " Puritan Sabbath" which he commends, if he is some- 
 what guarded in the expression of his sentiments. He 
 does not explain what he means by the interchange of 
 
 10* 
 
110 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 the '• civilities of life;" yet we can understand that the 
 concession of the right of recreation to the sedentary 
 admits pretty much all for which we have been con- 
 tending, and imports a much less rigid conception of 
 the privilege of Christians than the Doctor entertains, 
 when upon Sunday he would prohibit " meditation and 
 study," except upon religious topics, and falls back, as 
 his warrant for this position, upon the words in Isaiah 
 Iviii. 18, which enforce a dispensation which has passed 
 away : '' If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, 
 from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, not doing 
 thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor 
 speaking thine own words" (p. 143). 
 
 Eev. James W. Alexander, D.D. 
 
 This eminently excellent and pious clergyman, ripe 
 scholar, and liberal theologian, whose loss was deeply 
 lamented not only by his own denomination, the Pres- 
 byterian Church, but by other communions, in writing 
 from New York, says : " The question of riding in our 
 street cars on Sunday is agitating our community. I 
 have not been able to decide it. The poor go in cars; 
 the rich in coaches. The number of horses and men 
 employed is less than if there were no cars. It is a 
 query whether as many cars as these would be demand- 
 ed by those (among half a million), who have lawful 
 occasion to journey. If so, the question of duty would 
 be reduced to one of individual vocation to this amount 
 of locomotion. The whole matter of the Christian 
 Sabbath is a little perplexed to my mind. 1. All that 
 our Lord says on it is prima facie of the side of relaxa- 
 tion. 2. The Apostles, who enforce, and, as it were, 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. Ill 
 
 re-enact every other commandment of the ten, never 
 advert to this. 3. Even to Gentile converts they lay 
 no stress on this, which might be expected to come first 
 among externals. 4. According to the letter, Paul 
 teaches the Colossians (ii. 16), not to be scrupulous 
 about Sabbaths. I am not, therefore, surprised that 
 Calvin had doubts on the subject. The very strict 
 views on the Sabbath have prevailed in no part of 
 Christendom unconnected with the British Isles. I 
 must wait for more light. I admit the fact that spirit- 
 ual religion has most flourished w^here the strict opin- 
 ions have prevailed. My good father used to say, ' Be 
 very strict yourself; be very lenient in judging j'our 
 neighbors.' I have always taken milk without scru- 
 ple, which is an offence to hundreds of good people 
 among us. Some began to have qualms on Sunday 
 gas; but, on inquiry, they found the labor which pro- 
 duced it fell on Thursday or Friday. As I alwaj^sgive 
 my people a motto for the year, and preach on it, I 
 have chosen, 'My grace is sufficient for thee."' (Letter 
 dated New York, Dec. 31, 1852, from Forty Years' 
 Familiar Letters^ hy James W. Alexander, D.D., vol. ii., 
 p. 183. New York, 1861.) 
 
 The doctrine maintained by the author of '' Sabba- 
 tismos," is not a half-way doctrine. There is no quali- 
 fication or modification in it. It is with him the whole 
 laW; as binding and as rigidly to be enforced now, as it 
 was by the Jews, before the new dispensation, or by the 
 Puritans and "Pilgrim Fathers" since. He evidently 
 believes the ceremonial part of the fourth commandment 
 still in existence, else why so inconsistent as to over- 
 load his book with obsolete quotations from the Old 
 
112 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 Testament. He is opposed to the convictions of the 
 great lights of his own and other churches. He brings 
 himself clearly within the line of Calvin's condemna- 
 tion, as one of those ^^ false prophets" whom the Ee- 
 former so bitterly denounces. 
 
 Indeed, if we did not believe the Doctor eminently 
 sincere^ in all he has attempted to prove, we should 
 pronounce him a Jew in disguise (not that we mean to 
 reflect upon those of that sect who, in their strictness, 
 conscientiously think they are right), for what Jew in 
 the days of Moses could go further than the Doctor 
 goes, when he insists, as we have already mentioned, 
 that the individual is prohibited "from meditation and 
 study and the outgo of desire after his business on the 
 holy day ; for this interferes with other parts of the con- 
 secration" (p. 143). It, therefore, follows — that if the 
 whole of the Sunday is not observed, nay, if nine-tenths 
 of such portion of it as is not required for sleep, &c., is 
 not kept sacred, that is by attendance upon church, or 
 devotion to holy meditation, and if not to meditation, 
 at least to all freedom from thought, whatever, or from 
 such thoughts as are worldly in their nature ; the one- 
 tenth so bestowed, nay, the least conceivable portion 
 of a tenth, neutralizes all the piety, all of the " good 
 works," exhibited in the other nine-tenths, and the man 
 has grievously sinned by breaking the fourth command- 
 ment. This is a reiteration of the violation of the law 
 even in a tittle. There is no escape in this conclusion 
 from the premises laid down. Now, let us in all seri- 
 ousness ask our author whether he has not often, since 
 he assumed the duties of his calling, infringed the fourth 
 commandment. Has he never, in his long life, had a 
 wayward passing thought upon worldly affairs, or con- 
 versed upon a worldly topic, even if but for a moment ? 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 113 
 
 Has he never, if not counselled, at least permitted, upon 
 occasion, to pass without rebuke, some violation of the 
 strictness he endeavors to enforce ? Has he never been 
 driven to the house of God, when he might as conve- 
 niently have w^alked ? Has he not, upon Sunday and 
 without protest, partaken of hospitality, if he has for- 
 bidden it under his own roof, w^hcre those who served 
 had not, in consequence, that rest which the fourth com- 
 mandment so strictly enjoins? We mean no reflection 
 upon him, we do not blame him, w^e cast no censure, he 
 is but a mortal; and we allude merely to that unavoid- 
 able breach of the Jewish code which all may commit, 
 who live among their fellows, and an escape from which 
 can be found, only, in the life of the ascetic. We have 
 said, we do not blame him ; we should, however, have 
 been gratified, had he frankly admitted that such ob- 
 servance as he insists upon, is not attainable in our 
 sublunary sinful sphere, but this perhaps would have 
 been a relinquishment of his ground, and an acknowl- 
 edgment that the fourth commandment may, under 
 some circumstances, be the subject of qualification or 
 change. 
 
 A statute, however, although it may cease by its ow n 
 limitation, cannot be the subject of alteration or re- 
 peal, save by the power which enacted it. It is not, 
 therefore, to suit his own view, in the power of him 
 against whom its provisions are directed, to modify the 
 stringency of its requirements. 
 
 In speaking of the letter of the Jewish Law, the 
 Eev. Baden Powell, says, " The Law^ conformed to many 
 points of human infirmity. It afforded splendid rites 
 and ceremonies to attract popular reverence, and wean 
 the people from their proneness to the gross ceremo- 
 nies of idolatry. It indulged the disposition so pow^- 
 
114 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 erfully inherent in human nature, to observe 'days and 
 times and seasons/ by the Sabbaths and feasts, and by 
 occasional fasts, originally only a symbol of ordinary 
 mourning, but afterwards invested with a religious 
 character (Isa. Iviii ; Joel ii. 12). It commended aveng- 
 ing and sanguinary zeal, especially in the punishment 
 of blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 14; Deut. xiii. 9). It sanc- 
 tioned the ^^lex talionis,^' life for life, eye for eye, tooth 
 for tooth (Exod. xxi. 23, 24), that most perfect idea of 
 retributive justice to the uncivilized mind; and, in gen- 
 eral, it connected the idea of punishment with, that of 
 vengeance and satisfaction, the most congenial to a bar- 
 barous apprehension. If it restricted marriages within 
 certain degrees of kindred, it at least connived at po- 
 lygamy (Exod. xxi. 10; Deut. xxi. 15; Judg. viii. 30, 
 &c. ; Neandefs Life of Christ, translation, p. 252, Bohn's 
 ed.), and allowed a law of divorce suited to ' the hard- 
 ness of their hearts ' (Matt. xix. 8). On the other hand, 
 it visited the violation of conjugal fidelity in the se- 
 verest manner, punishing fornication in married per- 
 sons with death by stoning (Deut. xxii. 22 ; Lev. xx. 
 10). It fully recognized and upheld slavery" (Lev. 
 XXV. 44, &c.). 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 115 
 
 CHAPTEE XL 
 The Quaker and the Puritan. 
 
 The principles of Penn with respect to the observ- 
 ance of the first day of the week, were those of Bar- 
 clay (see the extract from the ^^ Apology,'' ante, p. 95), 
 and are as widely apart from the Doctor's as are the 
 poles. 
 
 Mark the language of Penn's law of 1G82.* The 
 
 * The following is taken from an authentic copy, and forms a 
 part of the 'Great Law,' or body of acts passed at Chester, in 
 December, 1682, in the beginning of Penn's administration. 
 
 The sentiments expressed are so liberal, and so strongly in con- 
 trast with the legislation of the other Colonies and Provinces, 
 that we deem it excusable to give space to its insertion. 
 
 Chap. I. ^ I. Concerning Liberty op Conscience. 
 
 " Almighty God, being only Lord of Conscience, Father of 
 Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine 
 knowledge, faith and worship, who only can enlighten the Minds, 
 and persuade and convince the understandings of people, in due 
 Reverence to His Sovereignty over the Souls of Mankind, Beit En- 
 acted, &c.. That no person, now, or at any time hereafter. Living 
 in this Province, who shall Confess and acknowledge One Al- 
 mighty God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, 
 and that professeth, him or herself, obliged in Conscience to Live 
 peaceably and quietly under the Civil government, shall, in any 
 Case, be molested or prejudiced for his or her conscience, per- 
 suasion, or practice. 
 
 " Nor shall he or she, at any time, be compelled to frequent or 
 
116 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 ''good example of the primitive Christians," and the 
 " ease of the creation," are specially mentioned, while 
 not a word is said about the Doctor's favorite dogma — 
 for the phrase "perpetual moral obligation of the fourth 
 commandment," and the use of the word " Sabbath," 
 are carefully excluded. And what is equally remark- 
 able, no penalty is designated for the violation of the 
 statute. 
 
 The Doctor is complaisant, and evidently gratified 
 because Penn thus "records his estimation of the Sab- 
 bath" (p. 125). He is so happy to have the founder of 
 Pennsylvania apparently on his side, that he brings 
 him into his councils without scrutiny of the plainness 
 of his garb, or the liberality of his princij^les. 
 
 The significant omission of any allusion to the fourth 
 commandment in the use of the word Sabbath, cannot 
 be overlooked. The Doctor must, however, say some- 
 maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, con- 
 trary to his or her mind, but shall freely and full}'- enjoy his or 
 her Christian Liberty in that respect, without any interruption 
 or reflexion. 
 
 " And if any person shall Abuse or deride any other for his or 
 her different persuasion and practice in matter of religion, such 
 person shall be Looked upon as a disturber of the peace, and be 
 punished accordingly. 
 
 " But to the End that Looseness, Irreligion, and Atheism may 
 not creep in, under pretence of Conscience in this Province, Be 
 it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that according to 
 the example of the* primitive Christians, and for the ease of the 
 Creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's Day, 
 people shall abstain from their Usual and Common Toil and La- 
 bour ; That, whether masters, parents, children, or servants, they 
 may the better dispose themselves to read the Scriptures of truth 
 at home, or to frequent such meetings of Religious worship abroad 
 as may best suit their respective persuasions." 
 
 From the Great Law adopted at Chester, 7th 10th mo. 1682. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 117 
 
 thing, and accordingly observes: " lie, Penn, does not 
 use the word Sabbath, nor the word Sunday; but first 
 day of the w^eek, and the Lord's Day, both Scriptural 
 epithets. So let it stand " (p. 126). And so it shall 
 sta7id against the Doctor, but the Doctor does not stand. 
 The ground slips from under his feet, and he is hoisted 
 by his own petard. He gives up the vital point of the 
 whole controversy — Penn's avoidance of the word 
 "Sabbath," meant, as we shall see, all of Penn's faith on 
 this subject. 
 
 We imagine the Doctor, when we have proceeded a 
 little further, will feel surprised at the company he has 
 been keeping, and blame the innocency of his heart for 
 the expression of such strong terms of admiration for 
 a law which he has thus been betrayed into eulogizing. 
 Had he read Penn's writings, or consulted the Colonial 
 Eecords, he would not have hauled down his flag upon 
 which the word "Sabbath" was inscribed, to flaunt 
 another with a diff'erent inscription. 
 
 In the Colonial Eecords he would have found that 
 at the meetings of the Executive Council, over which 
 Penn, in person, presided, ^^ Saturday'' is called ^^ Sab- 
 bath," as for example, " die Sabbathi, 27th January, 
 1699, 1700;" "die Sabbathi, 3d February, 1699, 1700;'^ 
 " die Sabbathi, 1st June, 1700," &c. (1 Col. Eec, 510, 591, 
 593.) 
 
 And had he read Penn's writings, he would have 
 found the plainest and most direct expression on the 
 utter annihilation of the fourth commandment as a 
 moi^al obligation, and as clear an exposition of the 
 whole subject, as can be found in the compositions of 
 any of the theologians who have written on the sub- 
 ject. His trumpet gives no uncertain sound, and it 
 
 11 
 
118 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 will be abundantly manifest why he so carefully avoided 
 the use of the word " Sabbath." 
 
 He says, " To call any day of the week a Christian 
 Sabbath, is not Christian but Jewish; give us one scrip- 
 ture for it; I will give two against it. Gal. iv. 9, 10, 
 11, 12, where the apostle makes their observation, or 
 preference, of days, to be no less than a token of their 
 turning from the gospel. Also, Col. ii. 16 : an outward 
 Sabbath, a keeping of a day, to be but a shadow ; and 
 that Christians ought not to be judged for rejecting 
 such custom; for this very reason the Protestant 
 churches beyond the seas generally deny the morality of 
 the first day, counting all days alike in themselves, only 
 they have respect to the first day, as an apostolical 
 custom, and think it convenient to give one day of 
 
 rest from labor to man and beast each week 
 
 In short, though we assert but one Christian Sabbath, 
 and believe that to be the everlasting day of rest from all 
 our own works^ to worship and enjoy Grod in the newness 
 of the spirit; yet 'tis well known that we both meet 
 upon the first day in the week, and behave ourselves 
 with as an inoff*ensive a conversation as any of our 
 Sabbatarian adversaries'' . . . (Note to John Faldo's Vin- 
 dication — Penn's Works, First Folio Edition, vol. ii. p. 
 379, London, 1726.) 
 
 Penn is, if possible, still more emphatic in the asser- 
 tion of his convictions in a treatise also written in 
 1673, entitled ^^ Wisdom justified of her Children from the 
 Ignorance and Calumny of H. Hallywell," &c., ch. iv. § 1. 
 " Of the Sabbath-day." 
 
 Hallywell accuses the Familists and Quakers of 
 making no distinction between "Sabbath" and any 
 other day, and of following their usual trades on that 
 day. 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 119 
 
 To which Penn re])lies, that if the Familists did so, 
 it was nothing to the Quakers. "And to say," he re- 
 marks, "that we many times follow our usual trades 
 on that day, is a plain untruth; the whole world knows 
 better, though we do not Judaize ; for worship was not 
 made for time, but time for worship; nor is there any 
 day holy of itself, though holy things may be per- 
 formed upon a day." 
 
 " But he (Hallywell) tells us, yes ; for the fourth com- 
 mandment being as moral as the rest, and that requiring a 
 Sabbath-day, is perpetuated also. 
 
 ^'Answer. But this hurts us not, since the Jewish Sab- 
 bath is not observed by the Church of England. But if 
 a Sabbath-day be moral because mentioned in the 
 fourth commandment; then because the Jeios' seventh 
 day is there particularly mentioned, their Sabbath must 
 be only moral, and consequently unalterable. 
 
 "But," says he, "No; for that the apostles and suc- 
 ceeding church of God, may very reasonably dispose 
 of us in matters of this nature ; and it is obligatory 
 from the ten commandments, every one of which is 
 moral, and binds all Christians still ; and therefore the 
 Church of England (though these rebellious Quakers 
 disown their mother) doth make it part of her liturgy. 
 
 " Answer. If it be as moral as all the rest, as it must be 
 if it be moral, because of its being there, they could no 
 more dispense with it, than with any other command- 
 ment. To call that day moral, and make it alterable, 
 is ridiculous. 'Tis true, the apostles met upon the 
 first day, and not on the seventh ; but as that released 
 118 from any pretended morality of the seventh, so nei- 
 ther did it confer any morality upon the first ; yea, so 
 far were they from it, that not one speaks any such 
 thing; but Paid much the contrary: Let no man judge 
 
120 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 you in meats or in drinks^ or in respect of a holy day, or 
 of new moons, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a shadow 
 of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Col. ii. 17, 18. 
 The outward Sabbath was typical of the great rest of 
 the gospel, which such come to who cease from their 
 own work, and in whom the works of God's new crea- 
 tion come to be accomplished. 
 
 ''And though I should acknowledge the other com- 
 mands to be moral, 3^ea, and times too, both respecting 
 God's worshij^, and the creature's rest; yet there is no 
 more reason for the morality of that day, because 
 amongst those commandments, than for the ceremoni- 
 ousness and abrogation of several moral precepts, be- 
 cause scattered up and down among the ceremonial 
 laws, and recorded in Leviticus. 
 
 "I grant that the apostles met on that day; but 
 must it, therefore, be moral ! Certaiuly the Scripture's 
 silence in this particular must either conclude a great 
 neglect against those holy men in not recommending 
 and enjoying more expressly both water, bread, wine 
 and holy days in their several epistles to the churches; 
 or warrant us in our belief concerning the temporari- 
 ness of these things. Let our adversary reproach us 
 not for not believing that to be durable, w^hich was 
 wearing off and vanishing in those days ; but soberly 
 consider, that the practice of the best men, especially 
 in such cases, is no institution, though sometimes it 
 may be an example. But I perceive he makes bold, 
 like an irreverent son, with his ghostly fathers, who, 
 through his reflections upon us, severely rebuke them. 
 Has he so quickly forgot the Book of Sports, and who 
 put it out; when not to propjhane this Sabbath with dancings, 
 riots and revels, had been enough to render a man an enemy 
 to Ccesar, and a schismatical Puritan to the Church f If he 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 121 
 
 be not satisfy'd with this, I refer him to Calvin's Insti- 
 tutes, Bp. Ironside and Dr. Peter Ileylin, concerning the 
 non-morality of the Sabbath ; and a great wonder it is, 
 that John Calvin and Peter Heylin should be of one 
 opinion on anything." (Id., vol. ii, pp. 479, 480.) 
 
 It is curious, though, that the Doctor, whose senti- 
 ments accord w^th those of the Puritans in all their 
 severit}^, should have, as a witness, summoned Penn, 
 for, had that eminent " Quaker" or any of the same 
 faith have visited Boston a second time, after a warn- 
 ing to depart, he would have suffered upon Boston 
 Common the fate of poor Mary Dyer.* 
 
 That simplicity of dress and speech, which seem to 
 have w^on the Doctor's tender confidence, so that from a 
 controversialist he becomes a courtier, would have been 
 Penn's surest source of condemnation with the dread 
 tribunal of Boston. The Puritan W'ho had suffered for 
 opinion's sake does not seem to have had his heart 
 warmed towards the gentle, unresenting, unresisting 
 Quaker. With one it was " an eye for an eye, a tooth 
 for a tooth," with the other obedience to the Saviour's 
 injunction of submission under injuries. The one did 
 not become the gentler under persecutions, but the 
 other became forgiving, charitable, catholic, the ardent 
 friend of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 These were the terms used towards the inoffensive 
 disciples of George Fox. These " blasphemous here- 
 tics," " this pernicious sect," with " their dangerous and 
 horrid tenets." To entertain a Quaker was to be 
 whipt — " Plymouth Records,'' — and the punishment was 
 graduated to the offence. A male Quaker who a 
 
 * It is possible that some of the severe laws, against the Quak- 
 ers, may have been repealed in 1682; but if the fact, it does not 
 affect the argument. 
 
 11* 
 
122 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 second time offended, by coming into the jurisdiction, 
 should, for the first offence, "have one of his ears cut 
 off, and be kept at work in the house of correction till 
 he can be sent away at his own charge, and for the 
 second to have the other ear cut off;" a woman, for the 
 same offence, was to be " severely whipped," and kept 
 at the house of correction, and for the third offence 
 " they shall have their tongues bored through with a 
 hot iron." Massachusetts Records^ Oct. 14th, 1657. 
 
 The culmination of punishment was death. One of 
 the reasons given for the enactment of the law of 1682, 
 by the first Assembly of Pennsylvania, which the Doc- 
 tor so much lauds, was that all " may better dispose 
 themselves to read the Scriptures of truth at home, or 
 to frequent such religions meetings abroad as may best 
 suit their respective persuasions," leaving an alterna- 
 tive. 
 
 How did the Doctor's friends in New England, or 
 rather those who held the same scriptural notions 
 which he now entertains, treat those who were inclined 
 to worship) God according to the dictates of their con- 
 science ? Why, by banishment upon pain of death ; they 
 were styled the " pernicious sect," ..." who do take 
 upon themselves to change and alter the received laud- 
 able customs of our nation in giving civil respect to 
 equals, in reverence to superiors, whose actions tend to 
 undermine the authority of civil government, so as to 
 destroy the order of the churches, by denying all estab- 
 lished forms of worship, and by withdrawing from the 
 orderly church assemblies allowed and approved by all 
 orthodox j^rofessors of the truth." Laws of Massa- 
 chusetts, Edition of 1672. 
 
 The laws of New Plymouth were very rigid, follow- 
 ing Deuteronomy, Numbers, &c., in several particulars: 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 123 
 
 ''Any child, above sixteen years old," "smiting their 
 natiiralfather or mother," "shall be put to death;" "pro- 
 faning the Sabbath or Lord's day by doing unnecessary 
 servile work," " unnecessarj^ travailing," "or by sports 
 and recreations," was punished by fine or public whip- 
 ping, and if the offence was "proudly, presumptuously 
 and with a high hand committed," the penalty was 
 death ! or such other punishment as the court might in- 
 flict. The Capital Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth, 
 revised and j)ublished by order of the General Court, in 
 June, 1671. ^qq Blue Laws of Massachusetts. Hartford, 
 1838, pp. 17, 55. 
 
 By the laws of Connecticut, without just cause the 
 " withdrawing one self from hearing the public ministry 
 of the Word." 
 
 "Doing servill work" on Sunday, "such as are not 
 workes of piety," ka., "prophane discourse or talke, 
 rude and unreverent behavioure," were all punishable 
 offences. Blue Laws of Connecticut,^. 108. 
 
 In 1776 the law, with respect to non-attendance on 
 divine worship, was regarded as having grown obsolete. 
 
 But these were still held to be punishable offences: 
 " Presence at a concert of music, travelling, a collection 
 of persons, or, in the words of the law, companies meet- 
 ing in the street or elsewhere,'^ " going from home un- 
 less to attend a place of public worship or some work 
 of necessity or mercy." No vessel was allowed to leave 
 port on the first day of the week, nor to pass any town 
 where public worship was maintained. See " A System 
 of the Laws of Connecticut,'' by Zephaniah Swift, vol. ii., 
 p. 325. Windham, 1796. See also Compilation of Ear- 
 liest Laws of Connecticut. Hartford, 1822. 
 
 The following were punishable offences by the laws 
 of Massachusetts : 
 
124 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 Travelling on the Lord's day, ''except by some ad- 
 versity they were belated and forced to lodge in the 
 Woods, Wilderness or Highways the JS'ight before." 
 Act of 4 William & Mary. Acts & Laws of Prov. Mass. 
 Bay, N. E. Boston, 1762, p. 14. 
 
 " Persons walking, recreating and disporting them- 
 selves in the Streets, Wharffs or Fields in the time of 
 public worship." Act of 1711, Id. 185. 
 
 One month's neglect, without good cause, of attend- 
 ance upon place of public worship. Act of 1716, Id. 
 211. 
 
 The reader is further referred to the reprint of the 
 " General Laws and Liberties of Conecticut Colonic," 
 &c., 1673. Edited by George Brinley. Hartford, 1865. 
 
 And to the reprint of " New Haven's Settling," &c. 
 hj Charles J. Hoadley. Hartford, 1858. 
 
 Such were some of the laws of the Pilgrim Fathers . 
 and of the New England pioneers who, notwithstand- 
 ing their hardness and despotic temper, have still 
 claims to our regard. We should be better pleased, 
 however, as would, doubtless, many others, to see upon 
 Forefathers' Day those claims, about which there is no 
 dispute, for the sake of the virtuous example, enlarged 
 upon with even greater earnestness, and the vices of 
 bigotry, intolerance, and spiritual pride, about which 
 there is also no dispute, brought a little more into the 
 foreground, for the sake of the warning example. 
 
 But, what a curious metamorphosis has the lapse of 
 two centuries wrought. The descendants of the Puritans 
 are now the strenuous champions of the sacred right of 
 I)rivate judgment, the stanchest advocates of civil and 
 religious liberty, and wherever they go they bear with 
 them the blessings of thrift, enterprise, and education. 
 Boston tolerant, sets an example to Philadelphia in- 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 125 
 
 tolerant, upon the very question on wliicli of all others, 
 Penn, and his associates in 1682, most differed from the 
 Bostonians of that day. 
 
 We have now finished the task which we had as- 
 signed ourselves. If we have quoted largely, it was 
 because we preferred that others should speak rather 
 than we. And besides, there is but one mode of calm- 
 ing the fears of the timid, and of inducing inquiry on 
 their part, and that is by presenting the arguments of 
 the leading authorities of the Church. If a positive 
 assertion of Dr. Junkin is met by the positive assertion 
 of one greater than he, no exertions which he may put 
 forth will preserve an equilibrium, the beam must go 
 up, if Calvin and Luther are in the opposite scale; such 
 is the homage man invariably pays to superiority of 
 intellect. 
 
 It is to be lamented that theology, like the law, has 
 become a science of precedents, and although we are 
 told that he who runs may read, yet the question is too 
 often put, "What does this or that commentator say 
 upon this or that passage?" so that the unlearned 
 should congratulate himself, when the more learned 
 range themselves on that side which to his mind ap- 
 pears the just and obvious one, and to which his heart 
 responds as the cause of truth. 
 
 The whole subject at issue turns upon the binding 
 force of the fourth commandment, for the Sabbatarian 
 sets out with the assertion that the morality of the fourth 
 commandment is still operative, and that the command 
 therein is not to worship God at all times, but to wor- 
 ship him on a particular day, wherein consists the 
 morality of the commandment. The reader will please 
 not forget the distinction, namely, that the Anti-sabba- 
 tarian does not dispute, that man is bound to worship 
 
126 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 his Maker at all times, but says that he is not bound 
 to worship him on the seventh day, which is the only 
 day pointed out in the Decalogue. 
 
 With this the Sabbatarian immediately shifts his 
 ground^ when you press him, and tells you that he ad- 
 mits that man is not bound to keep the fourth command- 
 ment so far as relates to the observance of the seventh 
 day; that it has ceased under the new dispensation, 
 and you need no longer pay the least respect to it. Nay, 
 further, that it is Judaizing, and in a sense discredit- 
 able in a Christian to pay the least regard to it. 
 
 If you then ask him, why he so insists upon the fourth 
 commandment, coupling in its support text upon text 
 from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, &c., and that all this 
 seems insincere, and also inconsistent with his pro- 
 fessions to disregard it, he replies, that you mistake 
 him, that he does not say you may disregard it, but that 
 when w^e repeat the commandment that the Lord blessed 
 the seventh day, we must, in our minds, substitute the 
 word FIRST day, and say that " he hallowed it," because 
 the first day was substituted by the apostles for the 
 seventh day ! 
 
 Here, you remind him, as to what Calvin says, that 
 " this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, 
 while you retain the same opinion of the holiness of a 
 day" (see ante, page 91), and ask him for his authority, 
 as to any command of substitution, whereby the seventh 
 day, which was commanded to be kept holy for special 
 reasons, should be thus changed for the first day. He 
 is unable to give you any authority of Christ, or of the 
 apostles, but points you out sundry texts, wherein to 
 him, he says, it is clear, that the disciples met on the 
 first day for worship. (See aiite, pp. 37, 88, &c.) It is 
 thus you are treated, and if you are not satisfied with 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 127 
 
 his mere assertion, you are pronounced an infidel, a dis- 
 believer in the Scriptures ; for his mind continually recurs 
 to the Judaizing view of the case, and in this rut his intel- 
 lect ever runs, and if for a moment lifted out of it, is but 
 fated to fall into it again. Penn, in his usual forcible 
 way, well describes this mental infirmity, when he says, 
 as we have seen, " ^o call that day" (i. e. the seventh) 
 " MORAL, and make it alterable, is ridiculous." 
 
 Some may doubt how any apostolic command could 
 dispense with the obligation of the fourth command- 
 ment (were it moral, when in truth it is simply ceremo- 
 nial), any more than that an apostolic command could 
 dispense with any of the nine, which are admitted to 
 be moral, and for reasons irrespective of the fact that 
 they are incorporated in the Decalogue. 
 
 But this cannot be disputed, that nothing short of an 
 apostolic command unequivocally expressed (and so 
 expressed, were that possible, as to harmonize with 
 Paul's declaration to the Eomans — xiv. 5, 6), to keep 
 the fourth commandment, by substituting the first for 
 the seventh day, would be binding on mankind. 
 
 We have now shown the perfect lawfulness, in a re- 
 ligious point of view, of unrestrained locomotion upon 
 the first day of the week, whether the freedom of phys- 
 ical action relates to ourselves, or to the running of 
 passenger cars upon the street. 
 
 It, therefore, follows that all legislation, adverse to 
 this right, is as unconstitutional as it is iniquitous. It 
 is a shallow pretence, to say, that this despotic re- 
 striction must find its justification, in the right of all 
 States to impose that which tends to the alleged promo- 
 
128 THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 tion of the public good. This is begging the question, 
 and is merely the enforcement of the plea, by which 
 tyranny, be it civil or religious, has ever sought to 
 palliate its action. History is full of such examples ; 
 they are the dark spots upon the sands of time, where 
 blood has been shed, where the struggle between right 
 and wrong has taken place too often, alas ! in favor of 
 the wrong. 
 
 If, therefore, there is no inherent immorality — if that 
 which it is sought to prohibit upon one day of the 
 week, is morally lawful, nay, as we have said, perhaps 
 commendable, to do upon any other, no legislation can 
 make it criminal or punishable. The whole question 
 turns upon the morality or immorality of the act of 
 volition sought to be restrained, and in this distinction 
 there is that well-defined boundary, which, if over- 
 leaped, makes legislation unlawful and tyrannous. 
 
 Man in society surrendered certain rights which, in 
 a state of nature, he enjoyed, and others he did not 
 surrender, because inalienable. He never surrendered 
 that which related to the exercise of volition, or gave 
 others the right to declare that immoral, improper, and 
 to be prohibited, upon any one day of the seven, which 
 was moral and proper, and not to be prohibited upon 
 any of the six days of the week. 
 
 But the advocate of prohibition says, " 1 have a right 
 to worship God upon the first day of the week accord- 
 ing to the dictates of my conscience, and you have no 
 right to disturb me in its enjoyment." To which he, 
 who seeks the country by his own or a public convey- 
 ance, replies, " I do not wish to disturb your rights, or 
 to invade your house of worship, or to impose any 
 other creed than that which you have chosen, /prefer 
 worshipping God at all times, or I prefer to worship 
 
THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 129 
 
 him some other day of the week, or in the early morn- 
 ing before your service may begin, but you must not 
 disturb me in the enjoyment of my right, if in its pur- 
 suit I use such lawful means as are within my reach. 
 It is possible that in the pursuit, I may disturb you^ 
 but not others whose nervous sensibilities may not be 
 so acute ; but if I am seeking a legitimate end by legit- 
 imate means, and creating no greater confusion than 
 is absolutely unavoidable, and that the use of the most 
 available mechanical contrivances may permit, and all 
 this peaceably and without malice, I infringe no privi- 
 lege of yours. If you have the right to restrain my 
 means of locomotion, whether in walking or riding, in 
 driving or in being driven, you may, if you have the 
 power and choose, limit me to the confines of my own 
 dwelling, and revive against my civil and religious lib- 
 erties the most odious laws that ever disgraced a gov- 
 ernment that was not a despotism." 
 
 In conclusion, we remark that right must ever triumph 
 in the end; senseless bigotry may retard reform, but it 
 never yet won the day against enlightened public sen- 
 timent. 
 
 Let all who now despond take courage, for the hour 
 of deliverance draweth nigh. 
 
 12 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 The following extracts, of too great length for insertion in the 
 hody of the work, are from the writings of the late Rev. Frederick 
 W. Robertson, incumbent of Trinity Chapel, Brighton, England, 
 a man beloved by all who knew him for the consistent purity of his 
 life, and esteemed for the scholarship, fearlessness, and ability of 
 his pulpit ministrations, but whose career was brief. He died in 
 August, 1853, at the age of thirty-seven. 
 
 The American editor of his sermons remarks of him : 
 
 "The Rev. Frederick W. Robertson, — whose beautiful life and 
 early death have left the deepest impression of love, admiration, 
 and regret on all who knew him, — finished his career on the very 
 threshold of middle age, having exercised his sacred calling, during 
 the last years of his life, at Brighton, where the effect of his ministry 
 will long be felt by all classes, and where the seed of righteousness 
 he sowed will yield increasing harvests when all personal memory 
 of him must have passed away. . . . But, beside the effect pro- 
 duced by his public ministry and personal intercourse on the more 
 educated classes who came within his influence, Mr. Robertson ob- 
 tained a power for good over the workingmen and mechanics of 
 Brighton, which makes his name a watchword still among them, 
 full of Divine inspiration, of strength, and eflScacy. His deep re- 
 spect and tender love for humanity, induced him and enabled him 
 to become a friend to the laboring population of the city where he 
 lived, such as they may hardly hope in each of their individual 
 lives to find again. 
 
 '' With the strongest feelings for their peculiar wants, he had a 
 wise and true perception of their duties and compensations ; his 
 sympathy for them never betrayed him into injustice to others, 
 
132 APPENDIX. 
 
 and the temperate soundness and manly sobriety of his judgment, 
 prevented his genuine and deep tenderness of feeling from ever be- 
 coming that species of pseudo-philanthropy, which, in its cham- 
 pionship of the rights of one class forgets the claims of all men, 
 and becomes a bitter sort of social fanaticism, which has nothing 
 in common with the spirit of Christ. 
 
 " The death of this man was assuredly his own exceeding great 
 reward. To all who knew him, it must be a lifelong loss, but sadly 
 softened by the remembrance of his excellence." 
 
 Mr. Robertson's sermons, which are not excelled by any similar 
 compositions for boldness, clearness, and comprehensiveness, are 
 read by a constantly increasing circle of admirers. The discourse, 
 from which we quote, is upon Romans xiv. 5, 6, with which text 
 our readers will have, ere this, become tolerably familiar, and was 
 preached when the excitement ran very high in England upon the 
 proposal for opening the Crystal Palace upon Sundays. He has 
 the courage to maintain that the Apostle means just what he says, 
 that every day applies with equal force to the Jewish seventh as 
 the Christian first day. The word courage, we repeat, because we 
 are disposed to contrast the intrepidity of his utterance, and which 
 receives an impulse from the fearless spirit of the great Apostle 
 himself, with, to use the mildest term, the timidity of many other 
 commentators upon the sacred text, who, wedded to a preconceived 
 theory, or fearful to alarm the prejudices of their readers, have 
 either passed in silence a portion of the passage in question, or ap- 
 prehensive that the frank interpretation of the remainder would 
 injure what they choose to regard as the cause of the Christian Sab- 
 bath, have presented the less obvious for the plainer explication ; 
 a treatment, which in this scanning and keenly critical age, when 
 the very foundations of truth are undergoing investigation afresh, 
 is shortsighted and damaging to the side they espouse, to morality, 
 and to the dearest interests of religion itself. 
 
 Let that great jury, the eager generation of inquiring minds, 
 now beginning its career, earnest in the pursuit of truth, dis- 
 posed to question rather than assent, inclined to distrust rather than 
 to repose confidence, but doubt the credibility of the testimony 
 offered for its consideration ; let it suspect an inclination to suppress 
 or gloss ; let it believe that in the opinion of the advocates of a par- 
 ticular theory, the appearance of consistency demands the forced 
 
APPENDIX. 133 
 
 construction of a word or a sentence, and the moral and religious 
 history of a century may by its verdict be forever cluinged. 
 
 All honor, therefore, to that candor of soul, whose purity of 
 Christian motive none can doubt, which, without being captious, 
 speaks forth its convictions in the belief that truth honestly spoken 
 cannot harm. 
 
 Extracts from a Sermon preached on Romans xiv. : 5, 6. 
 
 " It has been maintained that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution ; 
 in its strictness, at all events, not binding on a Christian community. 
 It has been urged with much force that we cannot consistently re- 
 fuse to the poor man, publicly, that right of recreation which, pri- 
 vately, the rich man has long taken without rebuke, and with no 
 protest on the part of the ministers of Christ. And it has been 
 said, that such places of recreation will tend to humanize, which, if 
 not identical with Christianizing the population, is at least a step 
 towards it. 
 
 " Upon such a subject where truth does not lie upon the surface, it 
 cannot be out of place, if a minister of Christ endeavors to direct 
 the minds of his congregation towards the formation of an opinion; 
 not dogmatically, but humbly, remembering always that his own 
 temptation is, from his very position as a clergyman, to view such 
 matters, not so much in the broad light of the possibilities of actual 
 life, as with the eyes of a recluse; from a clerical and ecclesiastical, 
 rather than from a large and human point of view. For no minis- 
 ter of Christ has a right to speak oracularly. All that he can pre- 
 tend to do is to give his judgment, as one that has obtained mercy 
 of the Lord to be faithful. And on large national subjects there 
 is, perhaps, no class so ill-qualified to form a judgment with breadth 
 as we, the clergy of the Church of England, accustomed as we are, 
 to move in the narrow circle of those who listen to us with forbear- 
 ance and deference, and mixing but little in real .life, till in our 
 cloistered and inviolable sanctuaries we are apt to forget that it is 
 one thing to lay down rules for a religious clique, and another to 
 legislate for a great nation. 
 
 ..." No one, I believe, who would read St. Paul's own writ- 
 ings with unprejudiced mind, could fail to come to the conclusion 
 that he considered the Sabbath abrogated by Christianity. Not 
 merely in its stringency, but totally repealed. 
 
 12* 
 
134 APPENDIX. 
 
 <* Por example, see Col. ii. 16, 17 ; observe, he counts the Sab- 
 bath-day among those institutions of Judaism which were shadows, 
 and of which Christ was the realization, the substance, or ' body,' 
 and he bids the Colossians remain indifferent to the judgment which 
 would be pronounced upon their non-observance of such days. 
 'Let no man judge you with respect to ... . the Sabbath-days.' 
 More decisively in the text. Tor, it has been contended that in the 
 former passage, ' Sabbath-days ' refers simply to the Jewish Sab- 
 baths, which were superseded by the Lord's day ; and that the Apos- 
 tle does not allude at all to the new institution, which it is supposed 
 had superseded it. Here, however, there can be no such ambiguity. 
 'One man esteemeth every day alike,' and he only says let him be 
 fully persuaded in his own mind. * Every ' day must include first 
 days as well as last days of the week ; Sundays as well as Satur- 
 days. 
 
 " And again he even speaks of scrupulous adherence to particular 
 days, as if it were giving up the very principle of Christianity. 
 » Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid 
 of you lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain,' so that his ob- 
 jection was not to Jewish days, but to the very principle of attaching 
 intrinsic sacredness to any days. All forms and modes of particu- 
 larizing the Christian life, he reckoned as bondage under the 
 elements or alphabet of the law. And this is plain from the nature 
 of the case. He struck not at a day, but a principle ,• else, if with 
 all his vehemence and earnestness, he only meant to establish a new 
 set of days in the place of the old, there is no intelligible principle 
 for which he is contending, and that earnest apostle is only a 
 champion for one day instead of another, — an assertor of the eter- 
 nal sanctities of Sunday^ instead of the eternal sanctities of Saturday. 
 Incredible, indeed /* Let us then understand the principle on which 
 he declared the repeal of the Sabbath. He taught that the blood 
 of Christ cleansed all things ; therefore, there was nothing specially 
 clean. Christ had vindicated all for God; therefore, there was 
 nothing more God's than another. Por, to assert one thing as God's 
 more than another, is by implication to admit that other to be less 
 God's. ... In early, we cannot say exactly how early times, the 
 church of Christ felt the necessity of substituting something in place 
 
 *' * The italics are our own. 
 
APPENDIX. 135 
 
 of ordinances which had been repealed. And the Lord's day arose, 
 not a day of compulsory rest ; not such a day at all as modern 
 Sabbatarians suppose. Not a Jewish Sabbath ; rather a day in many 
 respects absolutely contrasted with the Jewish Sabbath. 
 
 "For the Lord's day sprung, not out of a transference of the 
 Jewish Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but rather out of the idea 
 of making the week an imitation of the life of Christ. With the early 
 Christians, the great conception was that of following their crucified 
 and risen Lord ; they set as it were, the clock of time to the epochs 
 of his history. Friday represented the death in which all Chris- 
 tians daily die, and Sunday the resurrection in which all Christians 
 daily rise to a higher life. What Friday and Sunday were to the 
 week, that Good Friday and Easter Sunday were to the year. And 
 thus in larger and smaller cycles, all time represented to the early 
 Christians the mystery of the cross and the risen life hidden in hu- 
 manity. And as the sunflower turns from morning till evening to 
 the sun, so did the church turn forever to her Lord; transforming 
 week and year into a symbolical representation of his spiritual 
 life. 
 
 "Carefully distinguish this, the true historical view of the origin 
 of the Lord's da}^, from a mere transference of a Jewish Sabbath 
 from one day to another. For St. Paul's teaching is distinct and 
 clear, that the Sabbath is annulled, and to urge the observance of 
 the day as indispensable to salvation, was, according to him, to 
 Judaize, ' to turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, where- 
 unto they desired to be in bondage.' 
 
 "The second ground on which we are opposed to the ultra rigor of 
 Sabbath observance, especially when it becomes coercive, is the dan- 
 ger of injuring the conscience. It is wisely taught by St. Paul that he 
 who does anything with offence, i. e., with a feeling that it is wrong: 
 to him it is wrong, even though it be not wrong abstractedly. There- 
 fore, it is always dangerous to multiply restrictions and requirements 
 beyond what is essential, because men feeling themselves hemmed in, 
 break the artificial barrier, but breaking it with a sense of guilt, do 
 thereby become hardened in conscience, and prepared for trans- 
 gression against commandments which are divine and of eternal 
 obligation. Hence, it is that the criminal has so often, in his con- 
 fessions, traced his deterioration in crime to the first step of break- 
 ing the Sabbath-day, and no doubt with accurate truth. But what 
 
136 ' APPENDIX. 
 
 shall we infer from this ? Shall we infer, as is so often done upon 
 the platform and in religious books, that it proves the everlasting 
 obligation of the Sabbath ? or, shall we, with a far truer philosophy 
 of the human soul, infer, in the language of St. Peter, that we have 
 been laying on him ' a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were 
 able to bear?' — in the language of St. Paul, that the ' motions of sin 
 were by the law,' that the rigorous rule was itself the stimulating, 
 moving cause of the sin ; and that when the young man, worn out 
 with his week's toil, first stole out into the fields, to taste the fresh 
 breath of a spring-day, he did it with a vague, secret sense of trans- 
 gression, and that having, as it were, drawn his sword in defiance 
 against the established code of the religious world, he felt that from 
 thence-forward there was for him no return, and so he became an 
 outcast, his sword against every man and every man's sword against 
 him ? - I believe this to be the true account of the matter ; and be- 
 lieving it, I cannot but believe that the false, Jewish notions of the 
 Sabbath-day which are prevalent have been exceedingly pernicious 
 to the morals of the country. 
 
 "Lastly, I remind you of the danger of mistaking a 'positive' 
 law for a moral one. The danger is that proportionably to the 
 vehemence with which the law positive is enforced, the sacredness 
 of moral laws is neglected. A positive law, in theological lan- 
 guages, is a law laid down for special purposes, and corresponds 
 with statute laws in things civil. Thus laws of quarantine and 
 laws of excise, depend for their force upon the will of the legisla- 
 ture, and when repealed are binding no more. But a moral law is 
 one binding forever, which a statute law may declare, but can 
 neither make nor unmake. 
 
 "Now when men are rigorous in the enforcement and reverence 
 paid to laws positive, the tendency is to a corresponding indifl"erence 
 to the laws of eternal right. The written supersedes in their hearts 
 the moral. The mental history of the ancient Pharisees, who ob- 
 served the Sabbath, and tithed mint, anise, and cumin, neglecting 
 justice, mercy, and truth, is the history of a most dangerous but 
 universal tendency of the human heart. And so, many a man 
 whose heart swells with what he thinks pious horror when he sees 
 the letter delivered or the train run upon the Sabbath-day, can pass 
 through the streets at night undepressed and unshocked by the evi- 
 dences of the wide-spreading profligacy which has eaten deep into 
 
APPENDIX. 137 
 
 his country's heart. And many a man who would gaze upon the 
 domes of a Crystal Palace, rising above the trees, with somewhat 
 the same feeling with which he would look on a temple dedicated 
 to Juggernaut, and who would fancy that something of the spirit 
 of an ancient prophet was burning in his bosom, when his lips pro- 
 nounced the Woe 1 Woe ! of a coming doom, would sit calmly in 
 a social circle of English life and scarcely feel uneasy in listening 
 to its uncharitableness and its slanders ; would hear without one 
 throb of indignation, the common dastardly condemnation of the 
 weak for the sins which are venial in the strong; would survey the 
 relations of the rich and poor in this country, and remain calmly 
 satisfied that there is nothing false in them, unbrotherly, and 
 wrong. No, my brethren I let us think clearly and strongly on 
 this matter. It may be that God has a controversy with this peo- 
 ple. It may be, as they say, that our Father will chasten us by 
 the sword of the foreigner. But if He does, and if judgments are 
 in store for our country, they will fall, not because the correspond- 
 ence of the land is carried on upon the Sabbath day; nor because 
 Sunday trains are not arrested b}'^ the legislature : nor because a 
 public permission is given to the working classes for a few hours' 
 recreation on the day of rest ; but because we are selfish men ; and 
 because we prefer pleasure to duty, and traffic to honor ; and because 
 we love our party more than our church, and our church more than 
 our Christianity, and our Christianity more than truth, and our- 
 selves more than all. These are the things that defile a nation ; 
 but the labor and the recreation of its poor, these are not the things 
 that defile a nation." [Sermons, 2d series, p. 190. Boston: Tick- 
 nor & Fields, 1858.) 
 
 The following extracts from Mr. Robertson's Biography will 
 explain the circumstances under which the foregoing discourse was 
 composed and preached. 
 
 "On his return from his usual absence during October, he found 
 Brighton boiling over with excitement on the Sabbath question. 
 It had been proposed to open the Crystal Palace on Sundays. It 
 was at once inferred that Christianity was in mortal danger, and, to 
 protect it from its death-wound, the whole religious phalanx of 
 Brighton rallied around its standard. Large talking assemblies 
 met together, and the wildest and most unfounded assertions were 
 made. The ' Times' was accused of the grossest venality, because 
 
138 APPENDIX. 
 
 it defended the throwing open of the Palace ; but the accuser, a 
 clergyman, was obliged to eat his words, Mr. Eobertson alone 
 stood against the torrent in behalf of Christian liberty. He did 
 not, for several reasons, approve of the opening of the Palace on 
 Sunday; but he did refuse to adopt arguments against it, based on 
 the supposition of the non-abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath. He 
 preached a sermon — 'The Sydenham Palace, and the Keligious 
 Non- Observance of the Sabbath' — on the whole subject, in which 
 he declared that he had satisfied himself." 
 
 In writing to a friend, he says : 
 
 "November 16, 1852. 
 
 " My dear Tower : As you will be here next week, I will not 
 write you a volume,, for nothing else would do. I preached on the 
 subject on Sunday, satisfactorily to myself, at least, a thing which 
 has occurred to me but once or twice in all my ministry ; so I am 
 thoroughly prepared with an opinion on a matter I have well con- 
 sidered. I will say at present I am resolved to sign no petition. 
 Dr. V.'s pamphlet does not go to the root of the matter. I agree 
 with him in viewing the move, so far as it is an avowed innovation, 
 with great jealousy; but I cannot ask for a state enactment to re- 
 impose a law which Christianity has repealed, without yielding the 
 very principle of Christianity. Historically, the Lord's day was 
 not a transference of the Jewish Sabbath at all from one day to 
 another. St. Paul, in Rom. xiv. 5, 6, speaks of a religious non-oh- 
 servance of the Sabbath ; I cannot say or think that the Crystal 
 Palace affair is a religious non-observance, believing it to be merely 
 a lucrative speculation ; nevertheless, I have nothing to do with 
 that. The Sabbath is abrogated, and the observance of a day of 
 rest is only a most wise human law now, not to be enforced by 
 penalties. Besides, how dare we refuse a public concession to the 
 poor man of a right of recreation which has been long assumed by 
 the rich man with no protest or outcry from the clergy, who seem 
 touched to the quick only when desecration, as they call it, is noisy 
 and vulgar." 
 
 [Mr. Tower suggested, in answer, Bishop Horslcy's critical treat- 
 ment of the question, and to this letter he replied:] 
 
 " ' Horsley's Sermons,' I only vaguely remember. I am quite 
 
APPENDIX. 139 
 
 at ease on the subject. The critical disposal of this or that text 
 would not alter my views. I am certain of the genius and spirit 
 of Christianity ; certain of St. Paul's root thoughts, far more certain 
 than I can be of the correctness or incorrectness of any isolated in- 
 terpretation ; and I must reverse all my conceptions of Christianity, 
 which is the mind of Christ, before I can believe the Evangelico- 
 
 Judaic theory ; which is, that Mr. may, without infringement 
 
 of the fourth commandment, drive his carriage to church twice 
 every Sunday, but a poor man may not drive his cart ; that the two 
 or three hours spent in the evening by a noble lord over venison, 
 champagne, dessert, and coffee, are no desecration of the command; 
 but the same number spent by an artisan over cheese and beer in a 
 tea-garden will bring down God's judgment on the land. It is 
 worse than absurd. It is the very spirit of that Pharisaism, which 
 our Lord rebuked so sternly. And then men get upon platforms, as 
 
 did, and quietly assume that they are the religious, and that all 
 
 who disagree, whether writers in the 'Times,' Sir R. Peel, or the 
 * sad exceptions,' of whom I was one, to which he alluded, are either 
 neologians or hired writers ! Better break a thousand Sabbaths 
 than lie and slander thus ! But the Sabbath of the Christian is the 
 consecration of all time to God, of which the Jewish Sabbath was 
 but the type and shadow. See Col. ii. 16, 17. Bishop Horsley's at- 
 tempt to get over that verse is miserable, I remember." 
 
 To another he said, among other things, in reply : 
 
 " I hold this institution of the Lord's day to be a most precious 
 and blessed one, not to be dispensed with except with danger; and, 
 I believe, that no one who loves his country can look on any measure 
 which is likely to decry its observance, or break through our 
 English feeling towards it, without great misgiving and apprehen- 
 sion." 
 
 After enumerating other objections, he expresses himself as 
 "strongly opposed to every endeavor to put down the Crystal 
 Palace by petition or legislative enactments, on the three following 
 grounds," and reiterates the positions taken in his sermon. 
 
 " I may much regret," he says, "the probable tendencies of this 
 measure ; but still I cannot try to forbid by law a sort of recreation 
 for the poor man in public gardens and public picture galleries, 
 which the rich man has freely allowed himself in private gardens 
 and galleries, with no protest whatever from the clergy." 
 
140 ' APPENDIX. 
 
 . . . "Whoever multiplies enactments beyond what is essential, 
 tempts human conscience to transgression. . . . And I refuse to 
 sign such a petition because to exalt a 'law positive,' that is, a law 
 contrived for temporary special ends, into the rank of a moral law 
 eternally binding, has always been the first step towards relaxing 
 the reverence for that which is moral. . . . Speaking of the Pliar- 
 isees, he says : 
 
 . . . "And so, in the same way, there is a tendency now to be 
 very indignant about a poor man's spending Sunday afternoon in a 
 tea-garden, whilst there is little zeal against the real damning sirs 
 of social life. . . . Why do they hold up hands of pious indigna- 
 tion when a train runs by, while more than one religious person in 
 this town (Brighton, England), drives regularly to church on fine 
 days as well as wet? Why do they say it is a crime to sacrifice a 
 single policeman to the comfort of the community by making him 
 work on the Sabbath, when their own servants are 'sacrificed,' — 
 if it be a sacrifice, — in making their beds, cleaning their rooms, 
 boiling their luxurious hot potations, &c., &c., and none of which 
 are works of necessity, or works of mercy ? . . . Why are they 
 touched to the quick only when desecration of the Sabbath puts on 
 a vulgar form ? Because, as I said before, scrupulosity about laws 
 ♦positive,' generally slides into laxity about the eternal laws of 
 right and wrong. 
 
 " Por all these reasons, I am against the petition movement, and 
 strongly against it. Besides, though I look jealously and suspi- 
 ciously at the Crystal Palace plan, I am not yet certain that it 
 may not be an improvement on the way in which the poorer classes 
 at present spend their Sundays." 
 
 His biographer remarks : " And yet he was more particular in 
 his observance of that day than many of his censurers. He has 
 often walked ten miles and more to preach on a Sunday, rather than 
 accept a carriage or take a fly, and this lest he should cause his bro- 
 ther to offend.^ ^ 
 
 Life and Letters of Frederick W. Robertson, incumbent of Trin- 
 ity Chapel, Brighton. Edited by Stopford A. Brooke, late Chap- 
 lain, &c. Boston, 1865. Vol. ii. pp. 111-117. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Alexander, Rev. J. W., adverse to 
 
 Sabbatism, 92. 
 Apostles meeting on first day does 
 
 not make commandment moral, 
 
 120. 
 Augustine, St., 64. 
 Augsburg Confession, 79, 80. 
 
 Barclay, 93. 
 
 Barnes, 51. 
 
 Barrow, Rev. Dr., on Decalogue, 20, 
 25. 
 
 Baxter, 25, 85. 
 
 Belsham, 57. 
 
 Beza, 78. 
 
 Blackley and Hawes's Commentary, 
 48. 
 
 Blue Laws. See also Swift, 123. 
 
 Bound, Rev. Dr., his celebrated ser- 
 mon, 40, 68. 
 
 Bramhall, Archbishop, 93. 
 
 Brinley George, General Laws of 
 Connecticut, 124. 
 
 Bucer, 78. 
 
 Calvin favors Sunday sports, 93 ; also 
 
 54, 55, 86, 92, 96, 121. 
 Ceremonial Law, 24, 26. 
 Chalmers, 51, 58. 
 Charteris, 16. 
 Chemnitz, 78. 
 Chillingworth, 19. 
 Christians, Primitive, 60. 
 Coleman, Rev. Dr., on "Sabbath," 
 
 70. 
 Colossians. See Texts. 
 
 Constantino's Edict, 61. 
 
 Coquerei, A., 8.}. 
 
 Cox, Robert, on "Sabbath Laws," 
 
 12, 25. 
 Cox, Robert, on the Glasgow clergy, 
 
 55. 
 Cranmer, 76, 84, 104. 
 
 Daille's Commentaries, 52. 
 Dyer, Mary, the Martyr, 121. 
 
 Eadie, 58. 
 
 Episcopal Church and Fourth Com- 
 mandment, 69. 
 Eusebius, 61. 
 
 Faldo and Penn, 118. 
 
 Fathers, Sabbath and Sunday, dis- 
 tinguished by them, 63, 64. 
 
 Fourth Commandment not moral, 
 says Penn, 1 19. 
 
 Fourth Commandment inoperative, 
 125. 
 
 Fox, George, 121. 
 
 French Protestant Catechism, 83. 
 
 Geology, as connected with Sabbath, 
 
 11, 12. 
 Gillies, Rev. Dr., 53. 
 
 Hallam, 67. 
 
 Hanna, Rev. Dr., 16. 
 
 Hallywell, 118. 
 
 13 
 
142 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Heidelberg Catechism, 80, 82. 
 Helvetian Confession, 83. 
 Hengstenberg, 77. 
 Hetherington, Rev. Dr., 80. 
 Heylin, Peter, 75, 121. 
 Hoadley, C. J., "New Haven's Set- 
 tling,'" 124. 
 Hodge, Rev. Dr., 51. 
 Horsley, Bishop, 138, 139. 
 
 Ignatius, 62. 
 Institutes, Calvin's, 86. 
 Irenaeus, 20. 
 Ironside, Bishop, 121. 
 
 Johnson, Dr., attack on Milton, 96. 
 Justin, 62, 64. 
 
 Kenrick, John, on Primeval Sab- 
 bath, 12. 
 
 Locke, 58. 
 
 Lorimer, Rev. Dr., 56. 
 
 Luther, 72. 
 
 Macduff, Rev. Dr., approves of open- 
 ing parks on Sunday. 16, 17. 
 
 Macleod, Rev. Dr. Norman, his man- 
 ly course on the Sunday question, 
 15. 
 
 Macleod, Rev. Dr. Norman, on the 
 Decalogue, 16. 
 
 McCrie, Rev. Dr., 25. 
 
 Melancthon, 76, 79, 80. 
 
 Milton, 19, 78, 96. 
 
 Montanists, 62. 
 
 Moral Laws, 22, 24 ; immutable, 31. 
 
 Morality of Fourth Commandment, 
 2L 
 
 Neander, 60, 62. 
 
 New England Laws, severity of their 
 
 character, 121. 
 Newton, 58. 
 
 Owen, Rev. Dr., on Patriarchal Sab- 
 bath, 19. 
 
 Palatine Catechism, 82. 
 Patriarchal Sabbath denied, 82. 
 Penn and the " Sabbath," 117. 
 Penn asserts Fourth Commandment 
 
 not moral, 119. 
 Pilgrim Fathers' and Forefathers' 
 
 day, 124. 
 Plumtre, Rev. E. W., on Sunday, 
 
 15. 
 Plymouth Records, 121. 
 Powell, Rev. B., 11, 21, 23, 31, 38. 
 
 49, 50, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70,77, 80. 
 Presbyterian Review admits Sabbath 
 
 is ceremonial, not moral, 26. 
 Prideaux, 78. 
 Primeval Sabbath, no evidence of, 
 
 12. 
 Primitive Christians, 60. 
 Puritan and the Quaker, 116. 
 
 Quaker and the Puritan, 115. 
 Quakers, New England Laws against, 
 121. 
 
 Racovian Catechism, 82. 
 Robertson, Rev. Frederick W., 133. 
 Rice, Rev. Dr. N. L., 92. 
 
 Sabbath, if binding, is strictly so, 31. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Bound, founder 
 of Puritan Sabbath, 40, 
 68. 
 
 as connected with creation, 
 11. 
 
 its compulsory observance 
 dangerous, 41. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Coleman on, 70. 
 
 Christian, a phrase, Jew- 
 ish in its spirit, 118. 
 
 no distinction between it 
 and the seventh day, 29. 
 
 no evidence of its sanctifi- 
 cation prior to Moses, 
 10, 15. 
 
 and Geology, 11. 
 
 Luther's views, 19, 72. 
 
 non-morality of, 24, 26. 
 
 if moral, cannot be chan- 
 ged, 32. 
 
 opinions of Neander, 60. 
 
 not Patriarchal, 19, 20. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 143 
 
 Sabbath, use of word repudiated by 
 Penn, 117. 
 permanency of disproved, 
 
 9. 
 Presbyterian Review (Scot- 
 tish), admits it to be cere- 
 monial, not moral, 26. 
 no evidence of a primeval, 
 
 11. 
 Puritan, arose after the Re- 
 formation, 67. 
 Puritan, and Rev. Dr. 
 
 Bound, 40, 68. 
 testimony of Reformers, 
 
 72. 
 totally repealed, 133. 
 rigor of injurious to con- 
 science, 135. 
 natural impulse to adore a 
 
 Supreme Being, 21. 
 Rev. Dr. South asserts not 
 
 morally binding, 25. 
 special reasons for its en- 
 actment, 28. 
 no scriptural warrant of 
 
 substitution, 35. 
 and Sunday, distinguished 
 
 by Fathers, 63, 
 and Sunday, extract from 
 
 Hallam, 68. 
 is identical with the seventh 
 
 day, 76. 
 Swift's system of laws, 123. 
 exclusively Jewish, 72. 
 festival of joy, 60. 
 Sanctity, periodical, 23. 
 St. Barnabas, 60. 
 St. Paul in Colossians, Galatians, 
 
 Romans. See Texts. 
 Scott, Commentaries, 53. 
 Seventh, the figure mystical, 10. 
 Seventh day, not morally binding, 
 127. 
 
 Seventh day, its alleged sanctifioa- 
 tion denied, 15. 
 
 Seventh day is identical with Sab- 
 bath, 52, 76. 
 
 South, Rev. Dr., on Fourth Com- 
 mandment, 25. 
 
 Stuart, Rev. Dr. Moses, 54. 
 
 Sunday, Rev. E. H. Plumtre on 
 " Sunday" in Contemporary Re- 
 view, 15. 
 
 Sunday as to the disciples, 36. 
 
 Sunday festival of joy with Primi- 
 tive Christians, 62. 
 
 Sunday nor Sabbath morally bind- 
 ing according to St. Paul. See 
 Texts. 
 
 Sylloge Confess., 81, 82. 
 
 Taylor, Jeremy, 26. 
 Tertullian, 20, 62. 
 
 Texts, silence as to or suppresion of, 
 55. 
 misapplication of, 43. 
 Romans, xiv. 5th and 6th, 43, 
 49, 51, 54, 56, 85, 87, 89, 
 103, 127, 133, 138. 
 Gal. iv. 10 and 11 ; 43, 46, 
 
 54, 89, 118. 
 Col. ii. 16 and 17; 43,48, 49, 
 52, 54, 55, 74, 85, 87, 89, 
 118, 120, 124. 
 Theology, a science of precedents, 
 
 125. 
 Thorold, Rev. Mr., 16. 
 Tyndale, 78. 
 
 Warburton, Bishop, 67. 
 Wardlaw, Rev. Dr., 57. 
 Westminster Assembly, 101. 
 Whately, Archbishop, 101.