# CL .^ «s *^ § "J. ^ -55 1 i •**.«> IE i:? I-; a. • o 00 i "5 g o ^ c 1 2 o ^ in ! ^ 8 u 3 o 00 1 - 5 E to ^ 1 e g to 00 < ^ 2 to 00 o ^ •^i -o Tjl g +J t^ ^ Pn < (0 ^ c ^ % 2 o w «J 1 ^ dl 1 0) .. . > ^45 -PQ P^ t-« THE SABBATH. BY REV. A. A. PHELPS, THIRD EDITION. NEW YORK : M. W. DODD, BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL. BOSTON: C. C. DEAN, 13 CORNHH^L. BANGOR:— E. F. DUREN. 1844. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, By E. Whitney, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. STEREOTYPED AT THE BOSTON TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. INTRODUCTION. The following Argument in defence of the Sabbath was called forth by the discussions of the late " Church, Ministry, and Sabbath Conven- tion," so termed, in this city. A wish has been repeatedly expressed that it should be written out for publication. This has been done — but amid a pressure of other duties which has subjected the author to frequent interruptions, much conse- quent delay, and some serious disadvantages in its accomplishment. In writing it out, some trains of thought have been introduced which were not presented in the Convention, and some, which were then merely hinted at, have been carried out. The Argument differs from the ordinary discussions of the subject, in that its strength is mainly expended on two points, which, in the author's judgment, are usually despatched IV INTRU1>UCTI0N. too summarily, and therefore not satisfactorily, but which, after all, are the strong points of the case on the part of our opponents. Those points are, first, their argument to prove that the Sabbath was originally instituted in the wilderness; and, second, our argument to prove a divine warrant for the change of the day. To make the truth on these points clear, has been a leading design in the ensuing discussion. The Argument, such as it is, is now given to the public, in the hope that it may help to satisfy the inquiring, to relieve the doubting, to decide the wavering, to confirm the weak, and to promote in all a more intelligent and better observance of the Lord's Day. THE AUTHOR. Boston, Feb. 12, 1841. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The copyright of this work is now in the hands of a benevolent association, that proposes to give it a general circulation, and will devote the net avails of its sale to the promotion of the Sabbath cause. In preparing the work for a second edition, it has been thought best to add something to the original argument. The result is the addition of Parts III. and IV., on the mode and advantages of observing the Sabbath. It will be seen that Part III. is a mere statement of general principles, and Part IV. a mere collection of testimony. This is all that was deemed necessary on the respective topics, in addition to what is said incidentally in the argument itself. The " Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath," in Parts I. and 11. , remains the same as in the first edition. If the author does not misjudge, 1 2 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. the reader will find in Part IV. a testimony for the Sabbath which no candid mind can resist. It is God's testimony, written in the actual experience of man — of man in every walk and avocation of Hfe. It is the God of providence engraving, by the finger of his power, on the tablet of human experi- ence, the same high mandate, which, as the God of revelation, he once engraved on the tablet of stone — "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." That the circulation of this work may help to give utterance to this testimony, and to promote in all a better observance of God's holy day, is the fervent desire of THE AUTHOR. Boston, April 18, 1842. PART I. THE SABBATH AS AN INSTITUTION. CHAPTER 1. Preliminary Remarks^ 7 CH.^PTER 11. Explanation of Terms, 16 CHAPTER III. The Sabbath at Creation, 19 CHAPTER IV. The Sabbath in the Patriarchal Age, 31 CHAPTER V. The Sabbath in Egypt, 41 CHAPTER VI. The Sabbath in the Wilderness, 67 CHAPTER VII. The Sabbath a Sign, 73 CHAPTER VIII. The Argument recapitulated and closed, 82 4 INDEX. PART II. CHANGE OP THE DAT. CHAPTER I. Statement of the Question, and Preliminary Remarks,. . . , 96 CHAPTER n. Nature of the Argument for a Change of the Day, 104 CHAPTER m. Christ's Sanction of the Sabbath and its Change, 107 CHAPTER IV. The Sanction of the Apostles and the Primitive Church,. . 124 CHAPTER V. The Argument continued, 140 CHAPTER VI. The Proof-Texts of Opponents, 149 CHAPTER VII. The Testimony of Ecclesiastical History, 159 PART III. MODE OF KEEPING THE SABBATH 165 INDEX. O PART IV. ADVANTAGES OF KEEPING THE SABBATH, CHAPTER I. Testimony on Sabbath Observance, submitted to the British Parliament in 1832, 173 Names of the Committee, Report, &c 175 Testimony of Parish Authorities, 177 of Magistrates and Superintendents of Police,.. 181 ■ of Master and Journeyman Bakers, 185 •^^^-^^ of Butchers and Fishmongers, 193 . of Thomas George, Agent of the Society for the better Observance of the Sabbath, 195 of Coach Proprietors, 196 respecting Sunday Traffic on Canals, 198 of Persons connected %vith Public Prisons, 202 ■ of Alexander Gordon, Esq 206 of Rev. J. W.Cunningham, 207 of Dr. Farre and others, 208 of James Bridges, Esq., Rev. Duncan Macfar- lan, and Rev. John Lee, D. D., respecting Sabbath Observance in Scotland, 213 CHAPTER II. MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. George Washington, 224 Spurzheim, Rush, Blackstone, «fec., 225 Sir Matthew Hale and William Wilberforce, 226 Sir W. W. Wynn, 230 Sir Robert Peel, 231 British Scientific Association, 233 Mr. J. S. Buckingham, 233 6 INDEX. The Sabbath at Sea, 234 Massachusetts State Prison, 236 Citizens of Boston, 237 Merchants of Baltimore, 237 Sabbath Mails, 238 Legislature of New York, 240 Harmon Kingsbury, . . , , 241 Providence of God, 243 The New York Canals, 243 Progress of Sabbath Reformation 245 APPENDIX. A Sketch of the Proceedings of the several sessions of the Convention for the Discussion of the Sabbath, the Ministry, the Church, and the Bible, 267 PEIITCETOIT ,REa NOV 1880 THE SABBATH AS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY REMARKS. The Sabbath — This is the topic in discussion. But what is the question at issue in respect to it? Till this is ascertained, we can make no progress in the discussion. I will attempt to state it. And first, 1 will state what it is not.* 1. It is not whether men ought to be holy every day ; to have " Holiness to the Lord " written on all they have and are ; to carry their religion into their business, so as to make their business part of their religion, and do all they do to the glory of God, and in this sense keep all days holy; for in this, the friends and the opponents of the Sabbath are agreed. At all events, no friends of the Sabbath deny it. True, their opponents sometimes say they do. Nay, they even insist, at times, that their zeal for the ob- servance of one day in seven, as holy, is virtually that they may have the freer license to sin during the re- mahider of the week. But it is not so. Such repre- * The arguments noticed in this chapter were all urged in the Convention. 8 THE SABBATH. sentations are injurious aud false. What friend of the Sabbath, if a minister, does not preach that men ought to be holy every day and every where, as well as on the Sabbath and in the sanctuary ? And when he urges the observance of one day in seven as a Sabbath, who is there, be he minister or layrhan, that does not do it, in order that, by carrying its hallowing instructions and influences with them into the or- dinary avocations of life, men may be led to serve God in ihem as well as in their religious duties, and so be made the more holy, rather than the less so, during the other six days of the week ? And who, that knows any thing of a real observance of the Sab- bath, does not know by experience, that such are its actual tendency and effect ? Or if, in any case, the tendency and effect of its observance seem otherwise, and men do cast its restraints behind them, and take occasion from it to sin the more the moment they enter on the week, who are they that do it ? The men that honestly advocate and keep the Sabbath, or those only that play the hypocrite in regard to it ? The men to whom the Sabbath is a delight, and the holy of the Lord honorable, or those to whom it is a yoke, and a " burden," and a curse, and who in their hearts wish there were none '^ The latter, plainly. Be this, however, as it may, the question at issue between the friends and opponents of the Sabbath is not whether men ought to serve God always and every where, and so keep all days holy, — for this the friends of the Sabbath most fully believe and teach, — but whether keeping all days holy, forbids the setting apart of one day in seven as a Sabbath ; i. e. as a day of rei^t from the ordinary avocations of life, and of special de- PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 9 votion to theduties of religion. And to pretend this, is to say that setting apart particular times to particu- lar duties, so that those duties may be the more or- derly and profitably discharged, is inconsistent with keeping all time holy ; whereas, in point of fact, it may be, and is, only a more effectual, as well as com- mon sense arrangement for this very end. 2. The question touching the Sabbath is not whether Christ taught a higher and purer morality than Moses and the prophets. That he did, I know, is claimed. It is said in terms, that " the standard of morality under the gospel dispensation is infinitely higher than it was under the old ; " and the inference is, that the Sabbath is therefore now set aside. Bu* the fact asserted admits of question — much more the inference. When one (Matt. xxii. 36 — 40) came to Christ with the inquiry, " Master, which is the great commandment of the law," his answer was, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the fii'st and great commandment. And the second is like unto it — Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." And then he added, ^On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets " — a plain declara- tion, that these two great requirements of supreme love to God and impartial love to man, covering, as they do, the whole field of obligation and duty, are not the revelation of a new and higher standard, un- known to Moses and the prophets, but a summary only of what they themselves had taught. Indeed, so true is this, that, on another occasion, (Matt. vii. 12,) when Christ gave his disciples that golden rule, which in its wide sweep comprehends all obligation 10 THE SABBATH. and duty, — "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," — so far from telling them that herein he gave them a higher and purer standard of morality than that of Moses and the prophets, he adds emphatically, " For this IS the law and the prophets " — nothing older and nothing newer, nothing more and nothing less, but the same identical thing itself. If Christ's tes- timony, then, is to be received, he did not reveal nor enjoin a higher or a purer morality than did Moses and the prophets. Of course the Sabbath is not to be set aside on this ground. But admit, if you will, that he did reveal a new and higher morality, still the inference of no Sabbath does not follow ; for the question is, not whether Christ taught a higher and purer moraUty than Moses and the prophets, but did he teach one so high and so pure as to set aside the Sabbath.'' Admit it to be as elevated and pure as purity itself, does it therefore follow that to set apart one day in seven as a Sab- bath, — i. e. as a day of rest from the ordinary avoca- tions of life, and of special devotion to the duties of reUgion, — is no longer obligatory or proper ? To say so, brings us to the old absurdity again, viz. that to appropriate particular times to particular duties, for the sake of their more orderly and profitable dis- charge, is inconsistent with keeping all time holy, or, what is the same, with the purity of the gospel ; or that it is at best a needless and profitless arrange- ment. And this is an absurdity so glaring that anti- Sabbath men themselves do not, and cannot, practise on it, — except in their religion. For they, as well as others, have then* general arrangement of one time PRELIMINARV REMARKS. 11 for the duties of the family, another for the duties of the farm, or the workshop, or the printing-office, and so on through the whole circle of regularly-returning duties. And can it be, that it is in religion only, that the appropriation of a particular time to particular duties is a needless and profitless arrangement, in- consistent alike with keeping all time holy, and with the elevated purity of the gospel — nay, a " burden " and a " yoke," from which Christ came to deliver us ? By no means. Elevated and pure as is the morality Christ taught, it does not follow that it is so pure as to annihilate or set aside the observance of one day m seven as a Sabbath, or day of holy rest. That re- mains to be proved, not taken for granted. 3. The question touching the Sabbath is not whether the law, or Sinai covenant, is done away in Christ, or in the gospel, or new covenant ; for in this the friends and o])ponents of the Sabbath are agreed. But it is, in what sense is the one done away by the other? Is it so done away as to set aside the Sabbath? That is the question. (1.) Is it done away as a means of justification ? Agreed. " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight," (Rom. iii. 20.) That, however, does not touch the question of the ob- servance of the Sabbath as a duty. The law, though not binding as a rule of justification, may be as a rule of duty, so that it may still be as much my duty to keep the Sabbath as it is to worship God. (2.) Is it, then, done away in Christ as a rule of duty ? It is so asserted ; but what saith the apostle ? — "Do we, then, make void the law" (as a rule of duty) "through faith?" (as the rule of justification.) (v. 28.) "God 12 THE SABBATH. forbid. Yea, we ESTABLISH the law." Such is Paul's opinion. And why, indeed, should he have any other? What room is there for pardon or justi- fication where there is no sin to be pardoned ? And what sin can there be where there is no law, or ex- isting obligation to be violated ? And what law is there when the law is done away ? But admit that the law, as a rule of duty, is done away ; are we, then, no longer bound to love God or man, to abstain from idolatry, blasphemy, false wit- ness, theft, adultery, murder, and the like ? Are we absolved from obligation in respect to these matters as well as that of the Sabbath ? This is not pre- tended. But it is said that obligation, in these cases, is unchanging, growing out of the very nature, necessi- ties, and relations of man, and that, therefore, we are, in respect to them, " under law to Christ." Be it so. And how does it appear that we are not equally « under law to Christ " to keep the Sabbath ? This, at least, is the question ; and is a thing to be proved, not taken for granted. 4. The question at issue is not whether the rites and ceremonies of the old economy were a shadow of good things to come, and are all fulfilled in Christ. For in this we are. all agreed. But it is w^hether the Sabbath, any more than the marriage institution, or the command to honor parents, or every other com- mand of the decalogue, was a part of that shadow, and therefore done away in Christ, the substance. All agree that the shadow is done away ; but was the Sabbath a part of it ? That is the question, and is a matter to be proved, not assumed. 5. The question at issue is not whether Christ PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 13 came to deliver us from the yoke and burden of old rites and ceremonies ; for this, too, all admit. But it is, whether the Sabbath, any more than the marriage institution, or the command to worship and serve God, was a pai't of that burden and yoke ? True, it is so claimed. The Sabbath, so far from being re- garded as a "delight," is set down by some as a burden, from whose intolerable pressure it was one great object of Christ to deliver us. All this, how- ever, is but begging the question. What proof is there that the Sabbath was a part of that burden ? To assume it, and then infer, that because the burden is done awa}', the Sabbath is, is assumption, and lioth- ing more. With the same propriety you may assume that marriage was a part of the burden, and then gravely infer, that, the burden being done away, mar- riage is done away too. The logic — if logic it can be called — is as good in one case as in the other. Indeed, as a matter of fact, some who have applied it to the Sabbath first, have afterwards applied it to the mar- riage institution, and insisted, that "it is only in the view of the mind, and after the fashion of the world, that a person has any more right over a woman, after a certain ceremony is performed, than before" — that " God is aboiit to put an end to all such mock, sham, and fictitious rights" — that the parties "ought to be left free to separate from each other; else what is the use to talk about people's having rights, seeing they ai*e not allowed to exercise any in a matter the most important to their peace and welfai'e of any other, but are bond slaves ? " * — that " the righteous- * Battle Axc; p. 19. 2 14 THE S.ADBATll. ness of the saints will cause those that possess it for the first time to love their neighbor as themselves, and act in accordance with such love in all things," and that, so acting, " what one has is to another as his own. All things are common in the fullest sense of the words — wives and every thing else. No part of the price is kept back. None are suflfered to want while another abounds." * — And that " when the will of God is done on earth, as it is in heaven, there ivill he no marriage. The marriage supper of the Lamb is a feast, at which every dish is free to every guesf'' f Such sentiments shock us. They shock, too, it is believed, the great body of those who reject the Sab- bath. Indeed, so manifestly do they "turn the grace of God into lasciviousness," that we can scarcely persuade ourselves that they are seriously entertained by any. And yet it is notorious that they are. These, and worse than these, are the sentiments of the spir- itual or no-marriage Perfectionists. It is equally no- torious that the same processes of assumption and inference, and the same reasonings about burdens, and shadows, and entering into rest and the liberty of Christ, &c. &c., which lead the one to the re- jection of the Sabbath, the church, and the ministry, lead the other, and logically too, to the rejection of Sabbath, ordinances, church, ministry, marriage, Bible and all. Starting at the same point, and pursuing the same processes of reasoning, the one stop with the rejection of the Sabbath, the ministry, and the church, the others rush headlong, yet logically, to results that, under the garb of Christianity, strip Christianity of her essential elements, and make Christ little else * Battle Axe, p. 13. \ Ibid. p. JO. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 15 than a minister of sin. I repeat it, then, the question at issue in respect to the Sabbath, is not, whether the burden of old rites and ceremonies is done away, but is the Sabbath a part of it ? And this is a thing to be proved, not assumed. 6. The question is not whether it is our privilege and duty to have peace and joy in believuig ; to enter into rest ; to become freemen in Christ Jesus ; to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage, &c. &c. ; for all this the friends of the Sabbath most fully believe and teach. But the question is, whether this peace, and joy, and rest, and liberty, are the peace, and joy, and rest, and liberty, of doing without a Sabbath. That is the question. 7. And finall}', the question is not whether the letter (2 Cor. iii. 6 — 11) killeth while the spirit giveth life; nor whether the Jewish dispensation is done away by the Christian ; nor whether the Christian is so much more glorious than the other as to eclipse and throw it into the shade; for this, too, is clearly taught in the passage quoted and fully believed by the friends of the Sabbath. But the question is whether the Christian dispensation is so glorious as to dispense with the Sabbath. And this, as in all the other cases, is a matter to be proved, not assumed. Let it be well considered, then, that the inferences so confidently drawn to the non-existence of the Sab- bath, from the several premises now noticed, are, after all, mere assumptions. Of course they are all to be set aside at the outset, as having nothing to do with the question really at issue. This done, we may profitably proceed with the discussion. CHAPTER II. EXPLANATION OF TERMS. In the discussion of every subject, much depends on a correct explauation or definition of terms. It is so in the present case. Some really seem to suppose that the friends of the Sabbath regard one day as intnnsicaUy more holy than another, and that when they use the terms sacred, sanctified, holy, and Sab- bath, they do it with such an understanding of them. But is it so ? Learning, as they do, all they know of the Sabbath from the Bible, it is but fair to suppose that they use these terms in the same sense that the Bible does. What, then, is the Bible use of them ? 1. Sanctified. This, in the Mosaic use of it, de- notes, among other things, " set apart specially to sa- cred or religious purposes." Thus (Lev. viii. 10 — 12) we are told that Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle, and all that was therein, and ^^ sanctified" them; and sprinkled the altar and all his vessels, to " sanctify " them — not that the materials of which these things were made were intrinsically more holy than the same materials wrought into other vessels ; nor that the vessels themselves were made intrinsically more holy by this act of consecration ; but only that they were thus set apart specially and exclusively to the services of religion. In like man- ner, also, " he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's EXPLANATION OF TERMS. 17 head, and anointed him, to sanctify him ; " i. e. to set him apart to the services of rehgion — not that he was thereby made intrinsically more holy than before. In the same sense, when they came up out of Egypt, the Israelites were commanded (Ex. xiii. 2) to "sanc- tify," or (v. 12) " set apart unto the Lord," all the first born of man and beast — the beasts for sacrifice and the men for the religious services of the altar and the temple. h\ Joel also (i. 14 ; ii.. 15) the priests are called upon to "sanctify a fast, call a solemn assem- bly," &c. : i. e. obviously, to appoint or set apart a time for that religious service. And m the same sense, beyond all question, it is said, (Gen. ii. 3,) "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it ; " i. e. set it apart specially to religious purposes. 2. Holy.' This is used in the same sense with the term sanctified. Thus the "holy garments" (Ex. xxviii. 2) of Aaron and his sons are not garments intrinsically more holy than others, but merely gar- ments made and set apart specially for the religious services of the altar and temple. So, when it is said, (Ex. xvi. 23,) "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath," the meaning is, not that the morrow is intrinsically more holy than any other day, but that it is the day set apart from the ordinary avocations of life to the purposes of religious rest, improvement, and worship. Literally translated, the passage reads, " To-morrow is the rest, the rest holy (Sabbath-gwo- desh) unto the Lord." And this gives you its true meaning, viz. To-morrow is the rest, the rest that is holy ; i. e. consecrated, or set apart to the Lord. So, in the account of the original institution of the Sabbath, (Gen. ii. 3,) the term which is translated 2* 18 THE SABBATH. sanctified is yekaddesh, and means, literally, he caused it to be holy ; i. e. he hallowed or set it apart to the purposes of religion. 3. Sabbath. This term, in view of what has just been said, is readily understood. Literally, it means merely rest. Applied to a particular period of time set apart as holy, as of a day, it means a day set apart to rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and specially devoted to the duties of religious instruction, improvement, and worship. The Sabbath, then, as an institution, is a season of rest, holy or consecrated to the Lord. It consists of two parts, the Sabbath or holy rest, and the time or day set apart for it. This distinction is clearly recognized in the account of its original institution. God (Gen. ii. 2) rested (sabba- tized) on the seventh day ; and then (v. 3) he " sanc- tified," or set that day apart, as the day for sabbati- zing, " because that in it he had rested," (sabbatized.) The sabbatizing or holy resting is therefore one thing ; the particular day set apart for it is another. The particular day may therefore be changed, as from the seventh to the first day of the week, and yet the in- stitution itself, as a season of holy rest consecrated to the services of religion, remain unchanged. CHAPTER III. THE SABBATH AT CREATION. The question, then, or rather questions, at issue in this discussion, are these — 1. Is the Sabbath, as aii institution, perpetually binding on men ? 2. Has any particular day been set apart, by divine appointment, for its observance ? and if so, what day is it? Is THE Sabbath perpetually bindi>'g on men ? It will be my object to show that it is. 1. Its perpetual obligation is manifest from its original institution. Like marriage, it was instituted at creation, and instituted, not for the Jew alone, nor for the Greek, nor for any particular age or nation, but for man — the race ; to live, therefore, like the marriage institution, while the race, in its present state of being, lives ; and to be binding in its obser- vance, w^hile there is such a race to observe it. This is manifest from the inspired record. According to that, the first period of creation (Gen. i. 1 — 5) brought forth the shapeless mass of chaos, and separated the darkness from the light, and gave being to Day and Night. The second (vs. 6 — 8) gave the firmament, and separated the waters which were beneath from those which were above it. The third (vs. 9 — 13) gathered the waters that were under the firmament into seas, brought forth the earth, clothed it with the tender grass, and the herb, and tree, and made it in- 30 THE SABBATH stiuct every where with vegetable life and beauty. The fourth (vs. 14 — 19) studded the firmament with greater and lesser lights, to divide the day from the night, and to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years. The fifth (vs. 20—23) filled the sea and air with their appropriate inhabitants, and made them instuict with animal life in all its myriad forms. The sixth (vs. 24 — 31) peopled the eai-th with every living creature, each after his kind; gave man his being, in the image of God, and male and female; then blessed, and bade him multiply, and replenish and subdue the earth, and invested him with do- minion over bird, and beast, and fish, and herb, and tree. Thus was creation ended. The great aiTange- ments of day and night, of earth and seas, of seasons and years; of vegetable and animal life, pervading earth, and sea, and air; of man in the conjugal rela- tionship, ("male and female created he them,") mul- tiplying and replenishing the earth, and swaying the sceptre of dominion over all, — these arrangements were all completed. Nor will it be pretended that these were not, each and all, permanent in their char- acter, and made originally, as they are now continued, not for man of any particular age or nation, but for man — the race. But there was one arrangement not completed. True, creation's work was done. Existence, in all its varied forms of beauty and of life, and up through all its m}Tiad ranks to man, the image of his God and head of all, was thrown from its Creator's hand. And it was all very good. But how should this fair world, or man the head of it, be kept in fond re- membrance of its Author? how made to move in AT CREATION. 21 sweet attraction and harmony divine around its great Original? Man, the race, needed one arrangement more — a something, that, at regular and oft-return- ing periods, should stop him in the busy whirl of life, and lift his thoughts to Him that gave, and, with- out ceasing, was to give to hun, and all things else, their being and their all. What should that arrange- ment be ? And (Gen. ii. 2, 3) " God rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work." That gave the desired arrangement. God rested on the seventh day from his creating work, and dwelt in sweet complacency and holy joy on all \liat he had made. It was all " rer^ good;'''' and in holy contem- plation of it, holy satisfaction filled his mind — God felt satisfied. " On the seventh day (Ex. xxxi. 17) he rested and was refreshed.''^ And because He rested then and was refreshed, he set that day apart for man, that, at each returning seventh period, he and his might rest from their six days' work, as God had done from his, and, resting, Uft their thoughts in fond remem- brance and holy joy to God, their Maker, and be, (Ex. xxiii. 12,) like him, " refreshed." The one was manifestly the reason or occasion of the other. Grod rested and was refi*eshed on that day. Therefore he blessed and " sanctified," or set it apart, not for him- self, plainly, but for man to rest and be alike re- freshed. Nor was it for one age or nation merely, but for man in every age and every where. And being so, it was the arrangement needed, and fitted to hold the world in fond remembrance and sweet attraction to its Maker's throne. It was the 22 THE SABBATH arrangement with which the circle of great and per- manent arrangements for man in the morning of his being was complete, and without which that circle was marvellously incomplete. Can there, then, be doubt that, in accordance with the obvious and literal import of the divine record, the Sabbath was insti- tuted, by God, at creation, and as an arrangement for the race, not for any particular portion of it ? Were not all the other arrangements, made and in- stituted at creation, made and instituted for the race ? Was not the arrangement of day and night for man — the race ? of earth and seas, for man — the race ? of seasons and years, for man — the race ? Of vege- table and animal life, pervading earth, air, and sea ; of man, in the conjugal relationship, or social state, multiplying, and replenishing and subduing the earth ; of man, wielding dominion over all the lower creation, — were not all these arrangements made and instituted for man — the race ? Why, then, should the arrangement of the Sabbath be an exception ? Plainly it was not. It was instituted when they were instituted, and, like them, was designed to be as universal in its existence, and as pei'petual in its ob- ligation, as the race itself Nay, it was the crowning arrangement of all. They looked rather to the wel- fare of the natural and the. mortal of man ; this to the spiritual and immortal of him. Ohjedion. But geology, it is said, has proved be- yond a doubt, that the days spoken of in the history of creation, were not such periods of twenty-four hours as we are familiar with, and which we now call days, but long and indefinite periods of time — periods of a thousand years or more ; and therefore that it is ab- AT CREATION. 23 surd to speak of God's resting the seventh day, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, and then setting apart that day as a period of similar rest to man. Answer. This objection, to have any force, must assume, what some geologists do not maintain, — (1.) that all of the seven days in question v/ere such long and indefinite periods, and (2.) that the last three, whether longer or shorter, were not made up of such days, weeks, &c., as we are now familiar with. Should it be admitted that the last three days (Avhich were the days following the creation of the sun "to rule the day ") were days of the ordinary length, the ob- jection fails. Or, should it be admitted that these last days, though themselves long and indefinite periods, were iTiade up, as such periods would be now, of ordinary days, weeks, &c., then also the ob- jection equally fails. For in both cases, the day that God blessed and sanctified, as he did it for man, and not for himself, would be the ordinary day with which man was, and was to be, familiar. Meeting the objection, then, on the ground that it does and must assume, in order to have any force, I remark, 1. Beasts and men were created on the sixth day. As man was made male and female, it is but fair to suppose that his creation occupied at least one half the time. And has geology proved that God was some five hundred years or more making man.^ 2. The seventh day was, of course, man's first whole day upon the eai-th. And has geology proved that man's first whole day was a thousand or more years long? and this, while it freely admits, in agreement with the inspired record, that each of his after days consisted of only twenty-four hours 7 24 THE SABBATH 3. But be it that geology has proved all it claims of the first four periods or days ; has it proved the same of the three remaining periods? Has it proved that, after God had made the lights " to divide the day fi'om the night, and to be for signs and for sea- sons, and for days and years," — the sun "to rule the day," and the moon "to rule the night," — and "set them in the firmament," and bade them do their work, — they did not do it then as they do it now? Has it proved that the same heavenly bodies that now rule the days into periods of twenty-four hours each, and the years into periods of three hundred sixty-five days each, and regulate the seasons ac- cordingly, did not rule the days and years, and reg- idate the seasons, in the same manner, and in obe- dience to the same laws, then ? Is it indeed so, that these same heavenly bodies, with their fixed and un- changing laws of attraction, were a thousand years or more in doing then what they now do in twenty-four hours? And geology proved it! and, proving that, turned astronomer, and proved also that, far backward in the lapse of time, by some sudden shift or process gradual, the laws that govern the entire planetary system have all been changed, and so changed that results which used to be the product of a millenary of years are now the product of a few short hours ! Nay, verily, geology may adjust her difiiculties with the Bible about the meaning of a term ; but can she adjust the controversy between Jierself and Astron- omy ? Can she tell Astronomy when, and "where, and how, tlie laws of the planetary system were so changed ? At what point of time, by what slow or sudden shift was it, that these mighty worlds (or the AT CREATION. 25 earth as governed by them) were quickened in their flight, and made to do the work of a thousand years or more within the limits of a few short hours ? Will geology, or the objector, answer this? — Moreover, 4. Does not the whole argument from geology rest on rnere assumption ? True, the word " day," as used in the Mosaic account, will bear the construction put on it by geology; but on one condition only. Like every other word, it is always to be understood in its common and proper acceptation, unless there be something in the connection in which it is used, or in the nature of the subject, to forbid it. In that case, and that only, it must be understood in some other sense ; and in what sense, the connection, or nature of the subject, or both together, must de- termine. Now, it is admitted that the geological sense of "an age," or "a long, indefinite period of time," is not the common and proper import of the term. Professor Silliman says,* " It is agreed on all hands, that the Hebrew word here used for ' day,' al- though frequently used for time, usually signified a period of twenty-four hours." And it is obvious, and admitted too, that there is nothing in the con- nection in which the term is used in this case to demand a different signification. It is the nature of the subject alone that is supposed to demand it. But how does this do it ? Only in this way — "Here are certain geological results ; if these were produced by the same causes operating according to the same laws as at present, they could not have been pro- duced in twenty fom- hours, but must have been the * Suggestions relative to the Philosophy of Geolog}', &c., p. 107. 26 THE SABBATH product of a series of j-ears. Hence the nature of the case compels us to put such constmction on the term in question." True, if they were so produced. But what right has geology to assume this? That she does assume it, is plain. Thus Professor S. says,* " Although the materials (of the earth) were created by almighty Powei^ they were evidently left to the operation of phjsical laws " in the production of the various results. Hence, f "by sui-v^eying the causes that are still in full operation, the geological events that are now hi progress, and the effects that are proceeding without impediment or delay, we thus discover, that since the creation, as regards geo- logical causes, all things remain as they were ; no new code of physical laws has been enacted.'''' In this way, and this only, geology gets at her argument from the nature of the case. Ai-guing from the present to the past, she first assumes that " no new code of physical laws has been enacted " for the operation of " geologi cal causes," and then infers that geological events or effects which are the product of an age now were so at creation, and, therefore, that " day " in the Mosaic account must mean, not day in the ordinary sense, but an age, or long series of years. Nay, to meet cer- tain Scripture difficulties, and sustain herself in this inference, she modestly suggests that a new code of physical laws has been enacted to govern the action of astronomical causes, though not of geological. Her language is, J "As already suggested, the sun not being ordained to rule the day until the fourth of those periods, it is not certain that even after this * Sug^gestions, &c. p. 41. \ Ibid. p. 86. I Ibid. p. 110. AT CREATION. 27 epoch, those early revolutions of the earth on its axis were as rapid as now ; for these might cease altogether, or be greatly increased in rapidity, without affecting the planetary relations of the earth with the sun and with the other members of the S3'stem." But what right has geology to all these assump- tions? Surely, "by surveying the (astronomical) causes that are still in full operation, the (astro- nomical) events that are now in progress, and the (as- tronomical) effects that are proceeding without im- pediment or delay, we thus discover, that since the creation, as regards [astronomical) causes, all things remain as they were ; no new code of physical laws has been enacted." And the discovery is surely as real in this case as in the other; and, being real, what becomes of the inference about the meaning of the term " day," after the fourth period of creation ? And if geology may suggest such a change in the physical laws that govern the planetary system, and work out its astronomical results, why may not crit- icism suggest a similar change in the laws which regulate the action of geological causes in the pro- duction of their results ? And if she makes it, how can geology disprove it ? Here are certain geologi- cal results or effects that have come down to us from creation. Can geology prove that they are the prod- uct of the same causes as produce such results now ? or, that those causes, if the same, operated according to the same laws then as now.'' How knows she that they may not have been the product of causes which, acting with creative energy, and having done their work as such, have now become extinct, or given place to other causes, the same in 28 THK SABBATH kind, if you wiJl, but of different energy — causes that now act only with sustaining, not creative en- ergy? Why may not geological causes, having ac- complished their great end as creative causes, have lost as much of their original energy and rapidity of production, as she herself supposes astronomical causes to have gained? And in that event, why may not results which would be now the product of an age, have been then the product of a day ? Does geology tell us that the nature of the results is such as to preclude such a supposition? that "the crystals and crystallized rocks, the entombed re- mains of animals and vegetables, from entire trees to lichens, fuci, and ferns, from the minutest shell- fish and microscopic animalculae to gigantic rep- tiles," &c., forbid it? in a word, that these results all look as if they were the product of long periods, just as now? Be it so. But suppose that among some of these ancient remains (pardon the supposi- tion) Adam and Eve should be found; would they not look as if they were made and grew up to ma- turity just as men and women now do? But was it so? Were the "materials created by almighty Power," and then " evidently left to the operation of physical laws " in the production of them ? And if not, how will geology prove it so in regard to beasts, or birds, or fish, or reptiles, or rocks ? Why may not these have been flung from their Creator's hand full grown, as well as man ? Does geology say God does not make these things so now ? Nor does he make man so now. And if the manner of making them now is decisive of the manner of making them then, why is not the same true of the manner of AT CREATION. 29 making mail then? Does geology say, that, from the necessity of the case, man must, in the first in- stance, be made full grown ? And how does it ap- pear that, from the same cause, every order of exist ence, animate and inanimate, must not also, at the first, be so made ? And what, then, becomes of the argument from geological remains ? These questions are not intended to ridicule the geological argument, nor to say that it is without foundation, but only to show that it has its difficul- ties, and that these are such and so many as to forbid its being used very flippantly to disprove the institu- tion of the Sabbath at creation. But, 5. Admit all that geology claims, and still the objection is not valid. For, were the periods of cre- ation longer or shorter, geology does not deny that they were periods of time, and that they were so far equal and regularly-returning periods, as to be fitly represented by the regularly-returning days with which we are familiar. And this admitted, the whole force of the objection is gone. For, be the period in which God rested and was refi-eshed, a longer or a shorter one, it was the seventh period from the com- mencement of creation. It answered to, and is fitly represented by, the shorter yet seventh day, with which man, the race, is and has been familiar, if not at the outset, yet through all the subsequent genera- tions of his being. When God therefore rested on his or creation's seventh period of time, and then, on that account, sanctified or set apart the seventh day for a similar rest to man, he set apart that period with which man, as a race, was, or was to be, familiar ; and which was, or was to be, to man, just what his 3* 30 THE SABBATH AT CREATION. own seventh period had been to himself. If the two periods were not then of the same identical length, the one was at least the fit representative of the other, and man, in resting on the one, was furnished with a fit emblem and a sweet memorial of God rest- ing from his work of creation on the other. Such a setting apart or sanctification of each returning sev- enth day, as a day of holy rest for man, from the creation downward, was therefore alike significant and proper. CHAPTER IV. THE SABBATH IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. The Bible, it is said, " contains no example of any man keeping a Sabbatli before the time of Moses ; " * nor does it in any way make mention of a Sabbath from the creation to the giving of manna in the wil- derness — a period of two thousand five hundred years ; and how could this be, if it were during all that period an existing institution ? f This objection is made up of two parts, a fact asserted, and an inference from it. The fact as- serted is, that no mention is made of a Sabbath during the period in question; the inference is, therefore, at that time, there was no Sabbath. 1. Suppose we admit the fact asserted; does the inference follow ? By no means. For, (1.) the history of that whole period is given in a single book and twelve chapters of another. If, then, there be no mention of the Sabbath in a history so brief, it is not surprising, nor is it any proof that it did not exist. But, (2.) the Sabbath is mentioned only five times in the Jewish Scriptures, prophetic and historical both, from the time of Moses to the return of the captivity * Grew, p. 3. t The argument, substantially, of Paley and all that class of writers. 32 THE SABBATH — a period of one thousand years; twice in prophe- cy, and three times in history. And, (3.) iu the entire histories of Joshua, of the Judges, of Samuel, and of Saul, — a period of about five hundred years, — the Sabbath is not mentioned once. Had they no Sab- bath, then ? (4.) From Joshua to Jeremiah, a period of eight hundred years, not one word is said of cir- cumcision. Had they no circumcision, then ? In all these cases, the history is much more minute and full than in the other. If the silence of the record is conclusive in the one case, it is more so in the others. But is it conclusive ? Were the Jews without a Sab- bath from Joshua to David — a period of five hun- dred years? And without circumcision from Joshua to Jeremiah — a period of eight hundi-ed ? By no means. Moreover, Noah, we are told, (8 Pet. ii. 5,) was "a preacher of righteousness." But we have no record of what he preached. Did he therefore preach nothing ? But, 2. I deny the fact asserted. It is not true that there is no mention of the Sabbath during the period in question. What are the facts ? We find at fii'st a distinct record of its original institution, with the reasons for it, — a record as distinct as is that of the institution of marriage. Nor, from the record merely, is there any reason, in the one case more than in the other, to suppose that it is the record of an insti- tution fii'st established two thousand five hmidred yeai-s after creation. So far as the record goes, it is in both cases the clear record of institutions estab- lished at creation. At the outset, then, the mention is distinct and clear. And being so, it is manifest that, subsequently, in so brief a history, we ought to ex- IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 33 pect only incidental allusions to it, if any, or such existing facts and occurrences as are in harmony with the supposition of its existence. And if we find such facts and occurrences or allusions, it is plain that we not only have a mention, but all the mention of its existence which the case requires. Nay, if these incidental allusions, and these existing facts and occurrences, are just what we should expect them to be on the supposition of a Sabbath, so that the theory or supposition of a Sabbath affords the only or even the better solution of their existence than any other, then in this fact we have the mention and the proof that the Sabbath was. And we have all the proof that science has that the sun is in the centre of the solar system. For it is only on the gi-ound that the theory or supposition of the sun's being in the centre of the system affords, not the only, but a better solution merely of existing and oc- curring facts than any other theory, that sciei^e, with a Newton at its head, declares that to be the true theory, and summons the assent of the scientific world to the correctness of its decision. And why shall not the same proof, if it exist, be equally valid here ? Does such proof exist ? That is the question now before us. ^ (1.) On the supposition of a Sabbath, we should ex- pect to find the patriarchs meeting together at stated times for religious worship. Accordingly, the first dis- tinct record of religious worship is, (Gen. iv. 3,) that "in process of time," or, literally, "at the end of days," Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings to the Lord. And the fair and obvious import of the record is, that they did this as a matter of course, 34 THE SABBATH when the regular or stated time for it came round. The next record (Gen. iv. 26) is, that at the birth of Enos, when his father, Seth, was one himdred and five years old, " began men to call upon the name of the Lord." What was this but public, social wor- ship ? The writer surely does not mean to inform us that there was no family worship before. For we have the record of that in the offerings of Cain and Abel. Nor can he mean to say that there was no private worship — that Adam and the pious Seth never prayed until the birth of Enos; i. e. until Seth was one hundred and five years old, and Adam two hundred and thirty-five. Surely Adam and Seth did not live all that time without private prayer. What can the passage mean, then, but that when Enos was born, — L e. as soon as men began to multiply, — they then began to call on God in a public, social way ? But such worship must have had its mutually-agreed upon, or di\'me]y-appoi7ited stated times. How else could it have been conducted ? * * Since the sitting' of the Convention, 1 have solicited the opinion of Professor Stuart, of Andover, concerning the proper translation and interpretation of several passages used iu the discussion. The following is his view of the passage above : — " Gen. iv. 26, ' Then began men to call,' etc., or, ' Then was a commencement made of calling,'' etc., is rightly translated. The phrase, 7Ti*n^ 01^3 i^~\r^^ (liqra besherii YehovaJi,) means, invocation upon the name of God, and this in a social and public manner. (Compare Gen, xii. 8 3 xiii. 4 ; xxi. 33 5 xxvi. 25. Ps. cv. 1. Is. xii. 4 J xli. 25.) It can mean neither less nor more here, as I think, than that public social worship then commenced, i. e. so soon as men began to multiply. The writer does not mean to intimate that the pious Seth did not praij, before his son was born to him ; what can he intimate but social worship ? When — is not said." IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 35 Further, in the subsequent history, we find that whenever the patriarchs pitched then- tents with a view to dwellmg for any length of time in a place, they alivays huilt mi altar there for public worship. When Noah came out of the ark, (Gen. vii. 20,) the first thing was to "build an altar unto the Lord," and offer sacrifice. When Abraham originally entered Canaan, at his first stopping place, (Gen. xii. 7,) " there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." When he removed, (Gen. xii. 8,) and " pitched his tent" at a second place, "there he builded an altar unta the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord." On his return from Egypt, whither he had gone on account of a famine, he sojourned a season in Abimelech's country, and then came (Gen. xiii. 3, 4) to Bethel, " unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the first ; and there he called on the name of the Lord." When, on his separation from Lot, (Gen. xiii. 18,) he "removed his tent, and dwelt in the plain of Marare, he built there an altar unto the Lord." Subsequently, (Gen. xxi. 33, and xxii. 19,) when he " dwelt at Beersheba," he made a similar arrange- ment for public worship there. The other patriarchs did the same. When Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 6, 25) " dwelt in Gerar," he " builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord." When Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 18,20) "pitched his tent" before Shalem, "he erected there an altar, and called it God, the God of Israel." When, in that residence, some of his family (Gen. XXXV. 1 — 6) had fallen in with the suiTOunding idola- try, God directed him to go up to Bethel, and " dwell there, and make there an altar unto God;" and he did so. And, finally, when he took up his journey 36 THE SABBATH with his family for Egypt, he stopped (Gen. xlvi. 1) at Beersheba, that long-estabhshed place of worship, and " offered sacrifices unto the God of his father." Now, what is all this but stated places for stated as well as occasional and special seasons of public worship ? Suppose a company of Christians, wan- dering, like the patriarchs and their tribes, from place to place. Wherever they stop for any length of time, and they are at liberty to do it, they build a church, and call upon the name of the Lord. Now, admit it to be a part of their religion to keep a Sabbath, and these churches are not only just what you would ex- pect to find, but they are all so many proofs of the actual existence and observance of that Sabbath For what can their design be, except to accommo- date the public, social, and stated, as well as occa sional worship of the whole company or tribe ? And what less than this could have been the design of the patriarchal altars 7 What less can they argue than social, public worship, at stated times ? (2.) On the supposition of a Sabbath, as there js nothing in the nature of time itself to give one por- tion a preference over another, and the appointment of one period rather than another must be in this sense arbitrary, we should expect that, in deciding upon it, God would first select so large a portion as would best subserve the design of its consecration as a Sab bath ; second, seize upon some fitting and ever-mem- orable occasion for the designation of the particular time ; and, third, shape their religions arrangements and ohsei-vances so as to make them, as far as possible, 80 many mementos of it. And this is just what God, on the supposition in question, has done. A seventh IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 37 is such a portion of time. The close of creation was such an occasion. During the period in question, as well as subsequently, their religious arrangements and observances bore every where the impress of sevens, and were thus only so many mementos of a Sabbath, returning regularly on every seventh day. Thus, when Noah was about to go mto the ark, the direction (Gen. vii. 2) was, " Of every clean beast," which were the beasts for sacrifice, " thou shalt take to thee by sevens." The mourning for Jacob was a mourning of seven days. That of Job's friends with him was seven days. The token or seal of Abra- ham's covenant with Abimelech was (Gen. xxi. 30) " seven ewe lambs." The sacrifice that Job offered for his friends when the days of his trial were ended, (Job xlii. 8,) was "seven bullocks and seven rams." And in later periods especially, almost every thing had the impress of sevens upon it. But, (3.) On the supposition of a Sabbath existing and observed during the patriarchal period, we should ex- pect to find a division of time into iveeks. Was there such a division? Nothing can be plainer. It stands out boldly on the face of the entire record. When God threatened the flood, (Gen. vii. 4,) the language is, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain." When Noah had entered the ark, and all was ready, (v. 10,) "it came to pass, after seven days, that the waters," &c. When the flood had abated, and Noah had sent out the dove, and she returned, (viii. 10,) "he staid yet other seven days,^^ and sent her out again. And when she returned, (v. 12,) " he staid yet other seven days,''^ and sent her out again. When Jacob negotiated for his wife, the stipulation of Laban 4 38 THE SABBATH (Gen. xxix. 27) was, "Fulfil her weeV^ of years ; and (v. 28) "Jacob did so, and fulfilled her «>ecL" When Jacob died, and Joseph, with his brethren, went up to the burial, (Gen. 1. 10,) " he made a mourning for his father seven days.^^ When Job's friends came to sympathize with him in his affliction, (Job ii. 13,) " they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights" When God sent the plague of blood on Egypt, (Ex. vii. 25,) ^^ seven days were ful- filled," and then it was removed. Can it be doubted, then, that during the period in question, there was the division of time into weeks, or periods of seven days ? But how came that division ? It was not a natural one, like that of months or years, but purely an artificial or conventional one. How came it then ? What gave it being ? What kept it in existence ? How can you explain it, except on the theory of an existing and regularly-returning Sabbath? Is not this, then, the true theory? Since writing the above, Professor Stuart has po- litely furnished me with the following, as the correct and literal translation of the passages above : — Gen. vii. 4, " For after days yet seven," etc. Gen. vii. 10, "And it came to pass after a keptade (seventh) of days." Gen. viii.lO, " And he waited yet a heptade of days,"etc. Gen. viii. 12, "And he waited yet a heptade of days," etc. Remark. — How came this heptade of days to be thus distinguished ? From what else could it spring, but from the original institution of the Sabbath ? Thus far the professor. The correctness of his view, as well as of that already taken, is rendered in- IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 39 disputable by the following considerations : — In Gen. xxix. 14, we are informed that Jacob abode with Laban "the space of a month." The original is D'p' linp [hodesh yamim,) and means, literally, " a new moon of days." The verse, literally translated, would be, " He abode with him a new moon of days." lu Numbers xi. 20, 21, the form of expression in the original is the same. The Israelites were to eat flesh " a whole month ; " i. e. " a new moon of days." Here, then, we have this fact, that the new moon was 10 the Hebrew a measure and designation of time, so that when he wished to designate a month, his form of expression was, " a new moon of days." In the very terms, then, by which the Hebrew was wont to designate the month, we have the proof, (1.) of the existence, and, (2.) of the regular retorn, of the new moon at such intervals of time as made it the natural, and, therefore, the appropriate measure and designa- tion of the period in question. But the Hebrew had another form of expression for another period of time. When he wished to describe the period which we call a week, he said (Gen. vii. 10 ; viii. 10, 12) D'r?'' nj-Oty [skihath yamim;) literally, a "heptade," or "seventh of days." What, now, is the fair and ne- cessary inference ? Why, that, as the new moon, by its existence and regular return, came to be the nat- ural measure and designation of its period of time, so the Sabbath, by its existence and regular return, came to be the artificial or conventional measure and designation of its period. Did the Hebrew, when he said " a new moon of days," mean a month ? Equally clear is it, that when he said " a heptade," or " seventh 40 THE SABBATH IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. of days," he meant a week. Did the Hebrew, when he so described the month, give proof, in the very form of his expression, of the existence and regular return of the new moon ? So, when he described the week as " a seventh of days," he gave equal proof of the existence and regular return of the Sabbath. CHAPTER V. THE SABBATH IN EGYPT. If the Sabbath had an existence, and its observance were so important, why, it is asked, do we heai* no mention of it during the four hundred and thu'ty years* bondage in Egypt? It must have been encroached upon by the severity of that bondage; why, then, have we no complaint of such encroachment, nor, in- deed, any intimation whatever of a Sabbath during all that period ? This is the same objection as before, only that its form is changed, and its application is limited to a portion, instead of extending to the whole of the two thousand five hundred years. It is made up, as before, of a fact asserted and an inference from it. The fact is, that there was no such complaint or intimation; the inference is, therefore there was then no Sabbath. 1. Admit the fact, the inference does not follow. The whole history of that bondage, and of the deliver- ance from it, is given in twelve short chapters. Of these, eight are occupied with the description of the plagues, and the various measures taken to effect the deliverance, and three with what passed between God and Aaron and Moses, preparatory to their un» 42 THE SABBATH derlaking the work, leaving but one, or less than one, for the entire history of the four hundred and thirty years' bondage. And is it wonderful, that in so brief a history of so long a period, there should be no com- plaint of the violation, and no intimation of the observance, of an existing Sabbath? By no means. Were the record as silent as alleged, it would prove nothing. But, 2. It is not true that tne record is silent. So far from it, brief as it is, it is manifest, on the whole face of it, that the encroachments of Egyptian bondage on the religious opportunities, privileges, and rights of the Israelites, and so upon their religion, were the head and lioiit of its offending ; and that the great object of God in effecting their deliverance, was their resto- ration to and confirmation in the worship and service of himself as the true God, in opposition to the idol gods of the Egyptians. This was the great end. As a necessary means to this, the great object was the restoration to the Hebrews of their religious and con- sequent civil liberty. They could not serve God with- out the liberty to do it. This, they had not in Egypt. And as the question of American freedom was once wrapped up in the simple question of a threepenny tax on tea, so the question of Hebrew freedom was in this case wrapped up in the question whether they should have their Sabbath, with its oj)portunities of sacrifice and worship, and its connected^ religious privileges and rights. Practically, then, as a means to its appropriate end, the great question at issue be- tween God and Pharaoh, in respect to the deliverance of the Israelites, was THAT OF THE SABBATH, IN EGYPT. 43 WITH ITS CONNECTED PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS. No intelligent and careful reader of the Bible can fail to see, on a moment's reflection, that this is a true statement of the real questions at issue in that mar- vellous interposition of Divine Providence. But when the mandate of Jehovah first came to Pharaoh, (Ex. V. 1,) " Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness," the prompt and contemp- tuous reply (v. 2) was, "Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice, to let Israel go ? 1 know not Jehovah, nor will I let Israel go." Jehovah's claims, as Deity, were proudly questioned, and his authority conteniued. This raised a previous question, viz. fVho is the true God — the gods of Egypt, or the God of Is- rael'^ This, of course, must be settled before it could be settled whether Israel should be allowed to serve him. To settle this, there must be a trial of strength. That trial must be of such a nature as to show that the false gods were perfectl}^ in the power, and subject to the control, of the true one. Such was the trial. Each and all of the divine judgments in the case were not only designed, but in their nature fitted, to confound the gods of Egypt, and establish the claims of Israel's God. The aptness and the force of the demonstra- tion, in its various steps, were truly wonderful. Noth- ing could exceed the clearness and the impressive- ness with which each successive judgment made it manifest, that, in the hands of Israel's God, the gods of Egypt were weak and powerless, and, so far from affording protection to their deluded followers, could themselves be turned, by him, at any moment, and to any extent, into a torment and a curse. Introductory 44 THE SABBATH to the plagues, (Ex. vii. 10 — 12,) x'Varon's rod became a serpent ; and, when the magicians cast down their rods that they might become so, so far from doing it, Aaron's swallowed them — thereby showing the supe- riority of his God to theirs.* Then came the plagues. * The following view of the magicians' miracles is from Pro- fessor Bush's Notes on Exodus. The Hebrew will bear the translation which he gives it. and the nature of the case cer- tainly demands it. " Instead of reciting the various opinions of commentators upon this subject, on which volumes have been written, we shall briefly propound the interpretation which, of all others, strikes us as the most probable. And we regret that, from its depending so entirely upon the idiomatic structure of the Hebrew, the mere English reader will not perhaps be able fully to appreciate its force. We will endeavor to make it, however, if not demon- strable, at least intelligible. It is a canon of interpretation of frequent use in the exposition of the sacred writings, that verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question. Thus, Ezek. xxiv. 13, ' I have purified thee, and thou wast not purged j ' i. e. I have endeavored, used means, been at pains, to purify thee. John v. 44, ' How can ye believe which receive honor one of another ? ' i. e. endeavor to receive. Rom. ii. 4, ' The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance}' i. e. endeavors or tends to lead thee. Amos ix. 3, ' Though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea j ' i. e. though they aim to be hid. 1 Cor. x. 33, ' I please all men j * i. e. endeavor to please. Gal. v. 4, ' Whosoever of you are justijied by the law } ' i. e. seek and endeavor to be justified. Ps. Ixix. 4, ' They that destroy me are mighty ; ' i. e. that en- deavor to destroy me 3 Eng. ' that would destroy me.' Acts vii. 26, ' And set them at one again ; ' i. e. wished and endeavored j Eng. ' would have set them.' The passage before us we con- sider as exhibiting a usage entirely analogous. ' They also did in like manner with their enchantments 5 ' i. e. they endeavored to do in like manner; just as in ch. viii. 18, it is said, 'And the magicians did so with their enchantments, to bring forth lice, but IN EGYPT. 45 The Nile, with its imaginary river-gods, was an object of peculiar sacredness and reverence to the Egyp- tians. Blood was an object of equal abhorrence. The fii-si plague turned the holy river into blood — thus pouring contempt on it and its gods. The frog they could not;' the words being precisely the same in both instances. Adopting this construction, we suppose that the former clause of verse 12 should be rendered, ' For they cast down every man his rod, that they might become serpents;' which the Hebrew reader will perceive to be a rendering pre- cisely parallel to that which occurs ch. vi. 11, 'Speak unto Pharaoh that he let the children of Israel go;' Heb. 'and he shall let go.' So, also, ch. vii. 2, ' Shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send ; ' Heb. ' and he shall send.' The magicians cast down their rods that they might undergo a similar transmutation with that of Moses, but it is not expressly said that they icere so changed, and we therefore incline to place their discomfiture in the loss of their rods, tho^e instruments with which they had vainly hoped to compete w itli Moses. If it be contended that there was some kind of change produced on the magicians' rods, but that it was effected by feats of juggling, or legerdemain, and amounted in fact merely to an optical illusion, it may be asked whether it is probable that they were prepared with all the ne- cessary apparatus to perform their prodigy at one and the same interview with that here mentioned. Moreover, if they had practised a deception by imposing upon the senses of the com- - pany, would not Moses have triumphantly detected and exposed it ? We doubt, therefore, whether there were any change at all produced upon the rods of the magicians. Should it be said that precisely the same expression is made use of in respect to Aaron's rod, and that we have as good evidence of the transfor- mation of their rods as of his, we answer, that it is expressly assert- ed (v. 10) of Aaron's: rod, that it became a serpent, while of the others this is not asserted, at least as we interpret the language." The same principles of interpretation apply to what is said of the other plagues. Ex. vii. 22 says, in reference to the plague of blood, " And the magicians did so with their enchantments ; " i. e. 46 THE SABBATH was held sacred by them, as au emblem of preserva- tion in floods and inundations. The second plague filled the waters and the land of Egypt with them to such an extent, that when it ceased, so far from min- istering preservation, the Egyptians (Ex. viii. 14) "gathered them together in heaps, and the land stank" with their rotting and polluted carcasses. To enter the temple of any of then* deities with lice, or any vermin of the kind, upon their garments, was to the Egyptians one of the greatest of profanations; so much so, that to prevent it, they generally wore two linen garments, one over the other, and laid aside the outer whenever they approached their gods. By the third plague, (Ex. viii. 17,) " all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt," cover- ing man and beast, so that not one of them could go into the presence of his idol god without offering in- sult to him. Among the living objects of their wor- ship, the bull, the heifer, the ram, the he-goat, were most sacred. The fifth plague laid these dead at the feet attempted to do so. It is not said that tliey succeeded. So, Ex. viii. 7 should read, " And the magicians did so, {attempted to do so,) that they might bring up frogs." And (Ex. viii. 18) we have it in terms, that " the magicians did so with their enchant- ments, to bring forth lice, but they could not." On this interpre- tation the magicians made four attempts in behalf of Egypt's gods to cope with Israel's God, and failed in all. As was natural, they then acknowledged, '*' This is the finger of God." Had they, however, succeeded in the other cases, so far from acknowledging the finger of God in consequence of their failure in the one last case, they would but have attributed it to some other cause, and gone on still testing the strength of Egypt's gods with the God of Israel. Success in three cases, and failure in one, surely would not have wrung out the condemnation of themselves and their gods in the unwelcome acknowledginent that Israel's was the true God, IN EGYPT. 47 of their worshippers. Of inanimate things, the heav- enly host — the sun, moon, and stars — were favorite objects of adoration. Tlie ninth plague put out their light over all the Egyptians, and showed that neither sun, nor moon, nor stars, could prevent the super- natural darkness of the superior power of Israel's God. So it was with all the plagues. They were not, nor were they designed to be, marvellous exhibi- tions merely of divine power, made only for effect, and irrespective of the great question at issue, but made with special reference to that question. Each was not only an exhibition of such power, but, in its nature and design, a test of strength between Israel's God and the gods of Egypt. " Yea, (Ex. xii. 12,) against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judg- ment ; Jam the Lord," was the purpose and the plan of that whole interposition. By such a judgment it was that the great question, " JVho is the true Godf " was settled, and the claim of Israel's God, "/" (not the gods of Egypt) " am the Lord" fully established. This done, the Hebrews were won back to the God of their fathers ; the question of their deliverance was settled ; and the way was opened for the restoration to them of their religious and consequent civil liberty ; i. e. of those religious opportunities, privileges, and rights, of which their bondage had deprived them, and which, as a means to an end, involved the question of their liberty, and were essential to their continued fidel- ity to their great Deliverer ; and, as such, were in fact the question at issue between him and Pharaoh. The previous question was. Who is the true God ? That settled, the main question was, Shall Israel be allowed to sei-ve him ? i. e. Shall Israel have their religious, and, 48 THE SABBATH SO far, their civil freedom ? To test this, the practical question was. Shall Israel have their Sabbath, with its opportunities of worship and sacrifice, and its connect- ed privileges and rights ? It was, throughout, a grand controversy between God and Pharaoh for the religious freedom of his people, as that freedom was involved in, and made to turn upon, their liberty to observe the Sabbath, with its connected opportunities of sacrifice and worship. That it was so is manifest, (1.) From the fact, that the one, uniform, and great demand of Moses and Aaron, in the name of God, and on behalf of the people, was, that they might go where they could serve God, by holding a religious festival to him — a plain declaration, that where they were, they had neither the time nor the liberty to do it, but that their privileges and rights in these re- spects were taken away. In their first interview with Pharaoh, (Ex. v. 1, 3,) the demand, in its original and official form, was, " Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast (religious festival) unto me in the wilderness." — " Let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God." And subsequently (compare Ex. vii. 16 ; viii. 1, 20, 25, 27, 28; ix. 1, 13; x. 3, 8, 9, 24, 25, 26; xii. 31, 32) the one unceasing demand was, " Let my people go, that they may serve me.'' — " With our flocks and our herds will we go ; for we must hold a feast (religious ftstival) unto the Lord." — "Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God." But why go out of Egypt for this, except on the ground that they could not do it in Egypt ? IN EGYPT. 49 (2.) The same is manifest from Pharaoh's proposi- tion for a compromise. When visited with the plague of flies, (Ex. viii. 25,) lie " called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the landP And this he proffered as a substitute for going into the wilderness to sacrifice. But how could it be a substitute, except on the ground that they had not been allowed to sacrifice "in the land" before.^ (3.) Moses' answer confirms the fact, and lets us into the reason of it. "It is not meet," said he, (Ex. viii. 26, 27,) "so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God : lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egj'p- tians before their eyes, and will they not stone us ? " * This is as if he had said, " We cannot do so ; for if we do we must sacrifice the bullock, the ram, &c., — the very deities of the Egyptians, — to our God. Our favorite sacrifices will be their favorite gods. What is worship to us will be sacrilege to them. And will they look quietly on, and see us, their slaves, off*er their favorite national gods in sacrifice to our God ? It cannot be. All Egypt will be in arms at such an outrage. *We will therefore go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God.' " Such was the reply. Can it be doubted that previous to this, the Israelites had neither the times, nor the privileges, nor the rights, of such worship, « in the land " ? (4.) As a general thing, the Israelites, while in Egypt, had fallen in with the idolatiy of their op- * The Chaldee version has it, " For the beasts which the Egyptians worship, shall we offer in sacrifice ; lo, shall we offer for sacrifice the beasts which the Eg-yptiaiis worship 1 " 50 THE SABBATH pressors — thereby showing that they had lost their disposition, as well as their opportunities and rights, to woi-ship Jehovah. This fact is plainly asserted in the insph-ed record. When Joshua had fairly plant- ed them in the promised laud, in his exhortation to them just before his death, he said, (Jos. xxiv. 14,) "Put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, even in Egypt, and serve ye the Lord." In Ezekiel, also, (xx. 6 — 8,) God says, that when he brought them out of Egypt, he said to them, "Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt ; I am the Lord your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me ; they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt." Indeed, it is only on the supposition that, as a general thing, idolatry had been the hahil of Israel, as well as Egypt, that you can explain the readiness with which they fell away to the worship of the molten calf at Sinai. After witnessing such marvellous displays of divine power, such convincing evidences of the superiority of Jehovah to the gods of Egypt, how could any, but a people habituated to worship those gods, and, from the force of that very habit, still half in doubt whether they were not the true ones, within three short months, actually deny their great Deliverer, and bow down in senseless homage to one of the idol gods of their oppressors ? On any other supposition, the scene at Sinai were little less than a miracle. But whence came it, that idolatry was the habit of the Hebrews while in Egypt ? Not from the force IN EGYPT. 51 of example merely ; for the Hebrew, being a herds- man, was such " an abomination to the Egyptians," (Gen. xlvi. 34,) that (Gen. xliii. 32) "the Egyptian might not eat bread with the Hebrews." This fact, especially when accompanied with a grinding op- pression, would beget a similar prejudice in the He- brew in return, and so destroy the force of example, in leading him off to the worship of his oppressor's gods. Causes more powerful than example, then, and better adapted to the end, must have existed, and conspired to work out such a result. As they could not worship their God without offering insult and committing sacrilege to the gods of Egypt, sup- pose them stripped, by the strong arm of oppression, of all their religious opportunities, privileges, and rights, and, in all public, social worship, compelled to worship Egypt's gods or none ; in such a state of things you have causes adequate to the result. With no Sabbath, with its stated opportmiities for public and social religious instruction and worship ; with no occasional opportunities of the kind ; and with no privileges and rights peculiar to the worship of their God, — and this continued from generation to genera- tion through a period of two hundred years or more, — no wonder that they forsook, if they did not forget, the God of their fathers, and fell in with the idolatry of their oppressors. On this supposition, their idol- atiy is explained. On no other can it be. (5.) That this is the true solution, is further manifest from the manner 'n which Pharaoh first received the command to let the people go. The first part of that mandate (Ex. v. 1 — 8) was, "Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go." To this Pharaoh 52 THt SABBATH replied, "Who is JehovaJi, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?" The second part of the mandate was, " that they may hold a feast (a festival of sacrifice and worship) to me in the wilderness." To this he answered, "Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aai'on, let the people from their works ? Behold, the people ai*e many, yet ye make them " (all) '■'■rest from their burdens!" — literally, (/tisMattem,) "ye cause them to sabbatize, or keep Sabbath from their bur- dens! " — Strange infatuation, that you should expect me to allow this ! Indeed, worshippers as they gen- erally are of Egypt's gods, what real care have they for the God of which you speak, or the season of religious rest and sacrifice for which you clamor? Nay, nay, it is a mere pretence — a cover to their in- dolence : " They be idle " — " They be idle ; there- fore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God." Such was plainly the drift and meaning of the reply. And being so, what is it but a clear inti- mation, that the demand of Moses and Aaron was a demand for the restoration of the Sabbath, with its connected opportunities and privileges of religious instruction, sacrifice, and worship? Moreover, (6.) the term "feast" in the demand is indicative of as much as this. That the Sabbath was called a " feast " is proved by Lev. xxiii. 2, 3, where it is named as one of " the feasts of the Lord." That the feast which Moses demanded was some religious fes- tival, or season for sacrifice and worship, is proved by the terms of the demand as quoted above, p. 48. That it was that festival or season, which was af- terwards the distinguishing badge of the people as the worshippers of Jehovah, and which was most IN EGYPT. 53 sacredly and scrupulously observed by them, is cer- tainly most probable. That festival, or season, was the Sabbath. After their departure from Egypt, the first " feast," or season of worship, of which we have any account, was that of the Sabbath. In the sub- sequent enumeration of "the feasts of the Lord," (Lev. xxiii.) the Sabbath is named first — "These are iny feasts. Six days shall work be done ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest," &c. Then the several yearly feasts are named. And finally, the Sabbath, above all, was made their distinguishing " sign," or badge, as the worshippers of Jehovah, and not of idols. Can it be doubted, then, that this was the feast so sternly demanded by Moses, and so res- olutely refused by Pharaoh ? and, therefore, that the grand object of God's interposition in the case, was, to restore the Sabbath to his people, and with that their religious freedom ? and this done to leave them no excuse for not serving him with fidelity? Indeed, (7.) all this is distinctly declared by Moses in the subsequent history. In Deut. v. ]2 — 15, we find the following : — " Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God : in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates ; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched- 5# 54 THE SABBATH out arm : tlierefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day." What is the true import of this passage ? It occurs in the midst of a recapitulation of tlie ten command- ments. It contains, first, an injunction to keep the Sabbath ; tben a declaration that the seventh day of the week is the day for keeping it; then an injunc- tion to the Hebrew to abstain from all ordinary labor on that day, and to let his children, mnd soDants, and beasts, do the same ; then the reason of this provision for the servants — " that they may rest as ivell as thou ; " and then a reference to his bondage in Egypt, and deliverance from it. JFhy this reference ") Not, surely, to give the reason for the original institution of the Sabbath; for that is given (Ex. xx. 11) thus — "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore " (because he did this, not because he brought the Hebrews out of Egypt) "the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day,* and hallowed it." To make the pas- sage before us give another and a different reason, is to involve the Bible in contradiction. The obvious design of the reference, then, was to give force to the reason of the provision for the servants. How it would give force to that reason, may be seen in the following paraphrase : — " Keep the Sabbath, &c., and let your servants keep it, that they may rest as well as thou ; and, that * The Septuaglnt, and several otlier versions, have this : — •' The Lord blessed the seventh day," &c. This is plainly the true reading ; for it agrees with the facts in the case, and also with the original record in Gen. ii. 3. IN EGYPT. 55 thou mayest let them rest as well as thou, remember that thou wast a servant once m the land of Egypt, where thou wouldst have been glad of such a day of rest, butcouldstnot have it; and remember, also, that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, &c., be- cause that * the Lord thy God had commanded thee to keep the Sabbath, and thou couldst not do it there." This view is demanded by the context, and makes the reference to the bondage in Egypt apt and for- cible. Well might the Hebrew let his servants rest on the Sabbath, when he remembered how he was deprived of it in Egypt, and what God had wrought to give it back to him, and with it all his religious privileges and rights. Can it be doubted, then, that this is the true import and design of the reference ? And being so, what is the whole passage but a dis- tinct declaration, that, as involving the question of their religious freedom, the Sabbath, with its oppor- tunities of worship and its connected religious priv- ileges and rights, was the great question at issue between God and Pharaoh in the deliverance of the * Tlie term al-Jcen, rendered here " therefore," is often used in the Bible in the sense of '' because that," or " on account of," as may be seen by consulting any Hebrew Lexicon : Or, without any change in the translation, the paraphrase may run thus: — " Remember that thou wast a servant once in the land of Egypt, where thou wouldst have been glad of such a day of rest, but couldst not have it; and that then the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, that thou mightest have it. Therefore, because ho has done all this to give it back to you, he has commanded you anew to keep it." In cither view, the passage teaches that the Sabl^^lh, as a preexisting institution, was the reason for the de- liverance, and not that the deliverance was a reason for the institution of the Sabbath. 56 THE SABBATH IN EGYPT. Hebrews from their house of bondage? Put, then, these items together — the demand to go out where they could keep a festival of sacrifice and worship to the Lord ; the permission, as a compromise, to sacri- fice in the land ; the fiict that they could not do this without committing, as the Egyptians would regard it, sacrilege ; that, as a general thing, the Hebrews had fallen in with the idolatry of their oppressors, — which, considering their strong mutual repellances, could not have been, had they not been deprived, by the strong arm of power, of their religious oppor- tunities and rights; that the Sabbath was preem- inently the "feast" of the Jews; that Pharaoh actually complains that Moses and Aaron cause the people to keep Sabbath from their burdens ; and, finally, that Moses informs us in terms that God brought them up out of Egypt, because he had commanded them to keep Sabbath, implying, beyond question, that they could not keep it there ; — put all these items together, and then add the fact that the first religious obser- vance, of which we have any account afler their dehverance, is that of the Sabbath, and can it be believed that we have no mention of a Sabbath, and no complaint of encroachments upon it, during the period of Egyptian bondage ? What, indeed, in the light of these facts, is that whole history but one un- broken complaint ? And what was the " feast," or season of sacrifice and worship, so loudly demanded, but that very season whose religious observance is so early mentioned in the subsequent history ? And that season was the Sabbath. The evidence on this point will accumulate as we proceed. CHAPTER VI. THE SABBATH IN THE WILDERNESS. The Sabbath, it is said, was originally given in the second month after the deliverance from Egypt, in the wilderness of Sin, and as a memorial of that de- liverance. 1. The only proof attempted of its being such a memorial, is drawn from the passage (Deut. v. 15) we have just examined. The form of phraseology, " Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day," it is said, proves that it was instituted, and was to be kept, as a memorial of the deliverance referred to. But, as we have seen, the Hebrew admits of, and the connection of the passage requires, the rendering, ^^ because that the Lord thy God had coiinnanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day." This rendering makes the Sabbath, as previously existing, a reason for the deliverance, and not the deliverance a reason for its institution. That this is the true sense of the passage, and that the Sabbath was not instituted as a memorial of the event in question, is further manifest, (1.) From the fict, that, as such a memorial, it has no signiftcancy. Nothing is more obvious than that in all the memorials, symbols, types, «fec., of the old economy, care was taken to have the sign a fit em- 6S THE SABBATH blem of the thing signified. There was always a fit- ness in the nature of the one to that of the other. Thus, in the Sabbath as a memorial of creation, there is a fitness in the memorial to the thing memorial- ized. But as a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, what is there in the sign to represent the thing sig- nified ? They were not delivered on the seventh day of the week ; at least there is no evidence of it. Nor were they brought out by virtue of seven plagues ; for there were ten of them. Nor was there any thing in the event itself to make the reli- gious observance of each seventh day an appropriate and fit memorial of it. As such memorial, why, then, should it recur every seventh day? Why not have it every tenth, according to the number of plagues? Or every seventieth ? Or every month ? Or, as it was the day of their national freedom, why not have it, like our own anniversary of American independ- ence, once a year, and on the day and month of their deliverance ? That would have made it as a memo- rial, significant of the event. But as it is, it has no significancy of it whatever. (2.) To suppose it such a memorial involves the Bible in irreconcilable contradiction. The reason given for its institution, in Ex. xx. 11, is, " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c., and rested the seventh day." That given in Ex. xxxi. 17, is the same. And both are the same with that given in the first mention of it, in Gen. ii. 3. Every where the reason is the same. It is only in the passage under con- sideration, that a diflferent reason even seems to be given. What, then, is the inference ? That the Bible .contradicts itself — assigning two different reasons for IN THE WILDERNESS. 59 the same thing, the one utterly unlike, and twenty-five hundi-ed years apart from, the other ? Or, that the passage in question is to be understood in some other sense ; and in that especially, which, while it makes the Bible consistent, is allowed by the original, and adds force and beauty to the connection ? But, (3.) The passover, and the sanctijication, or setting apart of thejirst-born of man and beast to the service of the altar and the temple, were specially instituted as memorials of the deliverance in question. While yet in Egypt, (Ex. xii. 1 — 07,) God, by Moses and Aaron, gave to the Israelites specific direction in re- gard to the intent of the passover, the manner of keeping it, and its perpetual observance in the land to which he was about to bring them. Of its observance there he says, (v. 14,) "This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations ; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever. And (vs. 26, 27) when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service ? ye shall say. It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyp- tians, and delivered our houses." After their de- parture, the command was, (Ex. xiii. 3, 8 — 10,) "Re- member this day in which ye came out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And (after repeating the directions about keeping it) thou shalt show thy son in that day, saying. This is done because of that wliich the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes ; that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth ; for with a 60 THE SABBATH Strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.^'' This was their national anniver- saiy, cominemorative, like the anniversaiy of Ameri- can independence, of their national deliverance. In the same connection, also, God said, (Ex. xiii. 2, 12,) "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever open- eth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast : it is mine;" or, (v. 12,) "Set them apart to the Lord, &c. ; the males shall be the Lord's " — the beasts (v. 13) to be offered in sacrifice, and the men to be redeemed. " And (vs. 14 — 16) it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this ? that thou shalt say unto him. By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage ; for it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first- born of man, and the first-born of beast : therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males, (of beasts;) but all the fii-st-born of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes, that by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt." Here, then, we have two distinct and appropriate in- stitutions — the one to be observed fi'om year to year as a great national religious anniversary, the other entering as a permanent organic ai'rangement into their religious and civil polity, and both standing me- morials of their deliverance from Egj^pt. In these memorials, moreover, there was a fitness in the sign to the thing signified. Why, then, have a third memorial IN THE WILDERNESS. 61 of the same event, and especially one destitute of all fitness as a representative of the thing memorialized? Or, if a third were to be had, why not institute it like the others, at the time ? Why wait for a two months' journey into the wilderness ? Manifestly, the Sabbath was not instituted as a memorial of deliver- ance from F.gYpt. 2. Nor was the Sabbath originally instituted m the second month after the deliv^erance, and while the Hebrews were in the wilderness of Sin. That it was, is argued fi'om the general tenor of the mention made of it (Ex. xvi. 23 — 30) at the giving of manna; and especially from the fact, that it is said to have been " given," or " made known,^^ then. " See, (Ex. xvi. 29,) for that the Lord hath given you the Sab- bath ; " and, (Ezek. xx. 11, 12,) " I gave them my stat- utes, and showed them my judgments. Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths;" and, (Neh. ix. 13, 14,) " Thou gavest them commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath." And how^ it is asked, could the Sabbath have existed before, if it were "g"ive«," or "?7iacfe knoivn^'' theji? (1.) This argument assumes that laws and institu- tions are never said to be "given," or "made known" when they are renewed, but only when they are first promulgated or established. But this is not true. For, among the statutes, &c., which God, in Ezekiel, says he gave in the wilderness, circumcision was obviously one. Yet that existed and "was observed before. In- deed, Christ (John vii. 22) says in terms that it was given then, and yet did exist before — " Moses gart- unto you circumcision, not that it is of Moses, (ori- ginally) but of the fathers." This settles the poirL 6 62 THE SABBATH that laws and institutions are sometimes said to be given, when they are merely reestablished, or incor- porated into some new economy. The same is true of the phrase "madest known," in Nehemiah. The term in the original is the same with that translated "showed" in Ezekiel. But as we have just seen, circumcision was one of the things "showed," or " made known," by Moses at that time. Yet the law of circumcision was not then first promulgated. So with the law of murder. That was as old as the flood. "Whoso (Gen. ix. 6) sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And the institu- tion of marriage, too, was as old as creation. Yet both these were among the statutes and the judg- ments of the Mosaic economy. This is conclusive, that laws and institutions are said to be " given," or " made known," when they are only reestablished, or incorporated into some new economy, as well as when originally promulgated. And this, even if we could not explain the reason or propriety of the usage, shows conclusively that the argument from it is without the least force. But we can explain it. Nothing is easier or more obvious. There are two explanations, either of which is satisfactory. The Mosaic economy was made up of two kinds of in- stitutions and laws. The one were those which had existed before ; the other, those which were given by Moses for the first time. Yet, taken together as a whole, they made a code, or an economy, which, as a whole, was new. It was a new code — it was a new economy, although made up in part of elements that had existed before. Speaking of them, then, as a whole, or as a part even of this whole, it was per- IN THE WILDERNESS. 63 fectly proper and natural to speak of them as "g^i7en," or '■^rrmde known,''^ at the time when the new code or economy, as such, was promulgated or established. But we have a better solution. The Sabbath, with its connected observances, was subsequently, we find, the distinguishing badge, or " sign," by which the wor- shippers of Jehovah were to be known from the worshippers of idols. If it existed before the bon- dage in Egj'pt, it must have been an equally distinctive badge ; and therefore the institution which pagan oppressors would be most likely to invade, or take from their vassals. Suppose, then, that the Hebrews were robbed of their Sabbath in Egypt, and with it of their other religious privileges and rights ; that, as a result, they had generally fallen in with the cuiTent idolatry ; that, by such degeneracy, continued through a period of one or tA\ o hundred years, they had for- gotten and lost the regular day for the Sabbath, or, if not this, had forgotten the proper modes of sacrifice and worship upon it — and Moses (Ex. x. 26) says, "For we know not with what we must serve the Lord until we come thither " (into the wilderness) — suppose all this; and now God, by the hand of Moses, brings them out, and, with such new institutions and laws as their circumstances demand, gives them back the old ones too, and makes known to them the things they had forgotten ; and then how natural and impres- sive the language, "I gave them my Sabbaths" — "Thou gavest them commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath"! Could any thing be more so ? But, (2.) If the Sabbath were originally given at the giv- ing of manna, (Ex. xvi. 23 — 29,) how mai'vellous the 64 THE SABBATH diflei'ence in the first account of its original institu- tion and that of the passovei' and the sanctification of the fii-st-horn ! In the first mention of the original institution of the two latter, (Ex. xii. 1 — ^27, and xiii. 1 — 16,) we have a minute and specific detail of the time, occasion, and reason or design of their institu- tion. We should expect a similar record of the origi- nal institution of the Sabbath. On the supposition of its institution at creation, we have such record in Gen. ii. 2, 3. On the supposition of its institution in the wilderness, we ought to have a similar record. But we have not. Though, on this supposition, in- stituted nearly at the same time, and for precisely the same reasons, with the passover and the sanctification of the first-born, the fii'st record of it says not one word of the time, or the occasion, or the reasons of it, nor indeed of the proper modes of its observance. The record is full and minute, on these points, in re- gard to the other iustitutions. Why is it not equally so in reference to this ? Nay, in reference to them, the entire structure of the language is that of appoint- ment and command. It is throughout "thou shalt," « ye shall," " they shall," do this or that, and it " shall be a memorial " of this or that. But there is not a word of this in the supposed first record (Ex. xvi. 23 — 29) of the Sabbath. The structure here is, " To-morrow is" — not shall be — "the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Why the difference, except on the sup- position, that the mention of the Sabbath in this case, so far from being that of its original institution, was a mere incidental mention of it, as of an institution already existing and observed, and now particularly spoken of in consequence of die manna's not falling IN THE WILDERNESS. 65 upon that day, and as the reason of its not falling then? — as if the historian would say, (Ex. xvi. 26,) " On six days of the week the manna shall fall, and ye shall gather it ; but on the seventh day of the week, which, as an existing and previous fact, is the Sab- bath, there shall be none." Such a view accounts for the difference in these records of the Sabbath, the passover, and the sanctification of the first-born. In the light of it, we can readily see why it is, that in the one case, there is great minuteness of specifica- tion and detail, and the language of appointment and command, while in the other there is nothing of the kind. The one is the record of the original estab- lishment of new institutions ; the other, an incidental mention of an old one. (3.) The circumstances of the case, and the general connection and obvious import of the passage in ques- tion, are decisive of the correctness of this view. This will be obvious from a familiar paraphrase or running comment The people (v. 2) murmur for bread. To supply them, God says, (v. 4,) " Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day " of the week, the Sabbath excepted, " that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no. For (v. 5) it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day " of the week " they shall prepare that which they'bring in ; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily," or "on other days," so that they shall have nothing to prevent their resting and worshipping me on the Sabbath, and I may thus be able to prove them, to see whether they will walk in my law or no. The manna fell, and the people gathered it as di- 6* 66 THE SABBATH reeled. Some, in their anxiety for the future, kept some of it (v. 20) "until the" next "morning, and it bred worms and stank; and Moses was wroth" at their want of confidence in God. Nevertheless, the manna continued to fall, "and (v. 21) they gathered it every morning" of the week, "every man accord- ing to his eating ; and when the sun waxed hot it melted," so that there was none to be gathered after that, until the next morning. "And (v. 22) it came to pass, that on the sixth day" of the week, as God had said, " they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and," as God, by Moses, had told them (v. 5) " to prepare " this, so that it would keep for the next day, "all the rulers of the congre- gation came and told Moses," that he might tell them, and they the people, how to prepare it. And there was the more need of this, inasmuch as some had tried to keep it over to the next morning during the previous week, and, mstead of keeping, it had only "bred worms and stank." And Moses (v. 23) " said unto them, This is what the Lord hath said," viz. that (v. 5) on the sixth day of the week they shall pre- pare what they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather on other clays. " To-morrow," as you are aware, " is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." That you may be able to keep it, you may prepare your food by baking or seething, just as you choose. Prepared either way, it will keep. Therefore, "bake that which ye will bake, and seethe that ye will seethe," and eat what you wish of it to-day, " and that which remaineth over lay up for you, to be kept until the morning." And they did so, (v. 24,) "and it did not stink, neither was there IN THE WILDERNESS. 67 any worm therein" as there was before. "And" (v. 25,) when the Sabbath had come, " 3Ioses said. Eat that to-day, for to-day is " — not shall be — "a Sab- bath " or holy rest " unto the Lord : to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days " of the week (v. 26) "ye shall gather it, but on the seventh day" of the week, " the Sabbath, in it," because it is the Sabbath, and that you may have nothmg to hinder you from keep- ing it, " there shall be none. And," (v. 27,) yet after all this, " there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, but they found none. And the Lord " (v. 28) was grieved at their disobe- dience, and " said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws ? " Just think what I have done that you might have the Sab- bath back again, and have nothing to prevent your keeping it. When you could not keep it in Egypt because of your oppressors, I brought you out thence ; and now, that you may have nothing to prevent your keeping it here, I give you, on the sixth day of the week, the food of two days. " See, (v. 29,) for that the Lord hath given you " back " the Sabbath, therefore," because he has done it, and that you may keep it, " he giveth you on the sixth day " of the week "the bread of two days." Why, then, should ye not keep it ? Why not spend it in the woi-ship and semce of the Lord your God ? " Abide ye every man in his place : let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So (v. 30) the people rested on the seventh day." Can it be doubted that this is an incidental mention of an institution already existing, and not the record of its original establishment? Can it be doubted, either, that the restoration of this to an oppressed people, 68 THE SABBATH with its accompanying privileges and rights, as an ancient institution of their ancient faith, was one grand object of their dehverance? Finally, if the Sabbath were originally instituted in the wilderness, and as a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, why should it be incorporated into the decalogue, ratlier than the law of the passover, or that of the sanctification of the first-born ? The decalogue, with the exception of the law of the Sabbath, is confess- edly made up of those laws whose obligation is founded in the very nature of things, is unchanging and })erpetual in its character, and common to man in every age and every nation. It is, in one word, a summary of the COMMON LAW OF THE WORLD — of that common law, which exists prior to, is inde- pendent of, and yet enters naturally and necessarily as FUNDAMENTAL LAW, into every well-ordered ecclesiastical and civil polity. This, confessedly, is true of the decalogue, with the single exception of the law of the Sabbath. Here, then, according to the supposi- tion before us, are three institutions, established about the same time, commemorative of the same event, and equally limited in their existence, obligation, and de- sign, to the Jewish economy. Why should the law of one of them go in as part and parcel of the common law of mankind, rather than that of either of the others ? Or, if a selection must be made, why should it fall upon the Sabbath ? The passover, as a sign or memorial, was most impressively significant of the thing signified. The Sabbath, as we have seen, has no such signifi- cancy whatever. Why, then, should it take prece- dence of the passover.^ The sanctification of the first- born was also equally significant, and in addition to IN THE WILDERNESS. 0\f this, entered, if not as fundamental, yet as permanent, organic law, into the entire Jewish pohty. As such law it was to live as long as the polity itself. Why, then, should the Sabhath take precedence of it ? There is but one answer. The Sabbath was not origmally instituted in the wilderness, nor as a memorial of de- liverance from Egypt, nor as limited to the Jewish economy. Like the marriage institution, it had its being at creation. It was made for man — the race It grew naturally and necessarily out of his nature, necessities, and relations. It existed prior to and in- dependent of the Jewish and every other individual and limited economy. As an iiistitution, it began, like that of marriage, with the race ; was made for the race, and was designed to live while the race should, and to go down through economy after economy, until the last economy should crumble to pieces, and time give place to eternity. Of course the law of its observance^ "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy," was to it just what the law of the marriage institution, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," was to it. As the latter, whether written by the finger of God on tables of stone, or in the deep foundations of the nature, necessities, and relations of man, was a part of uni- versal common law, and therefore included in God's summaiy of that law, so it was with the forruer. That was as truly a part of the common law of the race as was the law of marriage, and, being so in fact, was of course incorporated inform into God's summaiy of it. No other supposition can explain the precedence of the law of the Sabbath, in respect to its insertion in the decalogue, over that of the passover, or the sanc- tification of the first-born. The one was a part of 70 THE SABBATH universal common law — going, therefore, as funda- mental law, into all well-ordered economies. The others were but a part of the statute law of that par- ticular economy. The one, therefore, because it was a part of it, went into God's summary of the common law of man. The others, because they were not a part of it, did not go into it. What other solution can be given of the fact in question ? And this being given, how clear is it that the law of the Sabbath, like the laws of marriage, property, and life, is universally and perpetually binding! Objection. But it is said, that " where Moses rehears- es the commandments, (the fourth among the rest,) he says, (Deut. v. 3,) ' The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.' " * And the inference is, that the Sabbath was not instituted at the creation, nor for all men, but in the wilderness, and for the Jew only, and of course is not obligatory on the Christian. Answer. The covenant here spoken of included the whole decalogue. This is admitted. Whatever, then, the declaration, that it was not made with the fathers, proves in respect to one part of it, as, for instance, the law of the Sabbath, it equally proves in respect to every part. If it prove that the patriarchs had no Sabbath, and that the law of its observance was not binding on them, it proves equally that they had no God, and that the law of his worship was not binding ; that they had no marriage institution, with its filial and conjugal relations, and that the laws of their observance, "Honor thy father and thy mother," • Grew, on the Sabbath, p. 5. IN THE WILDERNESS. 71 " Thou shalt not commit adultery," were not binding ; and so of the whole decalogue, the law of property, " Thou shalt not steal," and that of life, " Thou shalt not kill," not excepted. In the same manner, if the declaration in question prove that there is no Sabbath under the Christian dispensation, and that the law of its observance is not binding on tliose that live under it, with equal certainty does it prove that Christianity is a universal exemption from eveiy obligation of the decalogue, and an entire extinctionof every institution and every right guarded by it — the instituiion of marriage and the rights of conscience, property, and life, not excepted. And is it so ? Were the patriarchs at liberty to worship God or not, to honor their pa- rents or not, to commit adultery, lie, steal, and kill, or not, as they might choose, and with perfect impunity ? And is this the glorious liberty wherewith Christ maketh free ? No one pretends it. But it is said, the institutions and rights guarded in the decalogue, with the laws of their observance, are, in their nature, of universal and unchanging obliga- tion, and of course are binding on all men, in eveiy age, and under every dispensation. Admit it; and how does it appear that the Sabbath, with the law of its obsei-vance, is not equally so ? At all events, the declaration that " God made not this covenant with the fathers " does not prove it otherwise. It proves no more of the law of the Sabbath than of every other law in the decalogue. If, therefore, the law of the maiTiage institution, "Thou shalt not commit adul- tery," is, in its nature, of universal and unchanging ob- ligation, equally so, for aught that this passage proves, is the law of the Sabbath. And the same is true of 72 THE SABBATH IN THE WILDERNESS. every command of the decalogue. All are equally parts of the covenant in question. If all the others, then, be of universal and unchanging obligation, and, as such, binding on all men, in all ages, and under eveiy dispensation, notwithstanding the fact that the covenant, of which they are a part, was not made with the fathers, why is not the law of the Sabbath equally so ? Their association together in the same covenant surely argues them alike rather than unlike. At all events, if the one be purely Jewish, and the others not so, the proof lies elsewhere, not in this passage. This proves nothing either way ; or, if any thing, it proves only that the law of the Sabbath, like every other commandment of the decalogue, is of universal and ceaseless obligation. CHAPTER VII. THE SABBATH A SIGN. It is said, " God gave the Sabbath as a distinctive sign to the Israehtes — a sign, that, for purposes of infinite wisdom, he had chosen them as a pecuhar people, and separated them from the nations of the earth. How could the Sabbath have been such a dis- tinctive sign, if it had been given to all nations ? " *■ The fact here asserted, and in the sense asserted, is supposed to be taught in Ex. xxxi. 13 — 17, and Ezek. XX. 1-2, 20. Admitting, for the moment, the correctness of this interpretation, I ask, 1. When were the Israelites, as a nation, so chosen and separated ? Not at the time of their deliverance from Egypt, obviously ; nor at any subsequent period. They were delivered because they were God's chosen people already, not that they might afterwards become so. The truth is, they were originally chosen as God's peculiar people in the person of Abraham, their great progenitor. The Lord (Gen. xii. 1—3) said to Abram, " Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house," (that was the commencement of the separation from the other na- tions,) " unto a land that 1 will show thee ; and I will * Grew, on the Sabbath, p. 5. 7 74 THE SABBATH make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great." And afterwards, when he en- tered more formally into special covenant with him, he said, (Gen. xv. 13—16,) "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them ; and they shall afflict them four hundred years : and also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge ; and afterward shall they come out with great substance." Nor were this selection and covenant ever lost sight of through the whole line of the patriarchs and their posterity, from Abraham to Moses. They were repeatedly renewed to Isaac and to Jacob, as the heads and representatives of their posterity. And Joseph, the last of the patriarchal line of whom we have any account previous to Moses, when he was about to die, said (Gen. 1. 24) to his brethren, "I die; but God will surely visit you, and Dring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Accord- ingly when, after his death, (Ex. i. 8, 13, 14,) " there arose a new king in Egypt, which knew Hot Joseph," and "the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor, and made their lives bitter with hard bondage," so that (Ex. ii. 23,) " the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage," then, we ai'e in- formed, (Ex. ii. 24, 25,) " God heard their groaning, and God remembered his COVENANT with Mraham, ivith Isaac, and ivith Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." And when he first summoned Moses to the work of their deliverance, (Ex. iii. 6, 10,) the language was, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: I have seen the A SIGN. /O affliction of my people, and I am come down to de- liver them. Come now, therefore, and I will send thee imto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my peo- ple, the children of Israel, out of Egypt." And when Moses first approached Pharaoh, (Ex. iv. 22, 23,) he was directed to say, " Thus saith the Lord, Israel is " (not is to be) "m^ son, even my first-born; and I say unto thee. Let my son go, that he may serve me." They were therefore his people — his son, even his first-born, before their deliverance from Egypt. They had then, as truly as afterwards, their distinctive na- tional existence, as his chosen people ; and it was be- cause they had, and because he remembered his cove- nant with them as such, that he came down to deliver. And that whole interposition in their behalf was, not their original selection as his peculiar people, but only their re-selection, accomplished by the fulfilment of covenant engagements growing out of their original se- lection more than six hundred years before. For hun- dreds of years, then, they had been God's chosen people. As such, they had had a distinctive tribual or national existence. And can it be, that during all this period they were without the great distinctive sign of that exist- ence ? If they had no Sabbath, and the Sabbath were that sign, as alleged, they were without it. So that, on this supposition, they had their distinctive existence as God's chosen people, but had no distinctive sign or badge of it until some centuries after that existence began ! And can that be ? By no means. Either they had the Sabbath before, or it was not a distinctive sign of their distinctive existence as God's chosen people. But it was such sign. They had the Sabbath, then, from the beginning. This conclusion is unavoidable. 76 THE SABBATH To talk of a sign instituted five hundred years or more after the commencement of the thing signified, is ab- surd. Besides, 2. What were those ^^ purposes of infinite wisdom" on account of which the selection and separation in question were made ? The great purpose, as every one knows, — tliat which overshadowed and included every other, — was to preserve and perpetuate among men the knowledge and worship of Jehovah as the ti'ue God, in distinction from all idol gods ; and thus to prepare the way for the coming and kingdom of Messiah. It was, that, amid the wide-spread and uni- versal prevalence of idolatry among the nations, there might be one nation of worshippers of the true God, out of which, in the fulness of time, he should come, who was to ransom man, and be the Desire of all na- tions. If, then, the Sabbath were given to the Hebrews as a distinctive sign of their selection and separation by God from other nations, it could be such a sign, only, as it served to mark them as the believers in and wor- shippers of Jehovah as the true God, in distinction from the worshippers of idol gods. It must have been such a thing, in its origin, nature, or design, that the Hebrews, in observing it, would, by that act, profess themselves believers in and worshippers of him, as the only true God ; so that its observance, in the very act of it, should be the great distinctive badge of tlieir re- ligious profession, and a constant and impressive me- mento that Jehovah, not any idol, was the God who sanctified or set them apart to his service. There must also have been something about it so unique in its character, and so unlike every other institution and ordinance, that its observance would say, Jehovah is A siijix. ^ 77 the only true God, and we b'^lieve in and worship him according!}', more significantly and impressively than it could be said by the obsen'^ance of any other. How else could it be the gi-eat distinctive sign of their great distinctive national peculiarity ? How else become the distinctive badge of their distinctive religious profes- sion as the worshippers of Jehovah ? Now, as a memorial of deliverance from Egypt^ what was there in the Sabbath to make it, rather than any other ordinance or institution, such a distinguish- ing badge ? The passover and the sanctification of the first-born were memorials of the same event, and, as signs, far more significant of the thing signified. To observe the Sabbath, then, as a memorial of this event, would not say, Jehovah is the only true God, and we believe in and serve him as such, any more significantly than to have observed either of these other institutions. Their observance would have been just as distinctive a badge of their belief in and worship of Jehovah, as the only true God, as was that of the Sabbath. Why, then, should the Sabbath have the precedence ? On this supposition, it shoidd not have. But change the supposition — admit that the Sabbath was instituted at creation as a standing memorial of the fact, that in six days Jehovah created the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh day, and then the regular ob- servance of it by the Hebrews was a weekly national testijnony, that the world was not made by the gods and according to the theories of paganism, but by Je- hovah, and in six days, and that he, therefore, is the only living and true God. Such an institution, hold- ing forth in its regular observance such a testimony, was, therefore, the institution best fitted, of all others, 7 * 78 THE SABBATH to be the great distinctive sign or badge of their great distinctive peculiarity as the chosen people of God. Its observance, in this view of it, would most significantly mark them as the worshippers of Jehovah, and dis- tinguish and keep them separate from the idolatrous nations around them, and thus be a sign forever of the covenant between them and their God. And, 3. This, indeed, is the true import of the passage (Ex. xxxi. 13 — 17) under consideration. The connection of the passage is this : God had given certain direc- tions in regard to building the tabernacle. Then, lest they should encroach on the Sabbath in doing it, he adds, " Verily " (Hebrew, JVevertheless) "my Sabbaths shall ye keep;" and the reason assigned for it is, in the Hebrew, literally this : " For it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, for to make it known" {n^_'\h, ladaat)/^ llmt I, Jehovah, am he that sanctifies you." As a whole, then, the passage is as if God had said, "You are about to be employed in an important and sacred work, one requiring close attention and great despatch ; nevertheless, be care- ful not to encroach on holy time. Let the business, urgent as it is, cease during the hallowed hours of the Sabbath ; for the Sabbath is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, by the keeping of which it is to be known that I, Jehovah, am the God that sanctifies or sets you apart as mine." Such is the obvious and true import of the passage. And this import gives us the Sabbath as that sign, whose ob- serv'ance was to tell the world who and what their God was. Its observance was, therefore, the public profes- sion of their religious faith — a public avowal that they were not idolaters, but the worshippers of Jehovah. Of A SIGN. 79 course, apostasy from the sign was, practically, and in effect, apostasy from the thing signified. It was prac- tically a renunciation of their religious faith, and apos- tasy from their God. Of course, it was substantial idolatry, and, as such, a treasonable offence, punish- able with death. Moreover, on examining the passage further, we find, (v. 16,) that the childr€n of Israel were "to ob- serve the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant," or standing ordinance ; that so observed, (v. 17,) it was a sign between Jehovah and them forever ; and finally, we learn what that was in the Sabbath, which made it such a sign, rather than any other ordinance. It was not, that God, without any fitness in the thing itself, had arbitrarily fixed it so ; nor that God had brought them out of Egypt. Not a word do we hear of any such reason. But "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for- ever." Why ? What makes it so ? " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Here, then, we have it in distinct terms that it was tJie connection of the Sabbath with the creation, that made it, rather than the passover, or any other ordinance, the sign in ques- tion. What that connection was we have already seen. Jehovah made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, and set apart the seventh to be observed as a perpetual memorial of what he had done. As such memorial, every individual who kept it, thereby de- clared his belief, that the world was not made by the gods, and according to the theories of paganism, but by Jehovah ; and that he, therefore, not they, was the real Creator, and of course the only living and true 80 THE SABBATH God. A memorial, holding forth such a testimony in its observance, was, in its very nature, a distinctive sign or badge of the worshippers of Jehovah. They could not keep it without thereby marking themselves as worshippers of him, and not of idols. They could not neglect or refuse to keep it without losing their distinctive badge, and becoming so far identified with idolaters. It was preeminently the badge of their religious faith. To observe it, was to profess faith in Jehovah as the only ti-ue God. Not to observe it, was to say, Jehovah is not the only true God, and was tan- tamount to apostasy or idolatry ; and as that govern- ment was a theocracy, such apostasy or idolatry was virtual high-treason. No wonder, then, that God se- lected this as the sign, rather than some other ordi- nance, and then placed such an estimate upon it, and dealt out such a penalty upon its violation. The Sab- bath was fitted, in its nature, to be such a sign or badge. As such, the obligation to observe it was only another form of the obligation to have no other gods before Jehovah, and was therefore equally sacred, and its vio- lation equally criminal. In this view of the case, all is plain. Every thing is just what we should expect. For every thing there is a reason, good and sufficient ; while, on the suppo- sition that the Sabbath was originally given as a me- morial of dehverance from Egypt, and yet selected as the sign in question, all is arbitrary, without reason, significancy, or aim. Moreover, in this view, too, we see at once why the Sabbath, with its connected priv- ileges and rights, was to the idolatrous Egyptians the most obnoxious of all the Hebrew peculiarities, and therefore among the first of those peculiarities to be A SIGN. 81 taken away, and the last to be restored. It, with its privileges and rights, was their great distinctive badge as the worshippers of Jehovah. Its observance was therefore their weekly, national testimony against the gods of Egypt. No wonder their oppressors took it away. And when God came down to deliver, no wonder that, as a means to its end, or as involving the question of their religious and civil freedom, this became the great question at issue. CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENT RECAPITULATED AND CLOSED. Suppose we now briefly review the ground over which we have passed. We have shown that in the first mention of the Sabbath, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) there is every thing to prove that it was instituted at creation, the time specified, and was as truly one of the great permanent arrangements established for the race, as was the marriage institution, or any of the other ar- rangements then first brought into being. We have shown that the argumeiit from geology is without force ; that from Adam to Moses, there is every allu- sion to, and mention of, its existence and observance, which, in such and so short a history, ought to be ex- pected ; that in the deliverance from Egypt, consid- ered as a means to its appropriate end, it, with its connected privileges and rights, was the great ques- tion at issue, and the very reason of the deliverance ; that it was not originally given as a memorial of that deliverance, nor in the wilderness ; that the fact of God's not having made the same covenant with the fathers, as with those he brought out of Egypt, no more proves that the fathers had not the Sabbath, with the law of its observance, than that they were without every other command of the decalogue; and, finally, that the observance of the Sabbath, as a stand- ing ordinance, became a sign between Jehovah and THE SABBATH IN THE DECALOGUE. 83 the Hebrews only by virtue of its connection with creation, as a memorial of that event ; and, therefore, that the fact of its being such a sign only proves it to have existed from the fii'st, and to have come down, from age to age, as, every where and at all times, the same great distinctive badge of the worshippers of Jehovah. In prosecuting the argument, I remark, 2. The Sabbath is spoken of in the decalogue as an institution previously existing, and is there, as well as in the prophets, incorporated with other laws ad- mitted to be of original and ceaseless obligation. Without expanding the argument, I observe, (1.) It is the only law of the ten, that is claimed to be merely Jewish. (2.) It is a part of that code which the Savior declared (Matt. v. 17, 18) should never pass away. (3.) It is coupled often (e. g. Is. Iviii.) with the doing of justice and judgment, and letting the oppressed go free — duties which all admit to be of unchanging and ceaseless obligation. (4.) The term "Remember" is indicative of its preexistence. But, without laying stress upon the mere phraseology, if the law, " Thou shalt not steal," was evidence of preexisting rights of property, and not of the original institution of those rights ; if the law, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," argued with equal clearness a preexisting marriage institution, with its conjugal and filial relations, and not their original establishment ; and so of the other laws of the decalogue, if their grand object was, as is admitted, not to institute their respective rights and institutions as new, but only to guard them as old and permanent ones, why must not the same be true of the law of the Sabbath ? 3. Ancient testimony confirms the doctrine of the 84 THE SABBATH institutiou of the Sabbath at creation. Writers, some of whom lived more than a thousand years before the Christian era, speak of tlie division of time into weeks, and of the special observance of the seventh day of the week, as a season for diversions or the offering of sacrifices to their gods, as facts existing among various heathen nations. The foilowmg is a specimen of their testimony : — Homer says, " Afterwards came the seventh, the sacred day." Hesiod says, "The seventh day is holy." Callimachus speaks of the seventh day as holy. Lucian says, " The seventh day is given to school-boys as a holiday." Porphyry says, "The Phenicians consecrated one day in seven as holy." Josephus says, " There is no city, either of Greeks or barbarians, or any other nation, where the religion of the Sabbath is not known." Grotius says, " That the memory of the creation being performed in seven days, was preserved not only among the Greeks and Italians, but among the Celts and Indians, all of whom divided their time into weeks." Eusebius says, " Almost all the philosophers and poets acknowledge the seventh day as holy." Similar testimonies might be added, showing that a division of time into weeks obtained also among the As- syrians, Egyptians, Romans, Gauls, Britons, and Ger- mans, Now, situated as many of these nations were in respect to the Jews, and prevailing as the customs in question did at so early a period among them, it is manifest that thev could not have been derived from PN ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN. 85 the Jews after the time of Moses. They must have had an earUer origin. Besides, is it supposable that all these nations, if they had the opportunity, would have copied the custom from the hated Jews? Never. The only rational solution is this — that the Sabbath was instituted at creation ; that with it began the division of time into weeks ; that as men multiplied, and fell off to the worship of idols, they still carried with them, from age to age, this septenary division of time, and, to a greater or less extent, a perverted ob- servance of the seventh day itself. When, therefore, we find this division of time among the nations, and the seventh day itself in some cases a special holi- day for the childi-en, and in otliers a season for offer- ings and feasts to idols, we have m these facts the relics and the perverted observances of an institution established at creation, observed by the patriarchs, transmitted by them to the nations, and, in its wnper- verted observance, designed to be a badge in all time of the worshippers of Jehovah as the only true God. 4. The. original design of the Sabbath makes it equally manifest that it was instituted at creation, and is perpetually binding. This design is three- fold : — (1.) to commemorate the fact of creation by Je- hovah ; (2.) to afford a period of needful rest to man and beast from the ordinary labors of life ; and, (3.) to afford an opportunity for spiritual instruction, im- provement, and worship. That these three elements entered originally into the very nature and design of the Sabbath, is obvious from what has already been said. It was (Gen. ii. 2, 3, and Ex. xx. 11) because the Lord made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, that he blessed and hallowed, or set it 8 86 THE SABBATH apart as a season of religious rest and worship. It was that their children, strangers, servants, and beasts, (Deut. v. 14,) "might rest as well as they," and (Ex. xxiii. 12) " be refreshed," that the Hebrews were strictly enjoined to keep the Sabbath, and (Ex. XX. 10) "not do any work" thereon. And the whole arrangement together was, that parent, child, servant, and stranger, might alike enjoy a season of reUgious rest, improvement, and worship. As a memorial of creation by Jehovah, its standing observance was a standing testimony that the world was made by him, and not by idols ; that he, therefore, was the only true God, and that those who observed the day were his worshippers. It thus chronicled the true origin of the world, and was, in its very nature, a distinctive badge of the worshippers of Jehovah. As affording a period of rest from the ordinary labors of life, the standing observance of the Sabbath was a standing provision to meet those physical necessities of man and beast, which are not met by the return of day and night. As affording a period, set apart, sacredly, to spiritual instruction, improvement, and worship, it was just such a standing provision as the case required to meet the demands of man's spiritual being. In either aspect of its design, then, that design proves conclusively tliat the Sabbath was instituted at crea- tion, and that, in all its sacredness of obligation, it is to live and be binding on man while man lives on earth. \i', as a chronicler of creation, and a badge of faith to distinguish the worshippers of Jehovah from those of idols, there was a reason for the Sabbath in the time of Moses, that reason is equally valid for its establishment at creation, and its continuance, IN ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN. 87 as an institution, to the end of time. If, as a season of rest and worship, to meet the demands of man's physical and spiritual being, there was a reason for it then, that reason had equal force from the begin- ning, and will have to the end of time — as long as man remains man. Take which aspect of its design you will, and in each and all of them you can find no period of man's existence, from the creation on- ward, in which the reason for the Sabbath, growing out of its design, has not existed, and will not con- tinue to exist, in full and unabated force. What, then, is the inference ? Just what it is in respect to the marriage institution and the laws of its observance. Just what it is in respect to the rights of property, person, and life, and the laws of their observance — manente ratione, manet ipsa lex — the reason of the law remaining^ the law itself remains. Or, to suit the maxim to the case, the reason for the law existing always, the law itself exists always, and, beginning therefore with the race, exists for the race, and is to end only with the race, in its present state of being. Such is the conclusion of sound philosophy and common sense. 5. I obsei-ve, then, finally, that there is a permanent demand for the Sabbath, hi the nature, relations, and ne- cessities of man; and, therefore, a demand for its in- stitution at creation, and its continuance to the end of time. The argument might be expanded at great length. My design, however, requires brevity. I remark, then, (1.) Experience shows that the Sabbath is de- manded by the physical necessities of man. It proves that men, and all laboring animals, whether their 88 THE SABBATH DEMANDED labor be mental or bodily, or both, need at least one day in seven for rest from their ordinary labors — that they will live longer and do more, in the same period, with it than without it. Two testhnonies, as specimens of a thousand similar ones, must suffice. On the 22d of June, 1839, A Committee on Vice and Immorality, of the Pennsylvania Legislature, made a report relative to the suspension of labor on the pub- lic improvements in that state, on the Sabbath. The committee refer to certain petitions that had been re- ceived on the subject, and say, — " They (the petitioners) assert, as the result of their own experience, that both man and beast can do more work by resting one day in seven, than by working the wliole seven ; and your committee feel free to confess that their experience as farmers, business men, or legisla- tors, corresponds with the assertion." In the year 183Q, Dr. Farre, an eminent physician in London, of forty years' practice, gave the following testimony before a committee of the British par- liament : — " The use of the Sabbath, medically speaking, is that of a day of rest. It is a day of compensation for tlie inade- quate restorative power of the body under continual labor and excitement. A physician always has respect to the restorative power, because, if once this be lost, his healing office is at an end. The ordinary exertions of man run down the circulation every day of his life ; and the" first general law of nature, by which God prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day with night, that repose may succeed action. But though night ap- BY man's physical NECESSITIES. 89 parently equalizes the circulation well, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence one day in seven, by the bounty of Provi- dence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect, by its repose, the animal system. The Sabbatical institu- tion is not simply a precept partaking of the nature of a political institution, but it is to be numbered among the natural duties, if the preservation of life be admitted to be a duty, and the premature destruction of it a suicidal act. This is said simply as a physician, without any respect at all to the theological question. I have found it essen- tial to my own well-being, as a medical man, to abridge my labors on the Sabbath to what is actually necessary. I have frequently observed the premature death of physi- cians from continued exertion. In warm climates, and in active service, this is painfully apparent. I have advised the clergyman, in lieu of his Sabbath, to rest one day in the week; it forms a continual prescription of mine. I have seen many destroyed by their duties on that day. I would say, further, that, quitting the grosser evils of mere animal living from over-stimulation, and undue exercise of body, the working of the mind in one continual train of thought, is the destruction of life in the most distin- guished classes of society, and that senators themselves need reform in that respect. I have seen many of them destroyed by neglecting this economy of life." (2.) Experience shows that the Sabbath is demand- ed, in like manner, by the moral necessities of man. Man is naturally a religious being, and, as such, ever has had, and ever will have, some object of religious respect and reverence. If he do not worship and adore the true God, the very elements of his being drive him to some false god. Skeptics may deny this ; but in the very homage tliey themselves occa- 8* 90 THE SABBATH DEMANDED sionally or annually pay to the bones or the birthday of some sainted unbeliever, they are a proof to them- selves, that man was made to reverence and worship some superior ; that such homage and worship are among the native elements of his being ; and that adore and worship some God, true or false, he always must and will. Of course religious instruction, improve- ment, and worship, of some kind, are among the per- manent and ceaseless demands of his being. These he must have, and these, true or false, he will have. But he cannot have them without occasional or stated times for it. Moreover, man is also naturally a social being. The social in his nature is indeed one of its most powerful elements. You can never instruct, elevate, and fii'e, the man more effectually than when you take advan- tage of the social within him. Religious instruction, im])rovement, and worship, then, to address themselves to the whole man, and be most effective, must be of a public and social character, as well as private. Of course there must be public assemblies — "not for- saking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is." And these, that people may know when to come together, must be held at stated and regular times. In the social and the religious of man, then, we have a permanent and ceaseless demand for the regular social opportunities and privileges of the Sabbath. Wherever this demand is met by the existence and due observance of the Sabbath, we ought to expect, as its legitimate result, the highest condition of spiritual improvement and welfare. And, on the other hand, without any such anticipation, if we find, as the result of actual experience, that where BY man's iMORAL NECESSITIES. 91 the Sabbath does exist, and is truly observed, man's spiritual welfare is most effectually promoted, we have in that fact the jproof that there is such a demand in the very nature and necessities of his being. For if the demand do not exist, — if it do not lie imbedded in the very nature of man, and the laws of his being, — then the Sabbath, witli its opportunities and obser- vances, must conflict with that nature, and do violence to those laws, and, doing so, must injure rather than benefit man, and make him worse instead of better. What, then, are the facts ? Is the moral and spirit- ual condition of those communities where there is no Sabbath, or only a pei'verted one, in advance of those where there is one, and one observed according to its true spirit and intent? Let universal experience an- swer. Are those individuals who truly keep the Sab- bath in a worse sph-itual condition than those who do not ? Are they less ready to do good to the bodies and souls of their fellow-men? When Great Britain gave freedom to eight hundred thousand slaves, was it the Sabbath or the anti-Sabbath men that roused her to that deed of mercy, and compelled her to carry it through ? Was it the Sabbath or the anti-Sabbath men that originated and that now sustain the great work of missions among the heathen, and indeed among the destitute at home ? The mission at the Sandwich Islands has converted a heathen to a Chris- tian people. It is, moreover, so far as the missionaries are concerned, an anti-slavery mission. What no- Sabbath man, since he became such, ever has, or ever mtends to lift a finger for its support ? Or, if the plea be, that such support cannot be rendered without lending a sanction to the corrupt channels through 92 THE SABBATH DEMANDED which that mission now receives support, then where are the missions, at home or abroad, originated and sus- tained by no-Sabbath men themselves ? Nay, among all the religious visits ever made, and all the great re- forms ever attempted, by no-Sabbath men or women, when or where has one of them ever made a religious visit to a heathen community, or attempted a reform on heathen ground ? And where are the regenerated and disinthralled communities that have sprung into being as the result of such labors of love ? The command of the Savior, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," has been as distinctly before, and as imperiously, binding on them as on others. Yet when and where have they even begun or at- tempted to obey it, in respect to the entire heathen world ? The History of Missions, I believe, has yet to chronicle the event. Or to vary the test, man, according to the Scriptures, is " dead in trespasses and sins." To be saved he "must be born again." Now, whatever may be the views of different individuals in regard to the nature of this new birth, all agree that it is such a spiritual renova- tion as inspires the man with habitual respect, rever- ence, and affection for God ; such as reclaims the vicious, reforms the intemperate, and makes the indo- lent industrious, and the dishonest honest. To effect it is therefore the best thing that can be done for the spiritual well-being of man, either here oi* hereafter. Now, there are not a few of the believers in the Sab- bath who can point to their own labors and instruc- tions on that day as the means of thus renovating and reclaiming their fellow-men. They can point you to individuals, in instances not a few, who will stand up BY iMan's moral necessities. 93 as " brands plucked fi-om the burning," and as " living epistles known and read of all men," and testify be- fore all to the healthful and reclaiming influence of the Sabbath. Yes, there are thousands on thousands in this land who owe to the Sabbath, with its precious privileges and instructions, all that they are of charac- ter and of destiny, both for this world and for that to come, and who, if called upon, would so testify. Where, now, are the individuals that have been so renovated and reclaimed by men of the other views? Where are the debauchees, and the profligates, and the swearers, and the gamblers, and the tliieves, and the liars, and the drmikards, once " dead in trespasses and sins," but now " born again " and reclaimed, and ready to stand up and testify that they have been plucked from ruin by the no-Sabbath men and the no-Sabbath views ? Are the men — is the man so renovated and reclaimed to be found ? I, at least, have yet to see him. Or, passing from their disposition to do good to others, suppose we examine the spiritual condition of the men themselves. Ai-e they who believe in and keep the Sabbath, more disposed than others to evil, more bent upon their own indulgence, more reckless of their neighbors' rights, reputation, and property, — in a word, more bold and frequent in the commission of crimes, that war upon society, and set human and divine law alike at defiance ? Let us hear the witnesses. Sir Matthew Hale said, " That of the persons who were convicted of capital crhnes while he was on the bench, he found only a few who would not confess that they began their career of wickedness by a neg- 94 THE SABBATH DEMANDED lect of the duties of the Sabbath, and by vicious con- duct on that day." In 1838, before the committee of the British parlia- ment, the Rev. David Ruell, who had been twenty-eight years chaplain of prisons in London, and who had had, on a low calculation, one hundred thousand prisoners under his care, testified as follows : — " I do not recollect a single case of capital offence where the party has not been a Sabbath-breaker ; and in many cases, they have assured me that Sabbath- brealiing was the first step in the course of crime. Indeed, I may say, in reference to prisoners of all classes, that in nineteen cases out of twenty, they are persons who not only neglected the Sabbath, but all the other ordinances of religion." Such testimony might be multiplied to any extent. What does it prove ? Obviously, that there is that in the Sabbath and its right observance which just meets the physical and spiritual necessities of man, and which, because it meets these demands of his beings makes it a most effectual promoter of his physical and spiritual welfare. And what is this but saying, in other terms, that there is, in the very nature, re- lations, and necessities of man, a permanent and ceaseless demand for the Sabbath ? And now, with this demand distinctly before him, and with a heart always intent on man's best good, is it to be believed, that God did not provide for meeting it by the insti- tution of the Sabbath at the outset, or that he does not mean to provide for it in future by its continu- ance to the end of time ? By no means. The truth is, the Sabbath, as an institution, — not the particulai' day of its observance, — is as really founded in the BY man's moral necessities. 95 nature and relations of man, and grows as naturally out of his physical atid moral necessities, as does that of marriage. Both must have had their origin with the race, and must be equally designed to continue, while the race does in its present state of being. Indeed, the laws of their observance, as we have seen, no less than those which guard the rights of conscience, property, person, and life, are equally a part of the common law of man, and, as such, bind- ing on all, in all time. Can it be doubted, then, that the Sabbath, as an institution, is perpetually binding ? PART II. CHANGE OF THE DAY. CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION, AND PRELIMI- NARY REMARKS. We are now prepared to prosecute the second ques- tion at issue in this discussion — viz. Has any particular day been set apart, by divine appointment, for the obser- vance of the Sabbath, and if so, what day ? All agree that, originally, the seventh day of the week was so set apart. But from some cause the Christian world lias generally fallen away from the observance of the seventh to that of the first. The question, therefore, practically assuhies this form — viz. Has the fist day of the iveeJc been set apart, by divine appointment, to be observed, in place of the seventh, as the Sabbath'? Has God authorized the change? That he has, I shall attempt to prove. Before doing so, how- ever, I' wish to make a few preliniinary remarks. And, 1. The change of the day is a question entirely distinct from that of the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as an institution. The day selected for its observance may remain the same or be changed. And PRELIMINARY REMARKS, 97 SO may the mode of its observance — provided only that its true intent and great end be preserved. But wheth- er changed or not, is one question. Whether there is such an institution perpetually existing and perpetually binding on all, is another. And the two questions are entirely distinct, the one from the other. Therefore, 2. If God has not authorized a change of the day from the seventh to the fii'st, then the seventh is the Sabbath, and is to be kept as such. Should we fail in our proof of a divine warrant for the change, it will not follow that there is no Sabbath. It will only fol- low that the seventh day of the week is to be kept as Sabbath instead of the first. You must admit the change, and keep the first day of the week as Sabbath, with all the sacredness of original obligation, or go back to the seventh, and keep that. Change or no change, the Sabbath, as an institution, remains the same, the law of its observance as sacredly bhiding as ever, and the man who breaks it as palpable a violator of the divine command. Decide the question of the day, then, as you will, the institution and the obligation to keep it remain. If you reject the fii'st, you are shut up to the seventh as your Sabbath. In either event, you are cut off from no-Sabbathism, and are bound to observe one day or the other, or rank yourself a vio- lator of divine command. 3. If God has authorized a change of day, that does not change or obliterate the obligation to keep it holy to the Lord. Be " Sabbath-day " the seventh or the first, the obligation, " Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy," is the same — applying equally to the one as to the other. In other terms, there is a plain dis- tinction between the Sabbath, as an institution, and the 9 98 CHANGE OF THE DAY. particular day selected for its observance. This is ob- vious from what has been said. Besides, but for such distinction, the command must run, "Remember the seventh day," &c. — thus making the institution and the day identical ; or, at least, laying as much stress on the one as on the other. But the form of phraseology now is, "Remember the Sabbath-da.y to keep it holy." Here we have the sum total of the command, but not a word yet in respect to the particular day of the week, which is "Sabbath-day." And it is only as God pro- ceeds to direct Jiow it is to be kept, that we learn what the particular day is ; and then the specification comes in only incidentally, or as a matter of course. No stress is laid upon the particular day of the week, as if that were vital to the institution. The great burden of the injunction is, to keep "Sabhath-day" holy, be it what day of the week it may ; and the great object of the specification is, to show what is meant by so keep- ing it, not to point out or lay stress upon the par- ticular day, as if that, rather than some other, were essential to the existence of the institution itself Of course, a change of the day can make no change in the institution itself, or in the obligation to keep it. These, in all essentials, remain the same — perpetually existing and perpetually binding, whatever the changes which God may authorize in respect to the time or mode of their obseiTance. Indeed, 4. The Sabbath, as an institution, cannot be abro- gated. Founded as it is, like the marriage institution, in the nature, relations, and necessities of man, God can no more abrogate it, and the law of its observance, than he can that of marriage, with its conjugal and filial relations, and the laws of their observance. Both PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 99 Stand upon the same footing. Both grow alike out of man's nature, relations, and necessities. Both are equally the ceaseless demand of his being. The laws of their observance, as we have seen, are equally a part of universal common law. They are alike, in precept and in penalty, the entrenchments of the Almighty, thrown around their respective institutions for their sacred observance and ceaseless perpetuity. In these, therefore, there can, in the nature of things, be no change. The institutions, and the obligation to ob- serve them, in their general scope and spirit, must stand to the end of time. But, 5. While no change can take place in the Sabbath, as an institution, or in the obligation to observe it, God may, and we should naturally expect that he would, regulate the time and manner of its observance ; that he would select such a day, and direct it to be kept in such manner as to make it best answer its great de- sign as a season of religious rest, improvement, and worship. Such selection of the day is of course of the nature of a positive institution, and is subject, like every thing else of that nature, to change or abrogation, whenever there are good and sufficient reasons for it. Therefore, 6. Whenever such reasons exist, we should expect the change as a matter of course. Certain reasons determined the selection, at the outset, of the seventh as " Sabbath-day." If, now, in the course of events, other and superior reasons come into existence, in fa- vor of the selection of the first in place of the seventh, a change of day is of course to be expected. Indeed, the reasons for such change existing, w^e have in that fact not only a warrant for expecting it, but presump- tive evidence that it has actually been made. 100 CHANGE OF THE DAY. 7. If any change in the day has been made, it was made, as all admit, by Jesus Christ, or by his au- thority. 8. Christ had the right to change it, if he saw fit. (1.) He daiined such right. On a certain occasion, (Mark ii. 23 — 28,) the Pharisees complained of the dis- ciples as Sabbath-breakers, because, in going through the cornfields on the Sabbath, they had plucked and eaten some of the ears. Christ justified them, not by asserting that there was, or was to be, no Sabbath, but by showing that what they did was not a violation of it, according to its original and true intent. His argument was, First, they have only done a work of necessity and mercy, and such a work, like David's eating the show-bread, is perfectly lawful on the Sab- bath. For, Second, the Sabbath was never meant to exclude such works. " The Sabbath was made for [dia ton, for the sake of) man, and not man for [dia toj for the sake of) the Sabbath." Man was made first, and then the Sabbath made to fit liim, and subserve his welfare, and not the Sabbath first, and he made to fit and subserve it. Its grand design, then, is to meet man's necessities, not to set them aside, or to meet one class of them at the expense of another. It assumes that the lower and ordinary demands of his being for necessaiy food and raiment are met ; and it then comes in, not to set these aside, but to meet other demands, and especially the higher and holier ones of his spiritual existence. Li a word, it was meant to bless the whole man, and man every where. Moreover, (Matt. xii. 6 — 8,) "I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. And if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man," the PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 101 Master of these whom you so unjustly accuse, "is Lord even of the Sabbath-day," and, as such, can au- thorize them to pluck the corn to satisfy their hunger, even if, as it is not, it were unlawful to do so without it. As Lord of the Sabbath, I have and claim the right to regulate its obsei-vance. So that, in either case, my disciples are not violators of the Sabbath. Such, plain- ly, was the drift of his argument. But a right, as Lord of the Sabbath, to regulate its observance, is plainly a right, for good and sufficient reasons, to change the day, or make any other change in respect to it, not in- compatible with its continued existence and obliga- tion. Besides, (2.) It was Christ, ivho, as Creator of the world, originally instituted the Sabbath, and selected tlie seventh as the day for its observance. This is ob- vious from several passages of Scripture. In Heb. i. 10, God is represented as saying to the Son, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thine hands." See also v. 2 — " by whom also he made the worlds." The apostle John declares, (John i. 3,) "All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Here we have it, in as distinct terms as possible, that Jesus Christ was the Creator of the world. Whether he did this with de- rived or underived power, as the inferior or the equal of the Father, alters not the fact that he did it. It was therefore he, who, as Creator, rested from the work of creation on the seventh day, and because he so rested, afterwards set it apart as a day of religious rest and worship for man. As Creator, then, he was original Lord of the Sabbath. He selected the day for its ob- 9 * 102 CHANGE OF THE DAY. servance in the beginning. Of course his right is per- fect, for good and sufficient reasons, to select another day. And if he has done it, or authorized it to be done, it has been done by divine authority — by the same authority, in fact, wliich originally selected the seventh day. 9. The change which has actually taken place, (whether authorized or not remains to be seen,) is just such a one as the case alloivs, and as we should expect in the event of any change. It leaves the nature, de- sign, and obligation of the Sabbath as a day of religious rest, improvement, and worship, the same as they were before. It makes no change in the office of the Sab- bath as a " sign " between God and his people, except to enhance its significancy. In its true and hearty observance, the Sabbath is as distinctive a badge of God's people now as it ever was. The change in the day of its observance, then, is only a change of its char- acter as a memorial — it being now a memorial of Christ's work of redemption, instead of his work of creation. This is just such a change as the case al- lows, and as we should expect in the event of any. It can take place without affecting at all the existence and perpetuity of the Sabbath as an institution. That remains the same. 10. The nature of the case demands just such a change as has actually taken place, and is so far pre- sumptive evidence of its having taken place by divine authority. For, the reason for such change existing, why should not God authorize it ? The Sabbath was originally a memorial of creation. But the work of redemption is one of a vastly higher character and greater importance, inasmuch as it looks more directly PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 103 to the well-being of the soul, and is fitted to add higher glory to the Godhead. So the Bible regards it. Hence, in comparing the one with the other, it predicts a time when creation shall be comparatively forgotten in the superior glories of redemption. " Behold," (Isa. Ixv. 17,) "1 create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." Here, then, in this fact we have a reason demanding the change in question. As a memorial of creation completed, the seventh was the appropriate day. But in redemption completed we have a work of superior greatness and glory. Why should it not be chronicled by its appropriate day ? Plainly the demand for it is of greater force than was that for the original selection of the seventh. Is it to be supposed that God has met the demand in the one case, and not in the other? By no means. CHAPTER II NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT FOR A CHANGE OF THE DAY. We ai-e now prepared to prosecute the inquiry whether Christ made or authorized a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the fost day of the week. Great stress is usually laid here upon the produc- tion of some express precept, declaring in so many terms that Christ made or authorized the change. "Give us your text" — "give us your text" — "To the law and to the testimony," is the confident and supposed unanswerable demand. True, the question is purely one of fact, and, as such, is to be authoritatively settled only by an ap- peal " to the law and to the testimony." But the ab- sence of a text of the kind demanded, does by no means prove, that the evidence of the law or the tes- timony is wanting. Moreover, if the evidence of the law were wanting, that of the testimony, if clear, would be conclusive. In conducting the appeal, then, "to the law and to the testimony," there are three forms of the argument, either of which is conclusive of the fact of the change, and of a divine warrant for it. (1.) If we find an express precept declaring the change made or authorized, we have " the law." If we then find, in the history of Christ and his early disci- NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT. 105 pies, distinct traces of a corresponding practice, we Lave "the testimony;" and in the two united, we have the evidence of" law and testimony." (2.) If we find an express precept affirming the i-ight to change the day, we have the right to make " the law." If, then, we find actual traces of such a change in the conduct of those who had this right, we have " the testimony that the law was made ; " and in the two united we have the evidence again of "law and testimony" both. And, (3.) if we can find no express precept of either kind, yet if we can trace the fact of the ac- tual change, through witness after witness, from the present time up to the primitive Christians and the apostles themselves, we have, then, the evidence of "the testimony;" and in the character of the apos- tles and early disciples, we have the proof indispu- table that such a change was never made by them without the authority of their Master for it. And in this way, too, we get, in the end, the evidence of" law and testimony " both. " To the law and to the testi- mony," then, be our appeal. That we have a precept or a passage saying, in so many terms, that Christ or the apostles made the change in question, is not pretended. No more have we a passage saying, in so many terms, that men are moral agents, or that they have equal rights, or that slave-holding, slave-trading, spirit-dealing, and the like, are wicked. Are these things therefore not wicked ? Are men machines, and not endowed with equal rights? By no means. The mere want of a passage of the kind proves nothing. There may be other proof as conclusive as that of such a passage. The 106 CHANGE OF THE DAY. first form of the appeal " to the law and to the testi- mony " is not, therefore, vital to the argument. The third form of it, though satisfactory, has less force than the second, and is so obvious that it does not need expansion. It is simply this — the first day of the week has been observed as Sabbath fz'om the apostolic age. This is proved by authentic history. There is no evidence any where that its observance in the ages immediately succeeding the apostolic, was an innovation on apostolic and primitive custom. The necessary conclusion is, that it was so observed by the apostles and first disciples themselves. But they were so scrupulous of the commands of their Lord, that they would never have set up such obser- vance of the day, except on his permission or by his authority. Dismissing the first and third forms of the appeal, then, here, we rest the argument on the second. CHAPTER III, CHRIST'S SANCTION OF THE SABBATH AND ITS CHANGE. Under the second form of the appeal "to the law and to the testimony," the first witness that we pro- pose to examine is the Lord Jesus Christ. What is the evidence of the law and the testimony in his case ? 1. Christ had and claimed the right to regulate generally the observance of the Sabbath. This we have already seen. " The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day." But this right of regulation generally was of course a right to change the day, if he saw fit. Here, then, we have the right to make " the law." Christ's example, or actual conduct, will give us his "testimony," i. e. show whether he ex- ercised his right in actually making the law. I re- mark, then, 2. Christ's example, as Lord of the Sabbath, is proof that it was no part of his design to abolish the Sabbath, but to restore it to its original and true in- tent, and to change the day of its observance, so as to make it commemorative of his work of redemption. What was that example ? Answer — Before his death and resurrection, i. e. up to the period of the full intro- duction of the gospel dispensation, he carefully ob- served the seventh day as the Sabbath. After that period, beginning with the resuiTection itself, he 108 THE SABBATH. specially honored the first day of the week, as the religious day for his disciples. (1.) That he so honored the seventh day is most manifest. Before the gospel dispensation was fully introduced, it became him (Matt. iii. 15) "to fulfil all righteousness " according to the law of Moses. Hence he was circumcised, and submitted to other ceremo- nial observances which were then in force. Of course he would not fail to keep the seventh day as Sabbath. Hence various occasions are mentioned in the evan- gelists upon which he attended the regular worship of God in the synagogues on the Sabbath — thus dis- charging the chief duty of the day. Lideed, we learn, (Luke iv. 16 ; comp. also v. 31,) that "he came to Naza- reth, where he had been brought up, and,a5 his custom ivas, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read." This is decisive of his observance of the Sabbath ; and also of the fact, that it was not an occasional matter merely, but his regu- lar habit. And this contiimed, for aught that appears, to the day of his death. Moreover, when accused, as he frequently was, of violating the Sabbath, he never plead in vindication, that, as Lord of the Sabbath, he was about to set it aside, and make all days alike, and that tlverefore he might do the things alleged with impunity. Not a word of this. On the contrary, his plea always was, that, according to its original and true intent, the things done were not a violation of the day. He al- ways plead to his innocence of the charge, but never based that plea on the ground that, as Lord of the Sabbath, he was about to abrogate it. Nor, indeed, did he ever, in any connection, give a hint of such abro- Christ's sanction. 109 gation. But how could this be, if abrogation were his design ? With the question fairly brought to the issue, as it repeatedly was by the charges of Sabbath- breaking preferred against him, how, if abrogation were his design, could he fail to meet it by saying so ? Was he wont to cover up designs and dodge ques- tions thus ? Objection. But, if the Savior, it is urged, was thus observant of the Sabbath, and meant to perpetuate it imder the gospel dispensation, how happens it that he was so constantly in trouble with the Jews for breaking it, and that he never enjoined its observance upon them ? The .Answer is obvious ; and will make it still more apparent, that the abrogation of the Sabbath was no part of Christ's design. Well (Matt xv. 6 — 9) did Isaiah prophesy of the Jews at this period, " This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Their whole religion had become one of mere external ob- servances. Hence they had lost sight of the real scope and spirit of almost every command of God, and, in multiplied instances, (v. 6,) had " jnade the com- mandment of God of none effect " by their " traditions" touching the manner of its observance. This was preeminently true in respect to the Sabbath. Thus, in respect to the prohibition of work on the Sabbath, the rabbinical doctors divided works into principal and secondary. Each principal work had its long hst of secondary ones under it, the doing of any of which was a violation of the Sabbath. Thus, to 10 110 THE SABBATH, grind was a principal work. All dividing of things before united in their nature came under this head. The rubbing of the ears of corn was, of course, ac- cording to this tradition, a violation of the Sabbath. In this way the doctors enumerated some thirty-nine principal works, with their subordinates. The first eight of them were sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding, threshing, winnowing, cleaning, grinding.* Among the particular things which might or might not be done, were the following: A man might not thresh — therefore he might not walk on the grass, which was a kind of threshing. A man might not hunt on the Sabbath — therefore he might not catch a flea while it hops about, as that would be a kind of hunting. Again, he might not carry burdens on the Sabbath. Accordingly, though he might fill a trough with water that his beasts might come and drink, he might not can-y it to the place where they were. Of course, the poor man that carried his bed, after he was healed, was a Sabbath-breaker. Equally unlaw- ful was it, according to some of the rabbins, to heal or minister to the sick on the Sabbath. A man with a diseased 63^6, might plaster it on the Sabbath, for the sake of ease and pleasure, but not for the purpose of healing.f And the decision of the school of Shammai was, " Let no one console the sick or visit the mourning on the Sabbath-day." X Of course, the Jews watched Jesus to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, and charged him with breaking it, when he did so. It is most obvious, then, that the * Tovvnscnd's Notes, vol. ii. p. ofi. t Gurney, on the Sabbath, pp. 59. 60. i Townsend's Notes, vol. ii. p. 87. Christ's sanction. Ill Jews, at that time, had lost sight of the true spiritual and original intent of the Sabbath. It is equally- clear, that just in proportion as they had done so, they had become strict, scrupulous, and superstitious, in respect to its external observance. Indeed, to such lengths did they go in this strictness, that, (1 Mace. ii. 34 — 38,) when Antiochus Epiphanes op- pressed Jerusalem, B. C. 168, a thousand Jews, who had fled to the wilderness, allowed themselves to be cut to pieces ; solely because their enemy attacked them on the Sabbatli. And afterwards, though self- defence in case of actual assault was allowed, it was not deemed lawful to do any thing on that day to impede an enemy's works. Hence, when Pompey, the Roman general, at a later period, besieged Jerusalem, he occupied the Sabbath in erecting his works for assault, and, when they were completed, very readily took the city.* Indeed, even the devout women, that followed Christ to the cross, and thence to the sep- ulchre, (Luke xxiii. 56,) "returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment." Nor was it until (Luke xxiv. 1 — 3) the first day of the week had dawned, that they presumed to revisit "the sepul- * Josephus (Antiq. b. 14, c. 4, sec. 2, 3) says, " Though our laws give us leave, then, (on the Sabbath,) to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with us, and assault us, yet they do not permit us to meddle with our enemies while they do any thing else. Which tiling, when the Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths, they threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their engines into such forwardness that they might do execution the following davs."' 112 THE SABBATH. chre, bringing the spices which they had prepared " for embalming their Lord. Nay, the very Jews who were ready to imbrue their hands in the blood of in- nocence, and had actually done it in effecting the crucifixion of Christ, were yet so scrupulous in their observance of the Sabbath, that they would not on any account take the dead bodies of himself and the thieves down from the cross on that day. Hence they besought Pilate (John xix. 31) to hasten and insure their death by breaking their legs, so that they might be taken away before it. These facts furnish a complete and satisfactory answer to the objection before us. Christ did not reenjoin it upon the Jew to keep the Sabbath. Why ? Because no such injunction was needed. The time had not come to enjoin the keeping of the first day as Sabbath, on any one. And as to keeping the seventh, a people who would not kill a flea, or walk on the grass, or minister to the sick, or who would stand still and be hewed to pieces, sooner than violate the day, surely did not need to be told anew that they ought to keep it. Nor did they need any injunctions to keep it with special strictness. On these points they were already over-scrupulous, and needed no new instructions. Of course Christ gave them none. But they did need to be recalled to the true nature and original intent of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But by their traditions concerning the mode of its ob- servance they had reversed the whole order and de- sign of it. They had lost sight of its true nature and original design, and had practically buried up the Christ's sanction. 113 real Sabbath beneath a Sabbath of mere external ob- servances. In many ways, they had actually made the command of God — the real Sabbath — of none effect through their traditions. What, then, should be done ? If the Sabbath was to be abrogated, the thing to be done was to assail it and its corruptions in the lump, as a thing of nought, and soon to be done away — the sooner the better. Did Christ do that ? No. But if it were not to be abrogated, but perpetuated, then the thing to be done was, to sep- arate it from its perversions, that, being so separated, the institution miglit live while its perversions were dead. But this could be done only by flying in the face of those traditions tJiat gave birth to tJie perver- sions. And this is just what the Savior did. Had they, by their traditions, so perverted the law of the Sabbath as to make works of real necessity and mercy a violation of the day ? Like himself, he boldly denies the authority of such traditions, and tramples on every custom growing out of them. Must no burdens be carried, even in a case of neces- sity or mercy, as in ministering to the sick, or bring- ing them to be healed ? He heals the poor man, at the pool of Bethesda, (John v. 5 — 17,) and bids him take his bed and walk. And when they complain, and charge him with a violation of the Sabbath in doing so, his short, impressive, and authoritative answer is, "'My Father worketh' such works 'hith- erto, and I work' the same. If he does works of such a character, why should not I?" — Again, must no cures be wrought or attempted on the Sabbath ? In repeated instances, he tramples the tradition under foot. He heals the man (Matt. xii. 10 — 13) with the 10* 114 THE SABBATH. withered hand, and forestalls their clamor, by show- ing his enemies, that on their own premises, " it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days." He heals the woman (Luke xiii. 10 — 17) " which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself" And when the ruler of the synagogue complains, and says to the people, " There are six days in which men ought to work ; in them, therefore, come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath-day," Christ's bold and indignant reply, is, " Thou hypocrite I doth not each one of you loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering ? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath-day ? " — And again, must pressing hunger go unsupplied, rather than meet its demands by the simple process of rubbing out a few ears of grain, as the disciples pass along? He justifies them in tlie deed, and tells their accusers, (Matt. xii. 7,) that if they had known what this mean- eth, "I w^ill have mercy, and not sacrifice," they would never have been so ignorant of the true intent of the Sabbath, and such sticklers for the outward forms of its observance as to have condemned the guiltless — that " the Sabbath (Mark ii. 27) was made for man, and not," as their traditions would make it, " man for the Sabbath." By this process the Savior effectually separated the Sabbathfrom its perversions. True, it brought him — and no wonder that it did — into continual trouble with the scribes and Pharisees as a Sabbath-breaker. This is just what we should expect. J^ut amid all their col- Christ's sanction. 115 lisions with him on the subject, they 7iever once pre- tended that he held all days alike, nor that he designed or wished to do the Sabbath away. But would they not have done it, had such been the fact ? Yet they did not. The whole controversy was, not whether the Sabbath was, or was to be, but, assuming this, what constitutes a violation of it — how is it to be kept ? The truth is, the whole effort of the Savior was to separate the Sabbath, as such, from its perver- sions, not to abolish it, or to make all days alike. But why such separation, except that the institution might live while its perversions were dead ? It was to rescue the Sabbath from the perversions of prevalent tradi- tions, and give it back to the p jople in its true nature and original design. Why ? Plainly that it might live and go down, like marriage, as a permanent in- stitution, to the end of time. Indeed, the work which the Savior did for the Sabbath was precisely that which he did (Matt. v. and elsewhere) for the mar- riage institution, with its conjugal and filial relations, and the laws of their observance, and for other laws of acknowledged authority and perpetuity under the gospel. It was a ivork, too, which he never did for cir~ cmncision or for any other institution or ordinance, purely Jewish, and not designed to continue under the gospel dispensation. When he rescued the marriage institution, and the law of life, from the perversions of Jewish tradition, did he mean to hand them, so res- cued, down to us, as of permanent existence and per- petual obligation ? — as part and parcel of the gospel itself? What less than this could he mean, when, at the risk of life as a Sabbath- breaker, he so rescued the Sabbath ? Indeed, what was such a rescue of it 116 THE CHANGE. but an emphatic injunction to observe it, as rescued ? While this view, then, solves the objection, how obvi- ous does it make it, that it was no part of Christ's de- sign to abrogate the Sabbath, but rather his design to perpetuate it ! But, [2.) having thus rescued the Sabbath, as an institution, from its perversions, and having honored the seventh as Sabbath-day up to the time of his death, is there any evidence that, after his resurrection, and the consequent full introduction of the new dis- pensation, Christ put similar honor on the first day of the week ? Luke informs us, (Acts i. 3,) that after his passion he appeared to his disciples, at different times, for the space of forty days, and spake to them "the things pertaining to the kingdom.''^ At some of these interviews, among the things pertaining to the kingdom, Christ either authorized a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, or he did not. If he did 7iot, the reason was, (John xvi. 12, 13,) " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now ; howbeit when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." The business of prescribing the arrange- ments for the future order and worship of the church, he had already devolved, as we shall see, upon his apostles, as a matter to be specially attended to by them, when, after his departure, the Comforter should come, who was to guide them into all truth, and en- due them with power from on high. If, therefore, Christ did not himself make the change in question, during this period of forty days, it was because this was one of the things which belonged, by his express authority, to the apostles to do. And in this case we Christ's sanction. 117 are to look, for the first decisive indications of the change, to them and their histoiy, rather than to the conduct and history of Christ himself. The same is true, if, in the interviews in question, Christ did personally authorize the change. For the great object of those interviews plainly was, to make his disciples more fully acquainted with his real character and dignity, to establish beyond all question the fact of his actual resui-rection, and to commission and invest them with authority for then- future work. Hence, on his way to Emmaus, (Luke xxiv. 27,) " be- ginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself" Hence, in the record of the several inter- views, we hear almost nothing in detail of what "the things," of which he spake, " pertaining to the king- dom," were. We hava the simple commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, with its accompanying authority. We have, then, a full and minute account of those occurrences and remarks which put the fact of his resurrection and personal identity beyond dispute. And further than this, we have almost no account of what passed at the interviews in question. The great object of the record, whatever may have been that of the inter- views, was to make clear the fact of the resurrection. This was the great question, — that, indeed, on which hinged every other. To settle this was of course the great object. If, then, in these interviews, Christ did personally authorize the change in question, we are not to expect, in a record so brief, and made for such a purpose, a formal and full-length mention of it, but 118 THE CHAN'dK. only a mention of such occurrence:? and fiicts as are ill keeping with and not contradictory of it. Such a mention we have. Previous to his death, as we have seen, Christ was in the regular and hahitual observance of the seventh, as Sabbath-day. Afterward, when, by his death and resurrection, the old dispensation was fully at an end, and the new one fully introduced, we never find him in the synagogue or meeting with his disciples for religious purposes on that day. But he did meet with them for such purposes on the first day of the week, and in other ways he specially honored that da3% He rose from the dead on that day. Four times, on the same day, he manifested himself to his disciples ; first (Matt, xxviii. 9) to the women who held him by the feet and worshipped ; then (Luke xxiv. 34) to Peter; then (Luke xxiv. 18 — 33) to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, when he ex- pounded to them "the things concerning himself," and was made known to them in the breaking of bread ; and, lastly, (John xx. 19 — 23,) to the ten apostles, when, after showing them his hands and side, and so verifying his resurrection, he said, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," and, breathing on them, added, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." In these two interviews, Christ gave the disciples, first, an exposition of the Scriptures concerning him- self; next the evidence of his resurrection ; then the commission, "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you ; " and then the investment of them with Christ's sanction. 119 authority to instruct, and to regulate the order, insti- tutions, and worship of the church under the new dis- pensation. Now, on the supposition that this was the first of Christian Sabbaths, and that subse- quently this day of the week was to be the Sabbath- day of the church, what could be more appropriate to the occasion than such instruction, such a com- mission, and such an investment of authority from him who was at the same time Head of the church and Lord of the Sabbath? Considered as one whole, what were all these various items but the full and formal introduction of the gospel kingdom ? Before, by John the Baptist and others, it had been an- nounced as being "af Juind" Now, in the resurrection of its Lord, in his manifestation of himself to his dis- ciples, in his commission of them to act for him, and in his investment of them with the authority named, it had fully come, and was ojjlcially introduced. It was done, too, on the first day of the week. How fitting to have it done then, if that day was thereafter to be the Sabbath of the church I Again, if this were the first of Christian Sabbaths, the second would occur on the next first day of th« week ; and on that day, therefore, we should naturally expect to find Christ and the disciples together again. Such seems to have been the fact. When one event happened a week after another, the Jews sometimes called the whole period ^^an eight days'''' — including in their reckoning both the days on which the events in question occurred. Accordingly, when we read, (John XX. 26,) "And ajler eight days, again his disci- ples were within,'* &c., there can be little doubt that 120 THE CHANGE. it was on the next first day.* Mr. Guriiey thinks that the ascension was on the first day of the week.f And it is quite certain that the descent of the Comforter was upon that day. The disciples were commanded by their Lord to tarry at Jerusalem until they were "endued with power from on high," being assured, at the same time, that this should be " not many days hence." Then followed the ascension ; then, in the exercise of the authority conferred upon them, the appointment of Matthias to the apostleship in the place of Judas; and then the waiting for the promised Comforter. This Comforter was to be to them in the place of Christ. He was to guide them into all truth. He was to * Hammond, Gill, Grotius, &c., in loc. ; and compare Luke IX. 28 with Matt. xvii. 1, and Mark ix. 2. t Mr. Gurney says, pp. 78, 79, " The period which elapsed be- tween our Lord's resurrection and ascension, is described as/orty days. Acts i. 3. This is a period of which frequent mention is made in the sacred history. The flood was forty days upon the earth j Moses was forty days in the mount 5 Elijah went forty days in the strength of the meat which the angel provided for him ; Christ fasted forty days in the wilderness. Now, as the Hebrews were accustomed to reckon their time by weeks, — from Sabbath to Sabbath, — it seems very probable that the term forty days de- notes a round number, and is in fact a mere synonyme for six Sabbaths or weeks. If so, the ascension took place six weeks after the resurrection, and therefore on the first day of the week. This conclusion is in some measure confirmed by the very fact that the disciples were then assembled ; for not only do we find them meeting together on the first day of the week, twice before this event, but we shall presently see that they maintained the same practice on the very v^eek folloivingj' Christ's sanction. 121 qualify them for the work to which Christ had com- missioned them. He was to direct them in the ex- ercise of their authority, to instruct and to regulate the order, institutions, and worship of the church. He was to be, in all these respects, the same to them as a present Christ. So that under his guidance their instructions would be as correct, and the order, in- stitutions, and worship, they should prescribe for the church, as wise and authoritative as if they were under the immediate personal guidance of Christ himself. " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Si)irit gave them utterance." Tliis descent of the Holy Ghost on them, like his descent on Christ at his baptism, was their public anointing to the work which Christ be- gan, and which he had now devolved on them to carry out and complete. It was, like his, their offi- cial recognition and introduction to it. It was also the formal and public commitment of the work to them, and the pledge that they would do their part of it, as Christ had his, according to the mind and will of God. And all this transpired on the first day of the week — "the Lord's day." Christ's last paschal supper was on the evening of the fifth day of the week. That fifth day was the 14th of the month Nisan, on which the passover was slain. Christ was crucified on the sixth da}^ The seventh day was of course the second of the feast, and was the day on 11 122 THE CHANGE. which the wave-sheaf was offered to the Lord. Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16) was fifty days after this. And as this was on the seventh day, the forty- ninth day from that was the seventh Sabbath, and the next, or fiftieth day, was of course the first day of the week. The immediate result of this anointing was, that the apostles, especially Peter, preached with such power, that about three thousand souls were added to the church on that single day. It was em- phatically the beginning of days to the infant church. And thus was the first day of the week again hon- ored and blessed of him who was at once Head of the church, and Lord of the Sabbath. Here, then, to say nothing of the intermediate in- terviews, we have, in the first instance, the resurrec- tion, the exposition of the Scriptures concerning himself, the evidence of the identity of his resurrec- tion body, the commission of the disciples, and their investment with apostolic authority ; and, in the second instance, that of Pentecost, the mission of the Comforter, with all of official recognition and endowment that it involved. And what are all these occurrences, but just what we should expect them to be, on the supposition that Christ meant to honor the first day of the week, as, by way of eminence, the day of religious worsliip under the new order of things? The events in question had more imme- diate and direct concern with the establishment and progress of the new religion, than any other. They were, in fact, its official, formal, and full introduction, in the first instance to the disciples, and in the second to the world. Why should they, in both cases, trans- Christ's sanction. 123 pire on the first day of the week, except it were that he, who, as Head of the church, was, in these events, officially and fully instituting a new dispensation, was also, as Lord of the Sabbath, instituting a new day as Sabbath-day for his people — a day to be thencefor- ward observed by them, in distinction from other days, as "Lord's Day"? CHAPTER IV. THE SANCTION OF THE APOSTLES AND THE PRIAHTIVE CHURCH. What is the evidence of the " law and the testi- mony" in the case of the apostles and primitive disci])les ? First, what was « THE LAW " ? Jinswer. Chnst gave his apostles express authority to regulate the faith, institutions, order, and worship of the church, and declared that whatever they might teach or yrescrihe in the case should be authoritative and binding. On a certain occasion, (Matt. xvi. 13 — 19,) Christ in- quired of his disciples, " Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" And when Peter said, in reply, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," he commended him, and declared, " Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not pre- vail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what- soever thou shalt loose on eaith shall be loosed in heaven." On another occasion, (Matt, xviii. 18,) when the discipline of the church was the topic of dis- course, Christ said to all the apostles, as lie had be- fore said to Peter, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on eai'th shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Both THE CHANGE. 125 these occasions were previous to his death. After- ward, (John XX. 21, 22,) on the evening of the day of his resurrection, he commissioned them to the apos- toHc work, saying, " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Then, investing them witii apostolic authority, "he breathed on them, and said. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." What do these passages of Scripture teach ? That they do not teach the Romish doctrine of the suprem- acy of St. Peter, is obvious ; because the same power or authority conferred on him in the first passage, is, in the others, conferred on all the apostles. Equally obvious is it that they did not confer the power of pardoning sin, in the proper sense of that phrase, because that is the prerogative of God only. How, then, are they to be understood ? A ready and satis- factory answer is found in the usage of the times and the circumstances of the case. The phrase "to bind and to loose" was used by the Jews in the sense of to prohibit and to permit, or to teach what is prohibited and what permitted. Thus tliey said of gathering wood on the Sabbath, "The school of Shammai binds it" — i. e. prohibits it, or teaches that it is prohibited ; and " the school of Hillel looses it" — i, e. permits it, or teaches that it is permitted. Lightfoot, in his Exercitations on Mat- thew, produces many instances of this use of the phrase. Schoetgen, in his Hor. Heb. vol. i. p. 145, 6, adds many more — all showing that, according to Jewish usage at the time, to loose and to bind sig- nified to pronounce authoritatively what was lawful 11* 126 THE CHANGE. and unlawful, clean and unclean, condemned and allowed, according to Mosaic Jaw. The phrase was manifestly a professional phrase — a kind of theologi- cal technic, applied to the rabbis, or teachers whose business it was to expound the law, and well under- stood as meaning, not only that they taught what was prohibited and what allowed by the law, but that their teaching was authoritative, and therefore bind- ing on the people. Hence the declaration of the Sa- vior, (Matt, xxiii. 2 — 4,) " The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat;" — officially they teach by au- thority ; — " all, therefore, whatsoever they bid j'ou observe and do, that observe and do ; but do not after their works ; for they say, and do not. For," so rigid are they in their exposition and enforcement of the law on others, that " they hind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoidders," while, at the same time, they themselves are so lax in its observance, that " they will not move them with one of their fingers." Here, then, we have this very power of Mnding, recognized by the Savior as residing, in the sense explained, in the scribes and Pharisees; and residing there, not because they exercised it properly, but because they were the oc- cupiers of Moses' seat, and, therefore, officially, the authorized and authoritative expounders of the law. Of course, while Moses remained in force, it was their official duty and prerogative, under him, to bind and to loose — i. e. (for such is the meaning) to teach authoritatively what was prohibited and what allowed by Mosaic law. But the time was at hand, and in the last case had actually arrived, when Moses was to give place to APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. 127 Christ, and those whose official business it was to bind and loose under the old dispensation were to be succeeded by those whose official business it should be to bind and to loose under the new. The first passage, then, under consideration, which, with the second, was uttered in anticipation of this change, is as if the Savior had said, " I am the Christ, the Son of the living God," as you, Peter, have confessed. " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." And now, as my Father hath thus honored you in giving you a full apprehension of my character and kingdom before your fellow- disciples, I also will honor you in the same manner. "Thou art rock; and upon this rock will I build my church. And I will give unto thee the keys of it" It shall be your high honor to be first in laying its foundations, and in opening the doors of it to the world. As you have been the first to apprehend and confess to me the great truth just announced, you shall be the first to proclaim it, in all its fulness, to the Jews, (as he did on Pentecost,) and to the Gen- tiles, (as he did at Cornelius' house ;) and so the first to make known the gospel and lay the foundations of my church on earth. And when this is done, in common with your fellow-disciples, you shall have the same official power of binding and loosing under the new dispensation which those who sit in Moses' seat have had under the old. It shall be yours, under my guidance and that of the Conjforter, to teach what is lawful and what unlawful in my church. And whatsoever you so "bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever j^ou " (so) " loose on earth 12S THE CHANGE. shall be loosed in heaven." Your teaching shall be authoritative and binding. The second passage gives the same authority to all the apostles, in respect to the subject of discipline in the church. And the last passage is as if the Sa- vior had said — Now my work is done. I have tasted death for all. Redemption is complete, and the way open for the visible and oflicial introduction of my church to the world. The " corner stone " is laid. It only remains more fully to instruct my fol- lowers and the world in respect to the nature and design of my kingdom, and the conditions of salva- tion, and more specifically to prescribe the order, institutions, discipline, and worship of my church. This work I now commit to you. "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." This is your commission. And as the evidence of your authority and the pledge of your being under the infallible guidance of God in what you teach and prescribe, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." When he is come, (John xvi. 14,) "He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." lie will also (John xiv. 26) "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." He will even (John xvi. 13) "show you things to come." Under his infallible guidance, then, go for- ward to the work I have assigned you. Order all the affairs of the church. Prescribe her order, institu- tions, worship. Declare to all on what terms, to what characters and temper of mind, God will extend the forgiveness of sin. Establish thus, in all the churches, tlie conditions on which men may be par- doned. In extraordinary cases, pronounce the judg- APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. 129 ment of God on presumptuous aud gross offenders. And "whose soever sins ye" so "remit, they are re- mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye" so "re- tain, they are retained." Wliat you do shall be in my name and by my authority. And that this was the kind of power or authority conferred by Christ, in these passages, on the apos- tles, is proved by the fact that it is the very power or authority which they actually exercised. (1.) They gave full and cxi)licit instruction in respect to the nature and design of the gospel kingdom, the truths of Clii-istianity, aud the terms of salvation ; and claimed to do it by authority. Hence tiie fearful malediction of Paul, (Gal. i. 8, 12,) " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." And the reason assigned for it was, " For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it of man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;" i. e. I taught it by autliority. (2.) With equal authority they pronounced the judgments of God, in extraordinary cases, on bold and presumptu- ous transgressors. Ananias and Sapphira were smit- ten dead. Hymeneus and Alexander, for their heresy, (2 Tim. ii. 18,) were "delivered" (1 Tim. i. 20) "unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme." See also the rebuke of Simon Magus, (Acts viii. 18 — 24,) and the judgment of the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v. 3—5.) Finally, (3.) they ordered all the affairs of the church in the same manner. In respect to its officers, they directed the choice (Acts vi. 3) of deacons, and appointed them to their office. Wherever they went, (Acts xiv. 23,) they " ordained them elders in every 130 THE CHANGE. church." See also Titus i. 5, and ii. 15. They di- rected also the discipline of the church, as in the case of the incestuous person, (1 Cor. v. 13,) "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." They gave order in respect to her charities, (1 Cor. xvi. 1,) " Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as 1 have given oi-de?' to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye." They corrected abuses, and prescribed the proper mode (1 Cor. xi. 20 — 30) of observing the Lord's supper, and (1 Cor. xi. 1 — 20, and xiv. 23 — 40) of conducting the meetings of the church ; and said Paul, in reference to these regulations, (v. 37,) "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the LordJ'^ They pre- scribed ill like manner the rites and ceremonies, or observances, of the church. In council assembled, they (Acts xv. 24, 29) assured tlie Gentile converts that they need not be circumcised, and keep the ritual law, but only that they abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, &c. in a word, they regulated, throughout, the faith, the institutions, the order, the worship of the church. And their uniform language, in all of their instructions and regulations, was that of command and authority. "So 07-rfainI," says Paul, (1 Cor. vii. 17,) " in all the churches." And, (2 Thess. ii. 15, and iii. 6,) " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle," and " we command you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother tliat walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us." And says Peter, (2 Pet. iii. 1, 2,) PRIMITIVE WORSHIP. 131 "I write unto you that ye may be mindful of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Sa- vior." It is settled, then, beyond dispute, that the power to bind and to loose, conferred on the apostles by Christ, was the power to teach and to order au- thoritatively in all the affairs of the church. Here we have " the lawP The question now is. What is « the TESTIMONY " ? Did the apostles, in the exercise ofthispower,autliorize a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.^ If they did, the change is as authorita- tive and binding as if made by Christ himself Whether they did or not is a question of fact, which must be determined by an appeal to " the testimony." The testimony is of course of two kinds — that of the Scripture record, and that of authentic ecclesiastical history. Our first inquiry is. What is the testimony, according to the Scripture record ? 1. The apostles and early disciples were in the habit of meeting together, at stated times, foj- public religious worship. This none will deny — " Not forsak- ing the assembling of yourselves together, as the man- ner of some is." See also 1 Cor. xiv. 23, where Paul gpeaks of " the ivhole church as coming together into oneplace.^^ It is equally obvious, that the exercises of these meetings were prayer and the various kinds of religious instruction, (see 1 Cor. xi. 1 — 16, and xiv. 23 — 40;) exhortation, (see Rom. xii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 11 ; Titus ii. 15;) singing, (see Col. iii, 16; Ephes. v. 19;) the observance of the Lord's supper, (1 Cor. xi. 20 — 34,) and such other things as were appropriately a part of public religious worship. Some of these meetings were occupied chiefly with prayer, praise, 132 THE CHANGE. exhortation, and instruction. At others the special object of the meeting was the observance of the Lord's supper — "tlie breaking of bread," as it was sometimes termed. And when the object was the ob- servance of the suj)per, the meetings were as truly the public religious meetings of the church as were any others. The breaking of bread on the occasion was not the usual expression of Christian hospitality and kindness. Nor was it done at their private houses, but in the usual place of public worship — "What, (1 Cor. xi. 22, 34,) have ye not" (private) "houses to eat and to drink " (your ordinary meals) " in 1 If any man hunger, let him eat at home," (and not turn the Lord's supper into a common meal or a season of rior,) "that ye come not together" (in your place of public worship, to eat the Lord's supper) " unto con- demnation." The observance of the ordinance was moreover accompanied with thanksgiving, prayer, re- ligious instruction, and singing. Thus, at its first in- stitution, when Christ sat down to the passover with his disciples, (Luke xxii. 16 — 18,) he declared that he would not eat of that again imtil it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God. He then took the passover cup, and "gave thanks," &c., adding that he would not drink of that again until the kingdom of God had come. He then gave them instruction on various topics — especially his death, and the full introduction of his kingdom. He informed them, (John xiii. 31, 32,) that the horn- was at hand when the " Son of man " should be "glorified," and, in anticipation of that hour, he said, (Luke xxii. 29, 30,) " I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may PRIMITIVE WO.ISHIP. 133 eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." And then, instituting his table, as that which was to super- sede the passover, he (Mark xiv. 22, 23) " took bread and blessed it," and afterwards "took the cup and gave thanks." Then followed other instructions, (John xiv. 1—30,) after which (Matt. xxvi. 30) " they sung a hymn," and then " went out into the mount of Olives."* In like manner, the first disciples (Acts ii. 42) continued steadfastly in communion together, " and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.^'' And sub- sequently, (Acts XX. 7,) " when they came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." From all which it is obvious that the meetings for the obser- vance of the supper were as truly meetings of the church for public worship as were any other. And that these meetings were held regularly every first day of the week, is proved by the whole current of eccle- siastical history.f The observance of Lord's sup- per was as regular as the return of Lord's day, and was so far a regular observance of the day itself, as a day for public religious worship. But these, as well as the other religious meetings of the church, it is said, were also held on other days of the week, as occasion might ofiTer or convenience allow. Be it so ; and what tlien ? The same is true now. But such occasional or stated meetings now are no evidence that the first day of the week is not also ob- * For this order of events, see Townsend's Arrang-ement, part 6, seels. 30 — 36. Consult, also, any other Harmony of the Gospels. t See the testimony of Pliny, Justin Martyr, and Eusebius, pp. 140. 1 J-I, 159, 161. 12 134 THE CHANGE. served, in distinction from other days, as the Sabbath. The stated Tuesday and Friday evening meetings, and the various other occasional meetings, of the churches in this city, during the week, do not prove that there is no day specially observed as Sabbath here. No more does the record of such meetings of the primitive churches prove the non-observance of the same Sabbath by them, in Eastern cities and in apostolic times. Admit, then, that the primitive churches had their stated and their occasional meet- ings during the week, just as the churches now do; it may yet appear that they also had the first day of the week set apart, as Sabbath, for their more gen- eral and regular meetings ; and that this, in distinc- tion from other days, and by divine authority, was their special and distinctive religious day — as truly special as was the Sabbath of old, and as really dis- tinctive, in its observance, of the followers of Christ, as was that of the worshippers of Jehovah. 2. That it was so, is evident from the title then given to it, viz. " The Lord's day." John (Rev. i. 10) says, «I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." That this was the first day of the week, or the day of Christ's resurrection, is proved by authentic history. Ig- natius, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, about A. D. 101, calls the first day of the week, the Lords day, the day consecrated to the resurrection, the queen and prince of all days ; and says, " Let every friend of Christ celebrate the Lord's day." Clement of Alexandria, about A. D. 192, says, (Strom. VII. p. 744,) " A Christian, according to the command of the gospel, observes the Lord^s day, thereby glorifying LORD S DAY. 135 the resurrection of the Lord." And again, (Strom. V. p. 600,) « The Lord's day is the eighth day." Tlie- odoret, (Hseret. Fab. 11. 1,) speaking of the Ebionites, a party of Judaizing Christians, says, " They keep the Sabbath " (seventh day) " according to the Jewisli law, and sanctify the Lord's day " (first day) " in Uke manner as we do." Barnabas^ who, if not a companion of the apostles, lived in the apostolic age, in his Cath- olic Epistle, says, " We " (Christians) " keep the eighth day " (i. e. the first day of the week) " as a joyful holy day, on which also Jesus rose from the dead." Cyp- rian, A. D. 253, in a letter to Fidus, says, that the Lord's day is the next day after the Sabbath. Chrys- ostom (Com. on Ps. cxix.) says, "It was called the Lord^s day, because the Lord arose from the dead on this day." Other passages of a similar character will be quoted, in another connection, hereafter. These are sufiicient to show, now, that when John said he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, he spoke of the first day of the week, and that this day was at that time known, observed, and distinguished, in the church, from other days, by the name of " the Lord^s day^ But why this designation ? and what is its import ? The occasion of it was, obviously, the resurrection of the Lord upon that day. And so far, its import was a memorial of that event. But if that were all, as the day of his ascension was afterwards known in the church as " Ascension day," why should not that of his resurrection be also known as "Resurrection day " ? Why should one of them be called " Lord's day " rather than the other ? Or, if the whole import of the title was to designate a day commemorative 136 THE CHANGE, merely of the event, why should either of them be so called? Surely "Ascension day" and "Resurrection day " were a more appropriate designation. So called, the title alone would indicate the event commem- orated by the respective day. But call either of them " Lor«rs day," and the title, merely, gives you no clew to the event. In this case, the title points you only to the person, not to the event. And whether the event commemorated be his birth, temptation, crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension, or neither, you have to learn from other sources, not from the title. There must have been some further import, then, in this designation of the da3^ What was it ? To call this, rather than the other days of the week, " Lord's day," was saying, of course, that it was, in some peculiar sense, so distinguished from them, as to make it his day, by way of eminence, and in distinc- tion from all other days. But why this distinction in name, indicative of a corresponding distinction in fact ? What was the ground of it ? Are not all days the Lord's ? Do we not receive them all from him ? Are we not bound to serve and honor him in them all ? and, in this sense, to keep all days holy ? Why, then, this distinction? Whence its origin? What its nature ? The day was, in some sense above all other days, peculiarly the Lord's. How could it be so any more than Ascension day, or any other day of the week, except as it, in distinction from them, was set apaH, hy the Lord, or by his authority, to he ob- served in honor of him, in some peculiar and distinctive way'? And, as they had some religious meetings on other days, in what distinctive way could they ob- serve this, except they observed it as their special and lord's day. 137 distinctive religious day — a day devoted, like the Sabbath of old, to the business of religious instruction, improve- ment, and ivorship, and, in its observance, designed to be a distinctive badge of disdpleship ? Obviously, it was as a day thus specially and distinctively set apart to the worship and service of the Lord, that it was called " Lord's day." Such, at least, is the import ot its title, as demanded by the nature of the case. That such is the true import, is further obvious from Scripture usage in similar cases. "The sanctuary of the Lord," (IChron. xxii. 19,) and "the Lord's house," (Ps. cxvi. 19,) denote plainly a sanctuary, and a house specially set apart, in distinction from ordinary houses, to his service and honor. "Apostles of the Lord," or Lord's apostles, (2 Pet. iii. 2,) means, of course, men set apart, by the Lord, to his service and honor, as apostles. " Apostles of Christ," or Christ's apostles, (1 Thess. ii. 6,) means the same. "The Sabbath of the Lord," or the Lord's Sabbath, applied (Lev. xxiii. 3) to the original seventh day Sabbath, plainly signi- fies a day appointed or set apart, by the Lord, for his service and honor. " Feasts of the Lord," and " Sab- baths of the Lord," (Lev. xxiii. 4, 38,) imply the same. So in the New Testament — " The cup of the Lord," or the Lord's cup, and " the Lord's table," (1 Cor. x. 21,) imply that these, in distinction from ordinary cups and tables, and from those dedicated to devils, are set apart or consecrated to the service and honor of the Lord. But a still more decisive instance of this usage is furnished in the phrase "p auSSd- Tcov ; literally, " Upon the one of the Sabbaths." In John xx. 1, it is the same. So'also in Matt, xxviii. ], and Mark xvi. 2. This settles the point that the time in the present case was the first day of the week. It is equally obvious, that the meeting spoken of in this passage, as occurring at Troas, on this day, was according to established custom, and not a special or PAUL AT TROAS. 143 occasional meeting called because of Paul's departure on the morrow. A strictly-literal rendering of the passage makes this quite clear; thus — "Upon the first day of the week, the disciples having assembled to break bread, Paul preached to them, being about to depart on the morrow ; and continued his speech until midnight." Now, had this meeting been a spe- cial or occasional one, called because of Paul's de- pai'ture on the morrow, that which, as a leading ob- ject, called them together, must have been to hear Paul preach, and the breaking of bread must have come in, if at all, only as incidental to that, and not that as incidental to their assembling to break bread. And is it to'be supposed that Paul and his compan- ions remained there during the previous " seven days," with no meetings of the disciples, and no op- portunities to address them until just as they were going away ? Rather, is it not obvious that they had such meetings and such opportunities during the week? Could it have been otherwise? And must they not therefore have delayed their departure, until after the first day of the week, not for the sake of an opportunity to preach to the disciples, but just as they would now do it in Boston in similar circum- stances, that they might have the privilege of spending the Sabbath and commemorating the Lord's supper with them, at their regular season of public worship on that day 9* Moreover, had the meeting in question been an oc- casional one, and the leading object of it therefore to * Acts xxi. 4 records a similar tarry of Paul and his com- panions at Tyre, for "seven days," — doubtless for the same reason. 144 THE CHAx\GE, near Paul preach, its record must have run thus — " Upon the fii'st day of the week, the disciples having assembled to hear Paul preach, because he was about to depart on the morrow, they took that opportunity to break bread, or celebrate the Lord's supper." This would have made the latter truly incidental to the former, and have given a true account of the mutter, on this supposition. Such, however, is not the record. It is just the reverse. It is, that " Upon the first day of the week, the disciples having assembled to break bread, or celebrate the Lord's supper, Pavl took that opportunity to preach.^- This makes the preaching incidental to their assembling for the observance of the supper, and it presents their assembling as the usual custom of the church. It is as if the writer had said, " Upon the first day of the week, the dis- ciples having assembled, according to custom, to celebrate the Lord's supper, Paul took that opportu- nity to preach to them, as he was about to leave on the morrow ; and, on the same account also, he con- tinued his speech until midnight, when the accident occurred, which is afterwards narrated." How plain, then, that this was the regular weekly nieeting of the church for public religious worship, and that it was held as a matter of established custom on each re- turning first or Lord's day ! (2.) Paul says, (I Cor. xvi. 1, 2,) "Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The laying up in store spoken of, was not, of course, lading up in store at CHURCH AT CORINTH. 145 home; for that would in no respect do away the necessity of " gatherings " when Paul came. This could be prevented only by their putting their contri- butions into some public common store, where they would be ready for the apostle on his arrival — in other words, into the public common treasury of the church. The contribution was for the poor of the church. It would be made most JUtingly, only when the members of the church were generally assembled to commemorate, by the observance of the supper, the love of that common Lord, who, though rich, for their sakes became poor. It could be made most con- veniently^ only at those times and on those occasions when they were most generally together ; i. e. at their seasons of public worship. It could be made reg*w- larly,only at the regular and established seasons of such worship. It was to be made, as the passage shows, on the first day of every week. How, then, can we avoid the conchision, that this, above all other days, was the regular and established day for public reli- gious worship ? Why the injunction — an injunction extending to all the churches — to make the collec- tion on this rather than some other day of the week, except that this, in distinction from all others, was the regular religious day of the churches, and therefore the day when they would be most generally and reg- ularly assembled, and be able most conveniently to make it ? Place, now, these testimonies together; and do they not prove, beyond dispute, (1.) that the early Christians were in the habit of meeting for religious instruction and worship, the celebration of the Lord's supper, and the collection of charity on the first day of the week ? 13 146 THE CHANGE. and, (2.) that this was not an occasional occurrence, but the regular, universal, and distinctive custom of the churches? Examine the witnesses. So far as the Scripture testimony is concerned, it is plain that the custom obtained, as a regular and established one, in Jerusalem, in Troas, among all the churches of Gala- tia, and in Corinth. As to the other testimony, the writers lived in various and remote countries — Barna- bas and Justin, in Palestine; Pliny, (while proconsul,) in Bithynia ; Tertullian and Cyprian, in Libya ; Dio- nysius, in Greece ; those to whom he wrote, in Italy ; Irenaeus, in Gaul ; Ignatius, in Syria, &c. They lived, too, at different periods during the second and third centuries. They all agree in respect to the preva- lence of the custom in their country and time. This settles the fact of its universality. They agree also that it was peculiar to and distinctive of Christians — that it was a new custom, begun and identified with Christianity, and unknown before. Indeed, to such an extent was it the distinctive peculiarity or budge of discipleship, that their persecutors, instead of asking whether they were Christians, determined that point by asking whether they kept the Lord's day ! And the answer they received was, " We are Christians, and therefore we cannot but keej) it" — as if they had eaid, "The observance of the day, in honor of our Lord, and our religion are identical ; the one is but the badge or })ublic profession of the other, and we can therefore no more omit the one than we can give up the other." The existence, universality, and dis- tinctiveness of the custom in question, during the first three centuries, is, then, beyond dispute. The re- ligious observance of the first day of the week, as APOSTOLIC SANCTION. 147 Lord's day, in honor of Jesus Christ, was as universal as the church itself. It was also as distinctive a badge of Christians, as the followers and worshippers of Jehovah-Savior, as the observance of the former Sabbath had been of the Jews, as the servants and worshippers of Jehovah-Creator. But whence came this new and distinctive custom ? By what authority gained it such general and univer- sal prevalence ? Not of accident, plainly ; nor yet of as- sumption. For had it been from either of these, there must have been divei-sity in the custom, not wide- spread and universal uniformity. The accident or the assumption, whichever it might be, would not have been the same, the world over. The custom began, as we have seen, with Christianity, and spread wherever that did. Whence could it have originated, and by what authority could it have so spread, except from the origin and by the authority which gave being and prevalence to Christianity herself? Besides, it was always the custom of the apostles, particularly of Paul, to expose and correct whatever was wrong in the churches. If he found the Gala- tians or the Hebrews falling off to Judaism, he at once wrote them an epistle to correct then* error. If he found the Corinthians glorying in men, — in Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, — or tolerating an incestuous person in the church, or perverting the Lord's supper, or conducting disorderly in their religious meetings, he at once corrected their errors and rebuked then- sins. Now, had the regular religious obsei'vance of the first day of the week been a relic of Judaism, or a priestly assumption, or even an accidental custom inconsistent at all with the genius and spirit of Chris- 148 THE CHANGE. tianity, is it to be believed that he would not as read- ily have corrected this error, or denounced this sin ? But did he do it ? So far from it, we find him at Troas actually participating in its observance himself — nay, to all appearance, delaying his journey for several days, that he may have the privilege of doing it ! Nor have we a solitary hint from him, here or elsewhere, that there was any thing wrong, Judaistic, or anti-Cln*istian in it. And what is this but apostolic sanction ? Moreover, when he writes to the Corinth- ians, in the very Epistle in which he corrects so many other errors and reproves so many other faults, so far from blaming them for their regular observance of the first day of the week as a day of public religious worship, he directs them, as he had before directed all the churches of Galatia, to do that, in time to come, which they could not do except as they kept up the custom. The whole direction about the regular weekly collection went on the assumption that the custom of the regular weekly meeting was to be per- manent. In giving the direction, then, to make a regu- lar weekly collection on the first day of the week, Paul virtually directed them to keep up their regular weekly meeting for public worship, at which the col- lection was to be made. The ordering of the one was virtually an ordering to persist in the other. And what is this but apostolic appointment ? It is clear, then, that the observance of the first day of the week, as their regular and distinctive religious day, was the general and established custom of the primitive churches, and that in this custom they had apostolic sanction and authority, and in these, the sanction and authority of Jesus Christ. CHAPTER VI. THE PROOF-TEXTS OF OPPONEiNTS. The favorite proof-texts of the opponents of the Sabbath only confirm the view we have taken. These texts are, Col. ii. 16, 17, " 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 ; " and Rom. xiv. 5, " One man esteemeth one day above another ; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." These passages are quoted as if they had reference primarily and especially to the question of the Sab- bath as noiv agitated. It is assumed that the meaning of the apostle is this — "Let no man judge or cen- sure you in regard to the obsenance of the old Jewish or seventh day Sabbath, or any of the other Jewish feasts or ceremonials ; for they are all only a shadow which is fulfilled in Clirist, and are therefore now no longer obligatory. And, in respect to the observance of the first, or indeed of any particular day, as Sabbath, one man esteemeth one day, as, for instance, the first, above another ; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and obsei-ve one day, or another, ox 13 ^ 150 THE CHANGE. none, as he chooses." Such, 1 say, is assumed to be their meaning ; for no argument is ever attempted to prove it. But such is not their meaning. So far from it, they either have no reference to the seventh or the first day Sabbath, but only to the other Jewish fes- tivals or Sabbaths, or they declare simply, that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer obligatory, and do it m circumstances which make it a virtual declara- tion that the Lord's day, or first day Sabbath, is ob- ligatory. This will be apparent as we proceed. In the apostolic age, the fii'st and the seventh day of the week had each its appropriate and distinctive name, which name was never applied to the other. The former was called i^ueqa x-vQiain^, i. e. ^^ Lord^s day^ and never Sabbath. The latter was called (J(j.66u- TOf, i. e. Sahhath, and never Lord's day. This is obvious from the passages, from various ecclesias- tical wiiters, quoted on pp. 134, 135. Moreover, this distinction of name was kept up for a long period. Professor Stuart, of Andover, (Gurney on the Sab- bath, p. 114,) says, "It was not until the party in the Christian churcli had become extinct, or nearly so, who pleaded for the observance of the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath, as well as of the Lord's day, that the name Sabbath began to be given to tlie first day of the week." As late as the fourth century, the names were as distinct from each other as the days. That there was a party in the primitive church, who urged the observance of both days, is a simple historic fact. The Ebionites were of this class. " They," says Theodoret, " keep the Sabbath" (seventh day) " according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the Lord's day " (fii'st day) " in like manner as we do." In- TEXTS OF OPPONENTS. 151 deed, so prevalent was this paity at one time, and so superstitious, withal, in their observance of the seventh day, that to counteract it, the Council of Laodicea, about A. D. 350, passed a decree, saying, "It is not proper for Christians to Judaize, and to cease from labor on the Sabbath," (seventh day :) " but they ought to work on this day, and to put especial honor" [ngo TiuibPTeg) " upon the Lord's day,''^ (first day) " by refrain- ing from labor, as Christians. If any one be found Judaizing, let him be anathematized." That such a party should arise, especially among the converts from Judaism, was most natural. Chiis- tianity itself was but the substance, of which Judaism was the shadow or type. It was indeed the same re- ligion, only under a new dispensation — that of Mes- siah come, instead of that of Messiah typified and ex- pected. Moreover, the attachment of the Jew to the religion of his fathers was intense and proverbial. How natural, then, that he should cling to old rites and ceremonies, even after his reception of Messiah ! How prone such converts were to fall back upon these observances, and even to place reliance on them as grounds of salvation, is obvious from the Epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews. Even Peter, (Gal. ii. 11 — 14,) with all his visions on the subject, was too feeble to stem the current. In these circumstances, the question of the obser- vance of Jewish rites and ceremonies would be nat- m-ally and continually coming up ; at one time, in regard to circumcision ; at another, in respect to meats and drinks ; at another, in respect to religious feasts and holy days ; and among the rest, in respect to the seventh day Sabbath. But whenever the ques- 152 THE CHANGE. tion came up, whether m reference to one or all of these, the only answer that could be given was sub- stantially this : — As symbols or types, these things are all fulfilled in Christ. Their observance is there- fore no longer ohligatory. As such they are at an end — the shadow having given place to the sub- stance ; Messiah typified, to Messiah come. At the same time, as, in the case of circumcision, for in- stance, or that of the religious observance of partic- ular days, or abstinence fi-om particular meats, there is nothing wicked in the things themselves, if one thinks he must do them, therefore, to satisfy any scruples of mind you may have, you can observe them if you wish — provided always, that you do it as Christians, and not as Jews, and therefore never place any reliance on their observance for your sal- vation, and never attempt to bind the conscience of others in respect to them. Observ^ed with this con- dition, they are, in themselves, harmless, and may be observed or not, as you severally choose. But the moment you go to placing reliance on their obser- vance for salvation, "Ye are fallen from grace," (Gal. V. 4 ;) you have rejected Christ come in your reliance on Chist typified; and, (Gal. iv. 21, and v. 2, 4,) "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised," and go to relying on that for sal- vation, "Christ shall profit you nothing. Christ is become of no eflfect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace." No more may you bind the conscience of your broth- er in the case. " Who art thou that judgest another man's sei*vant," and presumest to condemn him in TEXTS OF OPPONENTS. 153 matters which his master does not make obligatory, but in respect to which each is allowed to " be fully persuaded in his own mind"? In these things no man may "judge " another. See, then, that ye neither "judge" others, nor allow them to "judge "you in respect to them. This, indeed, was just the question that came up, and just the answer that Paul gave to it in the pas- sages now in question, and so often mis-quoted as proof-texts against the divine authority of the Lord's DAY, or Christian Sabbath. It would seem, (Col. ii. 14 — 23,) tliat certain persons wished to make the Colossians "subject to" (Jewish) "ordinances" about " meat, and drink, and a holy day," &c., and that they even went so far as to insist that their observance was obligatory, and to condemn and censure those who did not observe then:. To this the apostle replied. These were but " a sliadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." He therefore has "blotted out the hand- writing of ordinances that was against us, nailing it to his cross," so that it is now no longer obligatory. "Let no man therefore judge you" in respect to any of its requirements — "in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." The same leaven was at work among the Romans. The apostle met it in the same way — "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea," in the present case, and in respect to the matters now in question, " Ae," the Christian, shall not fall at all ; " he shall be hold en up ; for God is able to make him stand." For instance, " One man esteemeth one day above an- 154 THE CHANGE. Other," and is therefore disposed to keep paiuicular days holy, or to observe them as rehgious festivals • "another esteemeth every day," and does not feel un der any obligation to keep particular days. Now, the true Christian doctrine, hi respect to these matters, is, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mmd." If he thinks he ought to observe particular days, let him ; if he thinks their observance is not obligatoiy, and wishes to act accordingly, let him. There is no harm in either case, provided he act in each as a Christian. For the Christian, "that regard- eth the day," if he does it as a Christian, and not as a Jew, " regai-deth it unto " the honor of " tlie Lord " Jesus Christ ; and, on the other hand, the Christian, " that regardeth not the day," does it with a view to the same end, the honor of the Lord Jesus — " to the Lord he doth not regard it." Just so with regard to eating or not eating particular meats. Let every Christian do as he pleases in the case. At the same time, (v. 13,) let no one, in these indifferent matters, " put a stumbling- block, or an occasion to full, in his brother's w^ay." True, (v. 14,) "there is nothing unclean of itselfj" and so far you may eat what meats you please ; neverthe- less, (v. 15,) "if thy brother," the Jewish convert, "be grieved with " your eating all kinds of " meat," and you thereby put a stumbling-block, or an occasion of offence, in his way, "thou walkest not charitably" towards him, and your eating, however innocent in itself, is therefore (v. 20) " evil." For, according to the charity of the gospel, (v. 21,) "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." TEXTS OF OPPONENTS. 155 Such, obviously, are the drift and import of the passages. I remark, then, (1.) it is plain that the apostle is here contendhig with those who were clamorous for the continued and obligatory obser- vance of the Mosaic ritual. It was purely a question about Jewish "ordinances." In Colossians, indeed, it is so stated. Hence, too, the reference, in the text and context, to meats, and drinks, and new moons, and holy days, as well as Sabbaths. The apostle's decision was, that such obsei*vance was not obligatory, though on certain conditions to be allowed to the Jewish con- vert, and tolerated by the Gentile. It is therefore altogether probable, that the " Sabbaths " spoken of in the first passage (Colossians) were not the seventh day Sabbath, but only the other and ceremonial Sab- baths. At all events, the first day or Christian Sab- bath was not referred to at all, for that was then known only as "the first day of the week," or "Lord's day," and was never called Sabbath until centuries afterward. Be those "Sabbaths," then, what they might, deciding that ther/ were not obligatory, was not deciding that the Lord's day was not. The same is true of the passage in Romans. The entire context shows that the question at issue, and the apostle's decision of it, were the same as in the other case. Moreover, what proof is there that the " day " spoken of was a Sabbath of any kind ? The term " Sabbath " does not occur at all in the text or context. For aught that appears in them, the " day " in question may have been some holy or feast day, not a Sabbath. It is but prohabilUy to suppose that it was any Sabbath day whatever, ceremonial, seventh day, or first. It is sheer assumption to suppose that it was 156 THE CHANGE. the first or seventh day Sabbath, rather than the cere- monial Sabbaths. If the day or days were some Sabbath, the whole drift and import of the passage point to the ceremonial Sabbaths, not to the seventh day Sabbath, nor to the first, as the Sabbaths in ques- tion. All that can be fairly argued from the passage is, that Christians were at liberty to be fully persuaded in their own minds in respect to the observance of ceremonial feast days or Sabbaths, and to observe them or not, a« they chose. There is not a particle of evidence, that the apostle had his eye on any other day whatever. To suppose that he had, and that that day was the seventh or the first day Sabbath, is not only a groundless assumption, but foreign entirely to the scope of the apostle's argument. And to suppose that the seventh day Sabbath, or the first, were in- cluded among the others as ceremonials, and so set aside, is to beg the whole question about their being ceremonials. Nay, were it even admitted that the seventh day Sabbath was so, and was therefore set aside with the rest, it by no means follows that the " Lord's day," or fii'st day Sabbath, was. The cere- monial Sabbaths, including the seventh day, if you will, may all have ceased to be obligatory, and yet the obligation to observe the Lord's day remained in full force. In deciding, then, that they had ceased to be obligatory, the apostle by no means decided that the Lord's day had. As well may you say, that the de- cision that eating certain meats, and abstaining from others, is no longer obligatory, was a decision that the observance of the Lord's supper was not obligatory. The truth is, the question of the observance or non- observance of the Lord's supper, or the Lord's day, TEXTS OF OPPONENTS. 157 was not the question at issue in either of these cases, and therefore not the question decided in either. The argument from these passages for the non-ob- servance of the first day of the week as Sabbath is therefore groundless. Neither passage has any refer- ence whatever to that question. The most that can be made of them, on the most liberal interpretation, is a decision that the seventh day Sabbath, in com- mon with the ceremonial Sabbaths, was no longer obligatory. But such a decision, in the circumstances, was a virtual decision that the Lord's day was obligatory. What were the circumstances? First, that the first day of the week, as we have seen, was universally and religiously observed in the primitive church, and that it was observed and known as " Lord's day." Second, that its observance was every w^here regarded as obli- gatory — how else could there have been such a gen- eral uniformity in regard to its actual observance ? Such uniformity did not obtain touching circumcision or the observance of the seventh day Sabbath, which some of the early disciples advocated, but which were to others of doubtful authority and obligation. The universal observance of the Lord's day in the primi- tive church, like their observance of baptism and the Lord's supper, is proof of a universal conviction that such observance was obligatory. Indeed, among all the questions and controversies that arose in the first ages of the church about the continued observance of the seventh day Sabbath, — and they were many, — it is not known that the propriety of observing Lord's day was ever questioned. Professor Stuart (Gurney, p. 115) says, "There appears," on this point, "never 14 158 THE CHANGE. to have been any question among any class of the early Christians, so far as I have been able to discover. Even the Ebionites, who kept the Sabbath (seventh day) according to the Jewish law, kept also the Lord's day. All were agreed, then, in the obligation to keep the Lord's day. Now, to raise the question, in these circumstances, whether the seventh day Sabbath should be kept or not, was to ask, not whether the first day was to be kept, — for that was settled, — nor whether the seventh was to be observed in preference to or in place of the first, — for this too was settled, — but mtLst the seventh be also observed. And to decide, as, on the supposition before us, the apostle did, that it need not also be observed, — i. e. was not also obligatory, — was to decide that the other, viz. the Lord's day, was obligatory. The conclusion, then, is certain, either that the passages in question refer only to the Jewish cere- monial Sabbaths, not including the seventh day Sab- bath, and therefore have no bearing whatever on the question ofthe Sabbath as now agitated; or that, in de- claring the seventh as well as the ceremonial Sabbaths no longer obligatory, they virtually declare that the first day Sabbath, or Lord's day, is obligatory. In either case, the argument from them to the non-observance of Lord's day is vain. CHAPTER VII. TESTIMOxNY OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Early and authentic ecclesiastical history confirms the view now presented. It states, indeed, in terms, that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, by authority of Christ him- self; and also that the mode of keeping the one was transfeiTed, so far as the genius of Christianity and the nature of the case would allow, to the other. Thus Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192) says, "A Christian, according to the command of the gospel, observes the Lord's day.''^ So that its observance, in- stead of being an accident, or a relic of Judaism, or in any way anti-Christian, was " according to the com- mand of the gosptV Jlthanasius also, (A. D. 326,) re- nouncing the authority of the seventh day Sabbath, says, (De Semente, Ed. Colon. Tom. I. p. 1060,) "The Lord himself hath changed the day of the Sabbath to Lord's day." The testimony of Eusebius is still more to the purpose. He was born about A. D. 270, and died about 340. Mosheim says, he was "a man of vast reading and erudition." Till about forty years of age, he lived in great intimacy with the maityr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Cesarea, and founder of an extensive library 160 THE CHANGE there, to which Eusebius had free access. Eusebius, as all admit, was an impartial as well as learned his- torian. He searched more thoroughly into the cus- toms and antiquities of the church, than any other man in the early ages, and at Cesarea and elsewhere had access to the best helps for acquiring correct in- formation. He is, by way of eminence, the ancient historian of the church. His testimony on the sub- ject before us is contained in his commentary on the Psalms, printed in Montfaucon's Collectio Nova Pa- trum, and is as follows : — * In commenting on Ps. xxiL 29, he says, " On each day of our Savior's resurrection," (i. e. each first day of the week,) " which is called Lord's day, we may see those who partake of the consecrated food and that body " (of Christ) " which has a saving efficacy, alter the eating of it, bowing down to him." pp. 85, 86. Again, on Ps. xlvi. 5, he says, " I think that he " (the Psalmist) " describes the morning assemblies, in which we are accustomed to convene throughout the ivorMJ* p. 195. On Ps. lix. 16, he says, "By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every morning of the resurrection-day," (i. e. the fii'st day of the week,) ^'■throughout tJie whole worldP p. 272. Again, Ps. xcii., which is entitled "•^ Psalm or Song for the Sahbaih-day,''^ he refers to the Lord''s day, and says, "It exhorts to those things which are to be done * This testimony is given by Professor Stuart, Andover, in Gurney on the Sabbath, App. B. MADE BY CHRIST. 161 on resurrection-day." Then, obsei-ving that the pre- cept for the Sabbath was originally addressed to the Jews, and that they had often violated it, he adds, "Wherefore, as they rejected it," (the sabbatical com- mand,) " THE WORD," (Christ,) « hy the JVeu? Cove- nant, TRANSLATED and TRANSFERRED THE FEAST OF THE SABBATH TO THE MORN- ING LIGHT, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. THE SAVING LORD'S DAY, thejirst" (day) «o/ the light, in which the Savior of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six days' creation." This establishes the fact that the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was made hy Christ himself, and that, so transferred, under the name of "Lord's day," it was observed throughout the Christian world. The commentary pro- ceeds — " On this day, which is the first " (day) " of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an in- terval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sab- baths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sab- bath ; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odor to ascend, as it is said, 'Let my prayer come up before thee as in- cense.' Yea, we also present the show-bread, reviv- ing " (by the observance of the Lord's supper) " the re- membrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins 14* 162 THE CHANGE. of the world, and which purifies our souls More- over, we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this psalm ; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanor ; and all things whatsoever that it ivas duty to do on the Sabbath,''^ (seventh day,) "THESE WE HAVE TRANSFERRED TO THE LORD'S DAY, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence, and isjirst in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. For on that " (the first) " day, in making the world, God said. Let there be light, and there was light ; and on the same " (first) "day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wiierefore it is delivered to us " (handed down by tradi- tion) " that we should meet togetlier on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this psalm." Subsequently he adds, "This Scripture teaches" (that we are to spend the Lord's day) "in leisure for religious exercises^^ [i(av S-elo)f dax^afw*-,) "otic? in cessation and vacation from all bodily and mortal ivorks — which the Scriptures call '■Sabbath'' and ^restP'' This touches, with equal explicitness, the mode of keeping the day, and shows that, so far as the genius of Christianity and the nature of the case would al- low, the mode of its observance, as well as the insti- tution itself, was transferred from the one day to the other. Lord's day was, and was " ordered " to be, a day for the cessation of ordinary labors, and for pri- MADE BY CHRIST. 163 vate and public religious instruction and worship, just as truly as was the old seventh day Sabbath. It was, in a word, tiie original institution, in its spir- itual and essential elements, transferred by Christ himself to another day, and observed throughout the Christian world. The institution was the same. The mode of its observance, saving what of its former mode had been typical, was also the same. The day only was changed — changed by him who was at once "Head of the Church," "Lord of the Sabbath," and " God over all, blessed forever." Such, then, is the argument for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. The change is just what we should expect in the event of there being any ; it is just what the circum- stances of the case demand ; Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath and Head of the Church, had the right to make the change ; his example shows that he did not intend its abrogation, as an institution, but its per petuity, with a change in the day of its observance : the same right he had to regulate the institutions and order of his church he gave to the apostles ; they, in their turn, gave their sanction and authority to the obsei'vance of the first day of the week as Sabbath, as is proved by the whole tenor of Scripture and ecclesiastical history; and ecclesiastical history tes- tifies, in so many words, that Christ himself "trans- ferred" the Sabbath to the first day of the week, and that, so transferred, under the name of " Lord's day," it was observed throughout the then Christian world. It cannot be doubted, then, that under the Christian dispensation, the first day of the week has been set 164 THE CHANGE MADE BY CHRIST. apart, by divine appointment, to be observed, in place of the seventh, as the Christian Sabbath. As such, it is an institution of Christianity. It is part and par- cel of Christianity. Like the Lord's supper, or the institution of marriage, it will live while Christianity does. Obligatory now, it will be obligatory always, and, in its regular observance, will be every where, as with the early Christians, a badge of discipleship itself: PART III. THE MODE OF KEEPING THE SABBATH. What constitutes a proper obsei-vance of the Sab- bath, is now a pertinent and important inquiry. On this topic, were I to go into an appUcation of general principles to particulai- cases, a volume would need to be written. Of course this cannot be done here. A brief statement of the general principles that should govern its obsei'vance is all that can be at- . cmpted — leaving it to individual conscience to make the application to the thousand particular cases of actual experience. Our inquiry is, How should the Sabbath be kept ? The answer is found in the essential nature and de- sign of the Sabbath. It must be so observed as to answer its true design, or it is not, of course, properly observed. Now, the Sabbath, as we have seen, p. 18, " is a day set apart to rest from the ordinary avoca- tions of life, and specially devoted to the duties of religious instruction, improvement, and worship." This is its essential nature ; its true design. The law of its observance demands, therefore, that it be so observed as to make it (1.) a day of rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and (2.) a day specially de- voted to the purposes and duties of religion. Any 166 THE SABBATH. observance of the day which comes short of this is a violation, not an observance. I remark, then, more particularly, that a proper observance of the Sabbath demands, 1. The cessation of all labor, both of body and mind, except such as is clearly and absolutely ne cessary to the performance of works of necessity, and mercy, and such as is required by a devotion of the day to the purposes and duties of religion. The ordinary avocations of life, except so far as they may be works of necessity and mercy, or immediately necessary to the worship of God and our own or our fellow-men's spiritual improvement, must all be sus- pended. None may claim exemption. With the qualifications named, the minister, the merchant, the mechanic, the mariner, the lawyer, the statesman, the politician, the physician, the editor, the teacher, the student, the apprentice, the laborer, the domestic, the slave, — all must suspend their ordinary labors, and rest from them, or they violate the day. 2. This demand extends to all under our control. It is not only that we^ individually, so rest, but that all that are ours, or under our direction, do the same; whether they be children, or apprentices, or domestics, or bondmen, or " the stranger " beneath our roof They are bound to it themselves, individually, just as we are, and can no more omit it without a violation of the day, than we can. They have no right, individu- ally, and acting for themselves, to part with the day as a day of rest ; nor have we, in our relations to them, as parents, guardians, employers, masters, or hosts, any right to negotiate or compel it away from them. MODE OF KEEPING. 167 They are bound, as we are, to reserve the ^ day to themselves, as a day of rest from their ordinary av- ocations ; and we, in our relations to them, are bound, so far as we have control, to see that they do so re- serve and so observe it. On no account, and for no f)urpose, save those specified, may they part with it, or we allow them to do it, much less take it from them, as a day of rest. Nor is this all. The demand extends, 3. To every thing that is ours or under our control. It is not limited to persons ; it extends to us and all that is ours ; to our property, our investments, our ships, our steamboats, our railroads, our canal boats, our manufactories, our mills, our coaches, and espe- cially our beasts of burden. The demand, in a word, covers our whole being. It requires that, in all that we are personally, and in all that we are relatively, we rest from our ordinary avocations on that day ; and any thing short of this is its violation, not its obser- vance. All this is distinctly taught in the command itself, and in the expositions which God has given of it. The very terms of the command are, "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do £iny work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy sti'anger that is within thy gates." (Ex. xx. 8 — 10.) Again, (Deut. v. 12 — 14,) " Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy 1(38 THK SABBATH. God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-sei-vant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates ; that thy man-servant and thy maid-sen^ant may rest as well as thou." And in the subsequent expositions of this com- mand, which God, bj^ his prophets, has given, he dis- tinctly assures us that its requirements extend alike to city and to country ; prohibiting the labors of the field, the carrying of " burdens " to the city, and the selling there of "wme," and "grapes," and "figs," and " fish," and " victuals," and " all manner of wai-e." " Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath-day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jeinisalem ; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath-day ,• neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath-day, as I com- manded your fathers." (Jer. xvii. 21.) Again, (Neh. xiii. 15 — 17,) "In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses ; and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day ; and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyro also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath-day ? " And he con- tended with them until he broke the whole thing up ; and Sunday labor, and Sunday mai-keting, and Smi- MODE OF KEEPING. 169 day traffic, of all kinds, in city and country, were at an end, and the people rested from their labors on that holy day. Nor was it a rest of body, merely, from the ordina- ry avocations of the week, that God demanded. He claimed — and a due obsei-vance of the Sabbath now requires — the abstraction of thought and the abstain- ing from conversation in respect to them. (Is. Iviii. 13.) " If thou tiu'n away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sab- bath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable ; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor find- ing thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words," &c. 4. Of course, a due observance of the Sabbath re- quires a similar cessation or rest from ordinary amuse- ments. If we must rest from the ordinary and lawful labors of the week, much more must we from similar amusements, whether they be purely mental or other- wise. " Not finding thine own pleasure " is as obliga- tory as "not doing thine own ways," or "not speaking thine own words." Indeed, these ai'e but a part of those very avocations, from which, in all that we are personally, and in all that we are relatively, we are bound to rest. Sunday amusements, then, — those that would be lawful on other days, — are unlawful on this ; such, for instance, as Sunday excursions by land or water, Sunday parties, and Sunday dinners, and Sunday concerts, — in the last of which, there is the double prostitution of sacred time and sacred things. Of course, amusements that are unlawful on other days are doubly so on this. The same remarks generally may be made in re- 15 ITO THE SABBATH. spect to the devotion of the day to the purposes and duties of rehgion. A due obsei-vance of it in this respect requires an exclusive devotion of it, 1. To the discharge of our private and personal re- ligious duties, such as reading the Scriptures or other religious books, religious meditation, self-examination, and private prayer ; also the religious instruction and improvement of those under our care and control, and such domestic arrangements, of course, as will allow of and facilitate the discharge of such duties. 2. It requires a similar devotion of the day, as op- portunity offers and health allows, to the more public duties of social and public religious worship, instruc- tion, and improvement ; also that we see to it that those committed to our care be allowed, and, to the extent of our rightful control, required, to make a similar devotion of it to these duties. Here, as in resting from our ordinary avocations, the obhgation extends to our whole being, and, excepting so much as is demanded by works of necessity and mercy, it requires that, in all that we are personally, and in all that we are relatively, we give the day exclusively to the labors and duties of private and public religious instruction, unprovement, and worship. The whole use of the day, by ourselves, and by those under our immediate care, must be religious ; otherwise we per- vert it from its true design, and therefore violate it The questions of practical difficidty in the appli- cation of these i)rincip]es to the life are. What are works of necessity and mercy ? and what are works immediately necessary to a devotion of the day to religious purposes ? That such works are allowable on the Sabbath, is self-evident. We have, too, the MODE OF KEEPING. 171 authority and example of Christ to waiTant them. "The priests," he says, "profane the Sabbath," — i. e., do that in the temple service, which, if it were not necessary to the purposes of religious worship, would be a profanation of the day, — " and are blameless." The disciples rubbed the ears of corn, in supply of their hunger, and Christ justified the deed. He him- self healed the sick. The only question, then, is. What are such works? 1. They are not the creature of self-imposed ne- cessities — the necessities, for instance, of self-aggran- dizement, or self-indulgence, or self-convenience, merely ; such as keeping a post-office, or running a steamboat, rather tlian sacrifice a fat living; such as staying at home, and keeping domestics at home, from public worship, rather than forego the pleasure of a luxurious dinner; suc!i as travelling on the Sabbath, rather than incur the inconvenience of a little extra expense or a little delay ; or riding upon ministerial exchanges on that day, rather than incur the incon- veniences incident to avoiding it. 2. They ai-e the creature of God-imposed neces- sities — the necessities of express prescription, as in the sacrifices of the temple service ; or of unavoidable providence, as in ministering to the sick ; or of the nature of things, as in taking our necessary sleep, food, and raiment We come, then, to these results : (1.) Whatever, by any or all of these necessities, is clearly indispensable to the highest and best religious use of the Sabbath, is a religious work, and, as such, may be done. (2.) Whatever, by any or all of these necessities, is clearly indispensable to continued ex- istence, or to continued healthful existence, or to a 172 THE SABBATH. continued existence of highest Christian usefuhiess, is a work of necessity or mercy, and, as such, is no violation of the Sabbath, but a duty rather. And this is true of governments as of individuals ; of animals as well as men. Hence to lift a sheep, sujffering or perishing, from a pit ; to send an express, when, by unforeseen and unavoidable providence, the existence or healthy action of government is endangered ; to send, under such circumstances, for a physician, and to go as such on the healing errand ; to continue the vessel in her course, when overtaken by the Sabbath upon the deep, taking care to do only necessary duty in the case ; — these, and a thousand similar things, are clearly works of necessity and mercy, and involve no violation of the Sabbath. But to get men on boai-d and set sail on that day ; to send for the physician, or to go as such, when botii might have been done be- fore, or may as well be deferred ; to lead the sheep* out to pasturage, or drive them city-ward, to be in readiness for the Monday market ; and to run a reg- ujar Sabbath mail, for the mere purposes of gain, and whether the exigencies of the government demand it or not; — these and a thousand similar things are pal- pable violations of the Sabbath, and open rebellion to the authority that prescribes and sanctions it. This is a brief statement and illustration of the principles which, as it seems to me, should govern the obser- vance of the holy Sabbath. So obsei*ved, it would be truly a day holy, consecrated, set apart to the Lord. PART IV. ADVANTAGES OF KEEPING THE SABBATH. CHAPTER I. TESTIMONY ON SABBATH OBSERVAJSCE SUBMIT- TED TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMEiXT. Having proved the obsei^vance of the Sabbath to be perpetually binding, and stated the manner in which, from its very design, it should be observed, it seems appropriate, in conclusion, to consider the ad- vantages of such observance. These have already, to some extent, been incidentally alluded to. That they would be many and great, we might expect before- hand, from the simple fact that God has required it of us. Duty and interest, under his superintending providence, ever go hand in hand — godliness being always profitable, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Besides, in this case, God has made specific promise of the blessing and the curse. " If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine o^vn pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, — then shalt thou delight thyself in 15* 174 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. the Lord;" (the best of spiritual blessings shall be yours ; ) " and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heri- tage of Jacob thy father ; " (distuiguished temporal blessings shall be yours;) "for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (Isaiah Iviii. 13.) Again, (Jer. xvii. 24 — 27,) " And it shall come to pass, if ye dil- igently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the Sab- bath-day, but hallow the Sabbath-day, to do no work therein, then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David ; " (the sovereignty shall be perpetuated ;) "ridmg in chariots and on horses;" (it shall be per- petuated m gi'eat prosperity and splendor;) "they and their princes, the men of Judah, and the inhab- itants of Jerusalem; and this city shall remain for- ever," (nothing shall overthrow it.) "And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benja- min, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt-offerings, and sacri- fices, and meat-offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house of the Lord," (from every quai'ter they shall come up to pay homage here.) " But, if ye will not hearken unto me to hal- low the Sabbath-day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath- day, — then will 1 kindle a fu'e in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched," (you shall be a perpetual deso- lation.) Such are specimens of the blessing and the curse which God, in his word, has thrown, in solemn PARLIAMENTARY INVESTIGATION. 175 sanction, around the observance of the holy Sabbath. A filial and pious mind will need no other motive to insure its ready and faithful obedience. That God hath commanded and enforced it with the promise of his blessing and the threatening of his curse, is enough. " Thus saith the Lord " is final and de- cisive. At the same time, it will add strength to the convictions of such a mind, as well as gain many other minds, to obsei-ve how God challenges and se- cures a witness for himself and his Sabbath, in the actual lessons of daily human experience. To this end this chapter will be wholly occupied with ex- tracts from actual testimony to the advantages of Sabbath observance, submitted to the British parlia- ment in 1832. APPOINTMENT AND REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. In the summer of 1832, a select committee was appointed by the house of commons in Great Brit- ain, " to inquire into the laws and practices relating to the observance of the Lord's-day, and to report their observations thereupon." The committee con- sisted of Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. FoAvell Buxton, Sir Kobert Peel, JMr. Evans of Leicester, Mr. Stanley, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Andrew Johnston, Mr. Alder- man Hughes, Mr. Mackinnon, Lord Viscount Mor- peth, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Charles Calveit, Mr. Sadler, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Wyse, Sir Thomas Baring, Mr. George Lamb, Mr. Briscoe, Lord Ashley, Mr. Goulburn, ]Mr. Littleton, Mr. Seijeant Lefroy, Mr. Alderman Venables, Mr. Greorge Murray, Mr. Pringle, 176 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Mr. J. E. Gordon, Mr. George Byng, Lord Viscount Sandon, and Mr. Ruthven. The committee had "power to send for persons, papers, and records." They entered upon their work on the Gth of July. Ninety individuals were called before them, and seventeen days devoted to hearing their testimony. In August, the committee made their report to the house of commons, and were authorized also to report " Minutes of Evidence." The Report, with the Minutes of Evidence, was com- municated by the commons to the lords, and on the 26th of February, 1833, was ordered by parliament to be printed. The inquiry and the Report extended to many of the more prominent modes of violating the Sabbath, prevalent in Great Britain, such as, Sunday market- ing ; driving cattle and sheep to town for the Monday markets; unnecessary travelling for amusement or business; plying of steamboats and railroad cars; Sunday printing ; Sunday baking ; sale of provisions and other articles in shops ; keeping open of pubhc houses, beer shops, gin shops, &c., at which crowds of idle, lewd, and disorderly persons assemble, wast- ing the wages of their previous week's labor, and committing many immoralities and breaches of the peace, most offensive and injurious to their neighbors, and ultimately destructive to themselves. In the course of the inquiry, seven thousand of the journeyman bakers in London and vicinity petitioned parliament to secure to them the Sabbath as a day of rest; and on examination it appeared that, by custom, which the law had sanctioned, nine hours of labor on every Sabbath Avere required of them ; that they suf- TESTIMONY OF PARISH AUTHORITIES. 177 fered greatly in liealtli from this continued round ot toil; and that it was nearly impossible for them to attend any place of religious worship on that day. In reference to the sacrifice of health in this case, " an acute and experienced medical gentleman," say the committee, "speaking generally of the effect, affirms that, from the constitution of the human frame, the absence of the periodical relaxation afforded by the weekly Sabbath brings on, necessarily, premature de- cay and death." It was also in evidence, say the committee, that " Sunday labor is generally looked upon as a degi'a- dation ; and that in each trade, in proportion to its disregard of the Lord's-day, is the immorality of those engaged in it ; " and, further, " that innumerable un- happy individuals, who have forfeited their lives to the offended laws of their country, have confessed that their career in vice commenced with Sabbath- breaking and neglect of religious ordinances." The following extracts from the " Minutes of Evi- dence " will show the nature of the testimony on these several points : — Mr. Richard Gregory. — Was born at Spitalfields ; reside in that neighborhood; am treasurer of the poor and paving rates for the parish of Christ's Church, Middlesex, and also a potato salesman and large grower of potatoes in the county of Essex. In re- spect to the effect of the Sunday market on the morals of the yjeople in our neighborhood, I would say, I have from seventeen to twenty laborers in our business in Spitalfields, and we generally have had, from their being suffered in public houses on a Sun- 178 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. day morning, three or four, or sometimes five, who have not been able to come to work on the Monday. We give them always one pound a week, and we never give them less. From then' being permitted to re- main in the public houses, there is generally a fight on Sunday, and then- being congregated together in the low parts of Whitechapel, they get di'inking, quarrelling, fighting, and rioting to a great extent. 1 think if these houses were shut up on a Sunday morning, the men's morals would be greatly bene- fited by it. I have had experience for many years among the butchers, and other tradesmen of that sort, and know that they are accustomed to keep open their shops for a considerable portion of the Sabbath-day. The most respectable part of the butchers would wish to sell nothing on Sunday. In our parish, we have one or two who never sell a joint of meat on that day ; and they are the most respectable butchers in the parish, and do as well, or better than any body else. I have found, in the course of my experience, that the laboring men who spend their Sunday mornings in an orderly and religious manner, are the best work- men, the best husbands and fathers, and the most industrious men. I have found this universally the case; and I employ all descriptions of countrymen — Welshmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen. Mr. John Torre y. — I reside in Wliite Row, Spit- alfields, am a currier by trade, and have served, in fact, in all the parish offices. That in which I have chiefly sei-ved is that of constable, some years ago. I am now, and have been for twelve years, a governor TESTIMONY OF PARISH AUTHORITIES. 179 of the poor of the parish of Christ Church. I have known Spitalfields market for twenty years. AVhen 1 was in office as constable, I attempted to put a stop to the Sunday traffic, and did it effectually, the whole Sabbath, for some twelve months ; and, durmg that time, a great improvement took place in the moral condition of the inhabitants. It did not continue after I went out of office ; for the gentleman who succeeded me, and the other officers, did not think we ought to have been so strict ; and so it be- came as it is now. I should say, decidedly, the disregard of Sunday has a very bad effect upon the morals of the inhabit- ants. I agree with the last witness, that those who are most strict in a decent observance of the Sab- bath, are, generally speaking, the best inhabitants of the parish — best m themselves, and best towai'ds their families. They send their children to our na- tional school, and those who superintend the schools — and I happen to be one of them — know this. I conceive that serving on a Sunday is injurious also to the pecuniary interests of the individual. I see, by most tradesmen round, that those wlio shut their shops on Sundays are the people who do the best. Mr. Gregory, I believe, mentioned one who was a church-warden, who keeps a cook-shop ; and he never did serve on a Sunday, and has a good trade, and has certainly grown rich more than his neighbors. Ma. George Wilson. — I reside in Tothill Street, Westminster ; have been overseer of the parish of Sf Margaret for the last year. I have had particular opportunit}' of seeing the state of the parish on Sun- day mornings, md would say that drunkenness, and 180 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. riot, and debauchei-y, on the Sabbath morning, have exceeded the whole aggregate of tlie week besides, in Tothill Street, Broadway, Stratton Ground, and those low parts of Westminster. The scenes of drunken- ness appeared to me to commence from the period of the mechanic receiving his pay on the Saturday night; he would frequent the public houses on the Saturday night, and get a stimulus, and then wait for the opening of these houses on Sunday morning, when he com})leted his intoxication by church time, and fell into the hands of prostitutes of the lowest class, by whom all these houses ai'e filled ; he is then taken by them to their haunts, where, if he has any propertj^, the work of destruction is completed ; and, on Monday morning, he is unfit to attend to his usual avocations, frequently gets discharged, and subse- quently applies to the parish for relief. These scenes have been particularly destructive to the morals of the younger members of the families of the poor. When I have been applied to, which has been very frequently, for pai'ochial relief, by young persons, females, who have lost their characters, or who have become the mothers of illegitimate children, or common prostitutes, 1 have inquired frequently into the fii'st cause of their ruin, and the}' have attributed it very generally to the associating with bad company, who have taken them to public houses during those hours on the Sunday when they have been allowed to leave their services for recreation ; and the bad example of the company they have there met, added to the stimulus of drink, has led to their ruin. From my obsenation as a parish officer, I am in- clined to think that the morals and characters of the TESTIMONY OF MAGISTRATES. 181 laboring poor would be materially benefited by in- ducing them to spend the Sabbath-day properly. And, with regard to the health of the poor, it has appeared to me that the families who attend to the Sabbath as a day of rest and religious observance, are generally in a more healthy state as to body, and in better circumstances generally, than those who neglect that day. Indeed, among the low class of prostitutes who frequent the street in which I reside, 1 have remarked that their whole number appeared to be swept away, with one or two trifling exceptions, in the course of four years. I do not think, out of perhaps about two hundred of them, there are above four who have lived till this time. I have seen public houses discharge them on a Sunday morning, when, unable to walk, they have been brought out and laid in the road. Robert Joseph Chambers, Esq. — I am a magis- trate of Union Hall, in the Borough ; the district con- sists of fourteen parishes, and the population is about 240,000 persons. There have been very frequent com- plaints in the district concerning the non-observance of the Lord's-day. The chief heads of complaint are, first, that the shops are open on Sunday morning, and marketing going on more on that morning than on any other day of the week ; secondly, complaints against the ale houses and beer shops, which are open all the day ; thirdly, drunkenness to a great extent, more on that morning than on any other in the week, — I should say, more than all the rest of the week put together ; fourthly, riots and assaults ; fifthly, breaches of the peace, in consequence of the riots and drunken- ness, especially between husbands and wives, and the 16 182 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. great increase of poverty in consequence ; sixthly, the increase of poor rates, and demoralization of children who witness the drunkenness and quarrels of their parents, &c. &c. I had ninety-six charges of drunk- enness brought before me one Monday morning. I am certain the best means of checking such whole- sale immorality would be to discourage the facilities now given to drunkenness on the Lord's-day, and on Saturday night. Mr. Edward Lowry. — I am superintendent of the B. division of the Metropolitan police. My district is chiefly situated in Westminster. It is the practice of people in that neighborhood to carry on their market on the Sunday morning, to a great extent. It is gen- erally the lowest description of people that do it. The more industrious prefer making their marketing on Saturday evening; and 1 think they make their purchases to greater advantage then. Sometimes very desperate fights take place in the back streets, and in the fields, in my district, requiring the interference of the police. These are in conse- quence of drunkenness, and occur more frequently on a Sunday afternoon than any other afternoon of the week. As superintendent of the police, I find that Sabbath-breaking generally leads those who practise it to the commission of other crimes. I have observed that a great number of Sabbath-breakers afterwards come in custody, and are committed for other crimes. Mr. Joseph Sadler Thomas. — I am superintend- ent of the police in the F. or Covent Garden district. In the course of my duty, I have had much occasion to observe disorderly practices on Sunday mornings. The thronging of the street, and especially of the TESTIMONY or MA(aSTRATES. 183 public houses, on the Sunday morning, is not merely occasioned by people who go to buy the necessaries of life, but by other characters. Besides the lower class of working people, there are a great number of thieves and prostitutes, and low, dissolute characters, who mingle among them for the purpose of plunder- ing them. A great number of prostitutes live chiefly by plundering men in a state of di'unkenness. On Saturday night, we have always a greater quantity of thieving prostitutes than any other night, that go expressly for that purpose ; and the same early on Sunday morning. We have a far greater share of disorderly business on Saturday night and Sunday morning than any other pai*t of the week. From my long continuance in my present situation, I have had the opportunity to observe the effect pro- duced on the general conduct of those who habitually, religiously, and decently, observe the Sabbath, and those who habitually profane it. I have reflected on the subject carefully ; and I know, from experience, so far as I have seen, that persons who are in the habit of attending a place of worship are more careful in their pecuniaiy transactions, more careful in then* language, more economical in their arrangements at home, more affectionate and humane, and, in every respect, superior beings, by far, than persons of contrary habits. Their wives and families, also, are generally more comfortable ; they live more affectionate ; their children, and all around them, appear more happy ; and they are more attentive to the education of their children than others. Those of contrary habits, so far as I have seen, are directly the contrary. Those who neglect a place of worship generally become 184 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. idle, neglectful of their person, filthy in their habits, careless as to their children, and equally careless in their pecuniary transactions. I have been looking over my books, and I find that, since the time the police has commenced, w^hich is now nearly three years, we average 11,000 prisoners, at my station alone ; and by far the greater proportion of them are drunken and disorderly persons; and, 1 should say, four or five times as many cases occur on Sunday as on other days of the week. Mr. John Cowton. — I reside at No. 7 Angel Court, Skinner Street; am a superintendent of the police of the city of London, and have had occasion to remark the state of the city on the Sundays. The city generally, on the Sunday, is very quiet — much more so than in the suburbs and other parts. There is a greater disposition to conform to the observance of the Sabbath, in my portion of the city, than formerly. To what cause to attribute it, I cannot say, unless it be the number of persons who have latterly turned what we call Methodists. We have had a great many persons preaching in Smithfield mai-ket, and a great many places, who, I think, have done a great deal of good, and many persons, who, I know, used to be sad reprobates, are now very steady, well-be- haved persons. The meetings are largely attended, and I am acquainted with several chai'acters who have attended with a beneficial moral effect ; and, in all cases, this effect is decidedly in favor of the obser- vance of the Sabbath, and the moral improvement in life and character. I have also obsei-ved that a regu- lar habit of attending church is always connected with a regular habit of observing the Sabbath in other TESTIMONY OF BAKERS. 185 respects. I speak of my own knowledge ; I can tell many instances in which this custom of preaching (in the open air) has been the means of withdrawing many from the habit of frequenting public houses on the Sunday. Mr. Thomas Baker. — 1 am superintendent of the C. or St. James division of police. 1 have observed a difference in the general moral habit between such of the population as do frequent a place of worship, and those who do not. The advantage is much in favor of those who regularly attend. Mr. Peter M'Ewen. — I reside at Hampstead; am a master baker; am permitted by law to work on Sunday, and do so to the extent allowed. 1 find it necessary on the Sunday to work from eight or nine o'clock in the morning, to half past one, when the door is closed, and the men who are employed have got themselves into that state that, if they were dis- posed to avail themselves of the privilege of attend- ing a place of worship, they are too fatigued, and their minds too worn out to enable them to derive any benefit from their attendance. I should think that four thousand men are employed in the me- tropolis, (London,) on a Sunday, in bakers' shops. Ours is a very laborious trade, and especially re- quires a day of rest. This practice of excessive labor is attended with injurious effects to the persons employed. I believe it is generally allowed that the bakers never arrive at that age, and enjoy that sound constitution, that other mechanics do, in consequence of the excessive labor, and heats and colds, to which they are exposed. I have no doubt that one day of rest in the week would obviate those injurious effects 16* 186 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. in a very considerable degree. I am decidedly of opinion that the men being exposed every day of the week to the heat of the oven, relaxation and fresh air on one day of the vv^eek would be of great conse- quence to their health, as well as to their morals. Being thus obliged to work in our trade on the Sun- day is also considered, decidedly, a degradation. Mr. Henry Ellis. — I reside in Ebury Square, Pimlico, and am a baker. I concur, generally, in the opinion of Mr. ^I'Ewen. It is my desire to be pro- tected by a law, with a view to observing the Sabbath- day. I conceive that this is the general sentiment of the respectable part of our trade. I make no excep- tion that the feeling of the respectable part of the trade is that our time, and that of our men, should not be devoted to the accommodation of the other part of the communit\\ We feel, as men, that we ought to enjoy the day of rest, both mentally and morally ; that we ought to be favored, like the rest of his majesty's subjects, with the freedom of the Sab- bath, to devote it ip what way we think proper. There can be no person who desires the welfai'e of the community at large, that could wish his fellow- creatures to be employed on that day ; and any man of proper feeling would not wish, for a moment, that his dinner should be sent to the bakehouse to be cooked ; he would rather say, " No ; let that man have the liberty that I have of enjoying his Sunday to himself." Another very great hardship is, that many young men who come to us from the countiy, who receive, in their early days, a religious education, when they come, are obliged to devote nearly the whole of the TESTIMONY OF BAKERS. 187 Sabbath to the toil and hibor of the day ; they feel themselves degraded and lost in the scale of society, and not to hold that [)lace wliich they ought to do ; and those good and moral impressions which they first received in their early days are entirely lost, from the continual practice of working on the Sabbath-day. It was my case ; I received a religious education, and fortune drove me up here, after being five years and a half under proper tuition ; and the bakehouse where I was was opposite the church. I heard the bells of the church chime for divine service on the Sunday while I was at work, but I was unable to attend it; I was there working in the heat of nearly one hun- dred degrees during the morning, and that quite unfitted me to attend any place of worship afterwards, with any degree of instruction or satisfaction to my- self; and 1 can but say, as a man, that I felt myself degraded in the scale of society, that I was not en- titled, like any of my fellow-creatures, to attend a place of worship as others were. Since I have be- come a master, I have had men with me who wished to attend a place of worship ; and when they have put the (piestion to me, it has made me blush to think that I could not give them that indulgence. It is my opinion that in the sentiments I have now expressed the generality of the trade concur. Mr. Alexander Hill. — I am a baker; reside in Great Coram Street, Brunswick Square ; and concur in the sentiments of the last two witnesses — more with the last than the first. I do not bake on the Sunday. I desist as a point of conscience. I have been twenty-eight years in the business, twenty of 188 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. which I have ceased from work on the Sunday. When I did work on the Sunday, it had an injurious effect upon my workmen ; it must of necessity have an mjurious effect As it has been very justly said, the young men come from the country with a desire to observe the Sabbath ; nothing is better calculated to sear the mind than the profanation of the Sabbath- day ; so that whatever morals were instilled into their minds, or desire to attend to the duties of the Sab- bath-day, they are very soon obliterated. This I consider highly injurious ; and I also consider that it is the ruling desire in such persons' minds, generally, that they should be raised up from that degraded state in which they consider themselves, both masters and men, to be, with respect to their fellow-citizens. Since I have desisted from working on the Sunday, 1 have found it to produce a beneficial effect upon my men. Mr. William Wighton. — I am a baker ; reside at Pimlico; have heard the evidence of the last three witnesses, and concur in their sentiments — pai'ticu- larly so with the last two. I am very desirous of see- ing the Sabbath observed by all connected with our trade ; nor do I conceive that there would be any but a very trifling loss to the trade by so doing — not what any respectable man would calculate upon. I have car- ried on my business on the Sabbath, and do to the pres- ent moment, and would relinquish it very gladly, but I feel that I should be a very severe loser (pecuniarily) by doing so, unless it were generally adopted. I have observed, with respect to my journeymen who have come from the country, that the working on the Sun- TESTIMONY OF BAKERS. 189 day has an injurious effect on their morals. I have seen it invariably, in scores of cases, not only among my o^vn men, but amongst others generally. Mr. John Chew. — I am a baker ; reside in Carnaby Street, Golden Square ; have heard the evidence of the last four witnesses, and quite concur in their senti- ments. I am desirous to see the observance of the Sabbath in the trade. I believe that sentiment to be general in the trade ; nor do I think the public at large would be put to any inconvenience by losing the accommodation of the bakers' shops on Sunday. I have no doubt that the habits of the trade, which prevent the observance of the Sabbath, produce a de- moralizing effect upon the men. I think that, if they were at liberty to go to a place of worship on the Sunday, they would be kept m order during the day ; something might fall from the minister by which they would be prevented from going to those resorts of iniquity which they usually do in the evening. They go to houses where they meet, a number of them together, and where they get intoxicated ; but 1 think, were they at liberty in the morning to attend a place of worship, this would be prevented in a great measure. Mr. John Sweetland. — I am a baker; reside in Rowland Street, Fitzroy Square ; have heard the evi- dence of the last five witnesses, and concur generally in the opinions they have expressed. I most assured- ly agree in the opinion that the working on Sunday has a demoralizing effect upon the men. It is almost impossible for the journeymen to go to a place of worship, or to acquire that moral improvement which they would do, from the labor of the morning and 190 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. part of the afternoon, and also from having to com- mence their labor again at eleven o'clock at night I have an apprentice that came from very respectable parents, who wished that he should go to a place of M^orship ; and he does go, but he is so fatigued, from the day's iabor, that he is often asleep during the time of service. My men have expressed the wish that they should have the Sabbath-day for a day of rest. Mr. Thomas Digby. — I am a master baker; reside 147 High Holborn. I find that working on the Sun- day has a demoralizmg effect upon masters and men too, because the master must be at home in his busi- ness, when he might be attending a place of worship. 1 think that being permitted to observe the Sabbath- day as it ought to be observed, would raise the char- acter of the trade generally ; for I have known young men, of perhaps two or three and twenty, who have been brought up in religious habits, and when they have come into the trade they have been obliged of necessity to give up any attendance on a place of worship, on account of their business ; this must have an injurious effect on their minds. Mr. Adam HA^^NAH. — I am a baker, reside in Dor- set Street, Manchester Square, and am in the habit of carrying on my business on the Sunday, until half past one. I find that doing so has a very demorali- zing effect on my men ; so that, in our line of business, we are proverbially and publicly Sabbath-breakers. And I consider it so serious a gi'ievance, that I would hardly train up my own children to the business. Mr. Joseph Manton. — I am a journeyman baker, reside in George Street, Portman Square, and, from the present state of the law, am compelled to work TESTIMONY OF BAKERS. 191 nearly all day on the Sunday. It is my desire, and that of the journeymen bakers generally, to have the law altered so as to give us a day of rest on the Sun- day. I had to do with a petition signed by six or seven thousand journeymen, to this effect. I consider that being obliged to desecrate the Sabbath, as the journeymen bakers at present are, has a very injurious effect upon them. This continual labor, and in so hot an atmosphere, without the interval of a day of rest, has a very bad effect upon the health of the work- men. I can speak for myself. When I go to work, I am so affected in the breath, from the heats and colds that we naturally are compelled to be exposed to, that 1 can hardly stand in the bakehouse ; and this is generally the case. You seldom find a baker that has arrived to forty years that has not a vei-y violent cough. The seventh day being made a day of rest to us, would tend materially to prevent the effect upon the constitution which at present we are liable to ; it would renovate the constitution very much. I think I know the sentiments of the journeymen bakers per- fectly well, having attended many public meetings on the subject, and that they are extremely anxious to have a day of rest, a great many of them from con- scientious motives, a great many from the desire to have a day of rest, and a great many because they feel themselves degi-aded by the present practice. Mr. Charles Viner. — I am a journeyman baker ; reside No. 60 John Street, Tottenham Court Road ; have heard the evidence of the preceding witness, and concur in his opinions. I think the persons in our trade are generally desirous of seeing a stop put 192 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. to all the business of the bakers on a Sunday. 1 have attended a great many meetings, where they w^ere very numerous indeed, and all seemed very anxious indeed for that object. In my own observation, I have seen the habit of breaking the Sabbath^ produce a demoralizing effect on the persons so employed. I was born and bred in Bath, and my father and mother were of a very religious habit. I was bred up to go to chapel, and always did till I came up to London. When I came to London, being forced to work on a Sunday so many hours in the fore part of the day, I was always so fatigued in the afternoon, that I had no disposition to go to a place of worship at all in the afternoon. I consider, by bringing about the obsei-vance of the Sabbath, you would thereby raise the character of the men in our trade very much. I also agree with the last witness in respect to the effect produced by this long labor upon the health of the journeymen. I am frequently, from being so closely confined, obliged to sit down on the stones outside for a quarter of an hour before I can get my breath. I think a rest of one day in seven would be calculated to coun- teract that injurious effect in a great degree. Mr. John M'Ewen. — lam a journeyman baker; reside in Great Portland Street ; have heard the evi- dence of the two last witnesses, and concur in their opinions. I think it would be a great benefit to the journeymen bakers, both in mind and body, if they were allowed to have a day's rest in the week. I think that the habit which has liitherto prevailed, has had a demoralizing effect upon them. And I think it TESTIMONY OF BUTCHERS. 193 would have a very beneficial effect if my fellow-work- men had the opportunity of attending public worship on the Sabbath-day. Mr. John Holli^jos worth. — I am a butchor; re- side in Paddington Street, Mai-ylebone ; have been in my business seven years, aiid carry it on on Sunday morning, from eight o'clock till half past ten, much to my annoyance. I conceive this necessaiy for mj' own interest, as the custom of the trade now is. I con- ceive the present custom could be altered without injury to the interests of the individuals in the trade. And I think the total suspension of the business on the Sunday would be a great benefit to the poor also. The more respectable part of the poor make their purchases now on Saturday, because they consider that they lay their money out to a greater advantage, having a better choice. Those in the better walks of life, as a matter of choice, make their purchases on the Saturday. I know that in the town of Nottingham there is no business done on Sunday, and there is a great reg- ularity. I found it the same at Leicester ; and I know that at Cambridge, also, shops are not open on Sunday morning. And I heard no complaint, but found all coming out of Nottingham, and saw the respectable part of the mechanics were clean — some coming to church, and some going to see a friend; and saw nothing of that confusion which prevails in London. And 1 think it desirable that such a state of things should exist in London. Mr. James Rowland. — I was formerly a butcher ; reside in Munster Street, Regent's Park ; did not carry on the trade upon the Sabbath ; now carry on 17 194 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. the trade of a fishmonger. The men whom I employ seem to prize the privilege of a day of rest. Com- pared with others who have not that privilege, I should say they are more respectable members of society; their wives and families are benefited by it, and they ai*e better and more honest servants. Mr. Joseph Bartholomew. — -I reside at Charing Cross ; am a fishmonger ; carry on my business upon the Sunday. I cannot suspend it (while others continue it) without loss. If all the evil effects of Sunday tra- ding were duly considered, I have no doubt whatever, — and I believe I express the opinions of a vast number of people whose practical knowledge on the subject is entitled to respect, — that the beneficial effects of an alteration of the law (so as to prevent it) would be found most mvaluable to all classes of society. Mr. William Donovan. — I reside in Oxford Street ; am a fishmonger ; am in the habit of carrying on my trade on the Sunday, but think it would be a great advantage, both to master and man, to limit the trade on that day. At present it brings up a parcel of lads in a very low way. The men at present have no time to go to any place of worship, and are as igno- rant as can be. I think, if the Sunday traffic were prohibited,, it would have the effect to improve the morals of the people, that it would not injure them in a pecuniary point of view, and that it would be as beneficial to them, and as much desired by them as it is by the masters. I can answer for my own men, and I believe for a good many more. I believe, if they had the means of having the Sabbath to themselves for going to a place of worship, it would save many of them from transportation. I find that servants TESTIMONY OF FISHMONGERS, &LC. 195 who attend at a place of worsliip on the Sunday, are, generally speaking, honest and diligent men. I am very glad to get hold of such men. 1 have no doubt that the prohibition of the Sunday traffic would make a deal of difference in one twelvemonth's trial of it. We should have honester men. Mr. William Inganfield. — I reside at 36 Pad- dington Street, Marylebone ; am a fishmonger ; carry on the business on Sunday, but am desirous of a change of the law. Such a change would be ben- eficial to the trade in general. I am sure it would be desired by the men, and I think would tend to im- prove the morals of the servants very much. I think this is the opinion of the servants themselves. Mr. Robert Rouse. — I reside in Wigmore Street; am a fishmonger ; carry on the business on the Sun- day, but wish a change m the habits of carrying it on upon that day. Our men, being thus constantly de- prived of the rest of the Sabbath, are all dissatisfied, and they would not wish to come at all to work on the Sunday ; some part of them would wish to attend a place of worship. They think that it has an in- jurious effect upon themselves and upon their fam- ilies. They are from their families from the time they come in the morning till they go away in the evening, and never get to a place of worship. Mr. Thomas George. — I am a portrait-painter, and reside in Howland Street, Fitzroy Square. From my connection with a society whose object it is to get a law passed for the better observance of the Sab- bath, I have known a good deal of the feeling that exists among the different trades on the subject. I have attended to this subject about two years, and 196 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. during that time have observed a growing feeling on the part of the peo])le for the better observance of the Sabbath. The following trades have been can- vassed by myself and others connected with the Sab- bath Protection Society, viz., butchers, bakers, dro- vers, poulterers, pastry-cooks, confectioners, under- takers, publicans, ship, wagon, and coach proprietors, hair-dressers, cheesemongers, grocers, chandlers, cof- fm-makers, watermen, bargemen, tobacconists, news- men, printers, fishmongers, fruiterers, green-grocers, [n all the trades, the vast majority said they would be delighted with a measure, (for the better observance of the Sabbath,) provided it were general, so as to secure them against pecuniary loss. I should not conceive that this wish was generally from religious motives ; but they say something of this kind : " I have a right to enjoy the day, without referring to what use I shall make of it;" still a great many say, "1 should employ it in going to a place of worship." In short, they consider being compelled to work on the Sabbath as a degradation. And it is my opinion, decidedly, from observing the numerous classes whom 1 have visited, that the effect of working on the Sabbath is injurious to their minds. Mr. William Chaplin. — I reside at the Spread Eagle, Grace Church Street, and am a proprietor of several coach-offices, and have a great number of coaches running throughout the kingdom. Some time since, 1 had some communication with the Rev. Mr. Smith upon the subject of Sunday travelling of coaches. At that titne, there was every willingness on the part of several coach proprietors to have Sun day travelling put a stop to, if it could be done with TESTIMONY OF COACH PROPRIETORS. 19? out giving any one proprietor an advantage over another. This was from the conviction that it would be beneficial to their business to have one day of rest in seven, and more satisfactory to conduct it altogether. Having now to travel our horses seven days in the week, we are obliged to have additional horses, in order to give rest alternately. If we knew positively that we were only to work six days instead of seven, our supply of stock would be proportionably made ; and the diminution of stock it would occasion, we might fairly say, would be one seventh. Mr. William Gilbert. — I reside at Blossoms Inn, Lawi-ence Lane, and am a coach proprietor. Were Sunday travelling discontinued generally, it would be better for all. 1 agree with Mr. Chaplin that discon- tinuing the Sunday travelling enables us to use a much less quantity of stock. I think that it would also last longer. We put an additional force on to rim seven days a week. Mr. Peter Mountain. — 1 am a coach proprietor, and in rather extensive business. 31ost of our coaches work on Sunday ; some on other days only. In fact, we have arranged, as far as possible, to travel the six days rather than the seven. I consider it beneficial to the coaches and the stock ; we keep less stock to do it. The general cause of coaches running on the Sunday is because most do the same. We have a Weymouth coach, and when that coach ran only six days a week, we earned more than we do by it now, when it runs seven. We put it to seven days because they ran another coach against us. In fact, we would stop all our coaches on the Sunday if others would do the same. I tliink the effect upon our coachmen, 17* 198 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. and others in our employ, would be beneficial. 1 believe the coachmen of the present day are very well-behaved men — certainly the majority of them ; yet I think it would be certainly better for their morals that they should have Sunday for mental and moral improvement. Mr. John Chaplin. — I was formerly engaged in business, some ten or twelve years, as a coach pro- j)"ietor. It is a year since I retired from it. I former- ly had some correspondence with Mr. Herbert Smith on the subject of Sunday travelling, and concurred in the opinion, with many other proprietors, that it would be very desirable that the practice of Sunday travelling should be discontinued, where it could be. As far as my experience will enable me to give an opinion, 1 should prefer decidedly to work a coach which lay still on Sunday, to working one which travelled on Sunday, with reference merely to the well- being of the stock ; because I think, generally speaking, I could make those arrangements by which the stock would be greatly benefited; and, generally, it might be worked with a less number of horses. So that, on the whole, in those cases where the coach could be taken off on the Sunday, I should say, decidedly, that discontinuing travelling one day in seven might be beneficial both to proprietors and to the men under their orders, and to the horses. Mr. Zachary Langton. — I am engaged as a canal carrier ; one of the fii'm of Pickford and Co. I sup- pose we have nearly one hundred boats, and about four hundred men, in our employ ; and we carry on the business on the Sunday as well as other days. We regret the necessity of working our men at all on *Uc c?... .1^,- ^Vf, c-i^onld be verv srlad to do without SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS. 199 it. I conceive that it would be very beneficial to tlie men to give them every opportunity of rest on that day, and to attend a place of worship. In cases where they have not that opportunity, when engaged on canals or otherwise, I find that it has an injurious effect on their morals. The crews of the vessels that go along the canals, I have no great opinion of their morals ; we have much difficulty in keeping them in any thing like morals. I am not an acting partner in the business, but I know that we are obliged to take such precautions against pilfering by these men, that it gives me no favorable opinion of their honesty, or then* morality either. In fact, there are no men so much out of control as our canal men ; and their im- moral lives are a constant source of anxiety to us. Mr. Charles Sibley. — I have a warehouse in the city, (London,) and am also engaged as a minister, preaching to the boatmen. So far as I have had an opportunity of seeing, they have yet had very little opportunity of attending to the Sunday as a day of rest. I have generally found that, taken as a body, they are a very demoralized class of society. Yet I conceive they are desirous of a day of rest, and that instruction would be highly beneficial to them, and that they may be made as honest as other classes of the community. The canal boatmen, from their peculiar circumstances, and from the occupation in which they have been engaged, have been almost entirely precluded from attending a place of worship, and from the means of religious instruction. Conse- quently the state of morals among them is peculiarly depraved. Still, I should say, there is hope, if they had the same advantages as other men, that they 200 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. would be restored to a better state ; and I speak ex- perimentally. If the means are afforded them of hearing, and understanding, and learning, as other men do, they are as desirous of learning. I have seen instances of it, vi^here some of the most vicious have become virtuous by listening to the things that are good, and having opportunities to do it When placed under religious instruction, they have become reformed. Mr. James Panther. — 1 am a clerk in the house of John Whitehouse and Sons, canal carriers from Birmingham to London. They have been in the habit of carrying on their business on the Sunday till within the last two months ; they have come to the resolution of not doing so, in consequence of the state of the men, by their not having proper instruc- tion ; they cannot trust them with any thing. They have fomid that, by depriving the men of the Sabbath- day, they have become entirely demoralized. And for my own part, I can say that, since they have left off working on Sunday, when I have loaded the boats, I have noticed they have been loaded without an oath being sworn ; previous to this, there would be an oath almost every word. Last week, there was a boat la- den out without an oath. Perhaps, if I were to tell it to persons that know the boatmen, they would not credit what I say. Some of the bad effects on the men from abusing the Sabbath were these: They swore inordinately; they became decidedly dishonest ; there was no confidence reposed in them by their employers, so much so that they required a quarter of the boat to lock up the spirits, wine, furniture, plate, &c., so that SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS, 201 they should be secuie, m addition to the locks put on them. In addition to being employed by the canal carriers, I am connected with a society which is appointed for instructing these boatmen. The men employed on canals generally have been in the habit of working on Sundays, as well as other days, from then- youth ; and we have found that they have gradually become worse and worse, so that we have resolved to tiy the expedient of giving them the Sabbath. Even while in the degraded state I have described, and working on Sunday, they have invariably expressed a wish for the Sunday as a day of rest. I have reproved sin among them in all its forms, — swearing, for instance ; but, when I have done so, they say, " What is the use of leaving off one sin ? We are obliged to break one commandment, and, if we break one, we will break the whole." This was the general principle they ad- vocated, and they put it in practice in a great meas- ure. Indeed, I have spoken to those engaged in the employ of Messrs. Whitehouse, and there is not one but has said they would readily receive it as a boon, and rejoice if the Sabbath could be secured to them as a day of rest. The state of morals among the boatmen generally is very bad. I do not know that there is any class of men m this country so bad. The men generally in London are drawn into broth- els, and associate with females of the worst descrip- tion. This 1 attribute to want of proper instruction ; and this want is to be attributed chiefly to their being deprived of the Sabbath-day. Mr. Thomas Charles GonrREY. — lam a water- man and lighterman ; reside at Richmond, and do 202 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. not work on Sunday. I desist from conscientious motives ; nor do I consider that I suffer loss from dis- continuing my business on that day. One reason is, those who work on the Sabbath-day get drunk, and so on, and therefore spend more money in a way that is not profitable. Behig worked on the Sunday, they are tempted to throw away their money, and thereby their profits disappear. The Hon. and Rev. Gerard T. Noel. — I am curate of Richmond, and reside there. I consider the influence produced upon the moral habits of the place from the influx of strangers, on the Sabbath, is extremely injurious. The numbers of persons in boats, in the inns, in the meadows, and the quantity of carriages that arrive, make it completely like a fair- day. I regard this flowing in of strangers to be the greatest hinderance to the efforts of the i)arochial min- isters ; and 1 am soriy to say this evil is increasing. The number of steamboats is greater than it was when I came to Richmond ; and I perceive that the deterioration of public manners on the Sabbath is very great. If the police of Richmond were not as excellent as it is, things would have been much worse. Mr. John Wontner. — I am keeper of Newgate ; have been so ten years, and six years a marshal of the city of London. I have heard many of the pris- oners, that have been under my care, express then* regret that their crimes have originated with a breach of the Sabbath. This has been done frequently. I have known them caution their relatives and friends to observe the Sabbath, tracing their own crimes to the non-observance or to the breach of it. I believe OFFICERS OF PUBLIC PRISONS. 203 they most frequently attribute this first step in their career of vice to evil associations — being drawn out by bad associates to the breach of the Sabbath. From experience, as a general rule, I should say, decidedly, that those vv^ho habitually observe the Sabbath are by far the best subjects. I should say nine tenths of our iiniiates are those who did not value the Sabbath, or were not in the habit of attending a place of worship. Mr. Benjamin Baker. — I reside at 27 Felix Terrace, Islington. For twenty years past, have been much in the habit of visiting the prisoners in Newgate ; and, almost universally, I have found them, when duly impressed with a sense of their departure from the ways of truth and rectitude, seem to lament their neglect of the duties of the Sabbath. 1 think that, almost universally, they have considered this as the principal cause of their transgi*essions ; that the de- viation from the Sabbath led them on, step by step, into that degree of crime which had brought them there. They have also shown a disposition, almost universally, when brought to a sense of their crimes, to warn others on that point. I have made mem- orandums from time to time, and I have letters in- numerable, which will fully prove what 1 have stated. Almost uniformly, when they are brought to a true knowledge of their sin, they state that the great cause of their misconduct has been neglect of the Sabbath. During the twenty years, I think, I have attended, in their last moments at the place of execution, not less than three hundred and fifty ; and in every case where the parties have been brought to a sense of their condi- tion, nine out of ten have dated the principal part of their departure fi-om God to the neglect of the Sabbath. ii04 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. John PoY^'DER, Esq. — I reside in New Bridge Sti'eet, London; am a solicitor; was for tlu'ee years under- sheriff of the city of London and county of Middlesex, and liave been, for twenty-seven years, clerk to Bride- well Hospital, one of the city prisons. Both in my former and present occupation, I have had opportuni- ties, m a very great degree, of seeing how far the Lord's- day is respected. In my character as under- sheriff, I Ijad many opportunities of inquiring into the chai'acters of the different prisoners for the city and count}'. I invariably found, in all my experience, both as regards those who were capitally convicted, and those who were not, that, when I could obtain their confidence, they stated to me, with hardly a single exception, that the violation of the Sabbath was referred to by them as the source of the greatest mis- chief in their conduct ; in short, of all the depravity that followed ; and this experience has been invariably confirmed from all the oi)|)ortunities I have had of examining the prisoners of Bridewell. Rev. David Ruell. — I am now chaplain of the New Prison, Clerkenwell, and was formerly chaplain of the House of Correction, Cold-bath Fiekls, also. I was, for ten years, chaplain of both, and have been upwards of eighteen years chaplain of the New Prison. Nearly seven thousand prisoners pass annually under my care ; and, during my chaplaincy, 1 have had above one hundi-ed thousand. Independent of my general intercourse with the prisoners, when assembled daily for public worship and religious instruction, I generally make a point of seeing, in private, those who ai-e charged with capital offences, before they are removed to Newgate for trial ; OFFICERS OF PUBLIC PRISONS. 205 in some cases I have been sent for after conviction ; by this means I Iiave liad many opportunities of learn- i/ig from the prisoners themselves the course which Jias led them into crime, and have generally found tiiat the neglect or gross violation of the Sabbath has been one. The usual process has been impatience of parental restraint, violation of the Sabbath, and the neglect of religious ordinances ; evil association, especially with abandoned females ; drunkenness, arising from attending public houses, tea-gardens, &c. ; petty theft ; the want of character on leaving prison after the first conviction, and then a reckless course of confirmed guilt. I do not recollect a single ' case of capital offence, where the party has not been a Sabbatli-breaker, and, m many cases, they have assured me that Sabbath-breaking was the first step in the course of crime. Confessions to that effect have been frequent; and, in some cases, they have requested me to warn others against it from their example. Indeed, I may say, in reference to prison- ers of all classes, that, in nineteen cases out of twenty, they are persons who have not only neglected the Sabbath, but all other ordinances of religion. So powerfully is my mind imj)ressed with the subject, that I cannot forbear adding my conviction, that Sab- bath-breaking is not only a great national evil, but a fruitful source of immorality among all classes, and jtreeminently of profligacy and crime among the lower orders. I have, in many cases, heard prisoners regret that they had been so regardless of the Lord's- day. I have often, also, met with instances of persons about to ex[)iate their crimes bj^ an ignominious death, who have earnestly enforced on their surviving rela- 18 206 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. tives the necessity of the strict observance of the Sabbath, and have ascribed their own departure from what is right to the non-observance of that day. Alexander Gordon, Esq. — I am a sohcitor, in extensive practice. I have given much attention to the state of the law with regard to the Sabbath- day. I know it is the practice, at present, for a great number of persons and their famiUes to follow then- occupations on a Sunday. I think there is not the least doubt it is injurious to morals that that should continue. I have observed, and have no doubt that such has been the effect. I have, for upwards of foity years, observed, with respect to all persons who have come within the range of my acquaintance or knowledge, that the tone of morals is greatly elevated in those families, whether their situation is high or low, who have obsen ed the Sabbath-day. I should, perhaps, add that, with respect to domestic servants, upon whose conduct our own domestic comfort so much depends, I have invariably found that to be the case, — that servants who have a con- scientious regard for the Sabbath-day, are equally conscientious, generally speaking, in the discharge of the duties of their situation in life ; and clerks, in the same manner ; and tradesmen, also. Li point of fact, also, where the Sabbath-day is observed, an equal quantity of work is done by the servants in the course of the week. The work is all done before the Sabbath commences, instead of being left to be done on the Sabbath-day. Undoubtedly the neglect of the Sabbath by the upper classes, prevents the servants, and the lower classes generally, from having the Sab- l3ath, as a day of rest, to themselves. And this has a LAWYERS, PHYSICIANS, &.C. 207 debasing effect upon their minds, even when they are not persons of rehgious feehngs. They become, cer- tainly, much degraded from having to work during the whole seven days. Rev. J. W. Cunningham. — I am vicar of Harrow, in Middlesex ; have resided there more than twenty- one years ; and, during that time, have had occasion to observe the violation of the Lord's-day. Although I am deeply sensible that every attempt to place the obligation to observe the Sabbath on any other basis than that of divine obligation, is only to weaken its authority, yet it seems to me important to show its value as a civil mstitution. To this end, 1 could, as a parochial minister, state many weighty facts ; but I wish to confine myself to one. I have had the oppor- tunity of knowing the result of an examination as to the quantity of work done and money expended in a public institutiv^n employing more than two thousand laborers. For a certain number of years, these labor- ers were employed on the Sabbath, and the govern- ment had, in consequence, as they paid double wages on the Sunday, incurred the expense of eight days instead of six. After the death of the individual pre- siding over this institution, his successor determined to employ the laborers only six days. By a most careful examination. of the quantity of work done by the laborers during the two periods, it was ascertained that the quantity of labor done by the same men under the system of employing them six days of the week, was rather more than the labor done on the system of employing them the seven days. The gen- tleman presiding over that institution imputed this to two causes : — in the first place, to the demoralization 208 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. of the people, under the first system ; and, in the second place, to the exhaustion of their bodily strength, which, he said, was visible to the most casual observer. John Richard Farre, M. D.* — I have practised as a physician between thhly and forty years ; and, dm-ing the early part of my life, as the physician of a public medical institution, I had charge of the poor in one of the most populous districts of London. I have had occasion to observe the effect of the observance and non-observance of the seventh day of rest during this time. I have been in the habit, during a great many years, of considering the uses of the Sabbath, and of observing its abuses. The abuses are chiefly manifested in labor and dissipation. Its use, medi- cally speaking, is that of a day of rest. As a day of rest, I view it as a day of compensation for the inade- quate restorative power of the body under conti7iued labor and excitement A physician always has re- spect to the preservation of the restorative power ; because, if once this be lost, his healing office is at an end. A physician is anxious to preserve the balance of circulation, as necessary to the restorative power of the body. The ordinary exertions of man run doivn the circulation every day of his life ; and the first gen- eral law of nature, by which God prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day and night, that repose may succeed action. But, although the night apparently equalizes the circulation, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence, one day in seven, by the bounty * The committee characterize this witness, in their report, as " an acute and experienced medical gentleman." LAWYERS, PHYSICIANS, 6lC. 209 of Providence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect, by its repose, the animal system. You may easily determine this question, as a matter of fact, by trying it on beasts of burden. Take that fine animal the horse, and work him to the full extent of his powers every day in the week, or give him rest one day in seven, and you will soon perceive, by the su- perior vigor with which he performs his functions on the other six days, that this rest is necessary to his well-being. Man, possessing a superior nature, is borne along by the very vigor of his mind, so that the injury of contimied diurnal exertion and excitement on his animal system is not so immediately apparent as it is in the brute ; but, in the long run, he breaks down more suddenly ; it abridges the length of his life, and that vigor of his old age which (as to mere animal power) ought to be the object of his pres- ervation. I consider, therefore, that, in the boun- tiful provision of Proviilence for the preservation of human life, the sabbatical appointment is not, as it has been sometimes theologically viewed, simply a precept partaking of the nature of a political institu- tion, but that it is to be numbered amongst the natural duties, if the preservation of lite be admitted to be a duty, and the premature destruction of it a suicidal act. This is said simply as a physician, and without reference at all to the theological question ; but if you consider further the proper effects of real Chris- tianity, namely, peace of mind, confiding trust in God, and good-will to man, you will perceive in this source of renewed vigor to the mind, and through the mind to the body, an additional spring of life imparted from this higher use of the Sabbath as a holy rest. Were 18* 210 SABBATH OBSEr.VANCE. I to pursue this part of the question, I should be touchmg on the duties committed to the clergy ; but this I will say, — that researches in physiology, by the analogy of the working of Providence in nature, will show that the divine commandment is not to be considered as an arbitrary enactment, but as an appointment necessary to man. This is the position in which I would place it, as contradistinguished from precept and legislation ; I would point out the sab- batical rest as necessary to man, and that the great enemies of the Sabbath, and consequently the ene- mies of man, are, all laborious exercises of the body or mind, and dissipation, which force the circulation on that day in which it should repose ; while relax- ation from the ordinary cares of life, the enjoyment of this repose in the bosom of one's family, with the religious studies and duties which the day enjoins, — not one of which, if rightly exercised, tends to abridge life, — constitute the beneficial and appropri- ate service of the, day. 1 have found it essential to my own well-being (as a physician) to abridge my labor on the Sabbath to what is actually necessary. I have fi*equently ob- served the premature death of medical men from continued exertion. In warm climates and in active service this is painfully apparent. I have advised the clergyman also, in lieu of his Sabbath, to rest one day in the week ; it forms a continual prescrij)tion of mine. 1 have seen many destroyed by their duties on that day ; and to preserve others, 1 have frequently sus- pended them, for a season, from the discharge of those duties. I would say, further, that, quitting the grosser PHYSICIANS, &LC. 211 undue exercise of body, the working of the mind in one continued train of thought is destructive of life in the most distinguislied class of society, and that senators themselves stand in need of reform in that particular. 1 have observed many of them destroyed by neglecting this economy of life. Therefore, to all men, of whatever class, who must necessarily be occupied six days in the week, I would recommend to abstain on the seventh ; and, in the course of life, by giving to their bodies the repose and to their minds the change of ideas suited to the day, they would assuredly gain by it. In fact, by the increased vigor imparted, more mental work would be accom- plished in their lives. A human being is so consti- tuted that he needs a day of rest both from mental and bodily labor. Rev. J. E. Tyler. — I reside in the parish of St. Giles, of which I am rector. The population of the parish is about tliirty-six thousand. I have been occupied, as chairman of the Board of Health, in re- ceiving cholera reports. This has led me to make observations in respect to the observance of the Lord's-day ; and I have been most painfully reminded of the habits of drunkenness, dissipation, and profli- gacy, prevailing on Saturday night and Sunday, in a degree far more lamentable than through the rest of the week. The cases of cholera are reported to me, in ^VTiting, eviery evening, and by an officer every morning. The cases on Sunday and Monday gener- ally exceed those of any other day, sometimes two- fold, at others fourfold, tenfold, and even as fourteen to one. Mr. David Rowland. — I have resided at Liver- 212 SABBAIII OBSERVANCE pool about eighteen years ; am at present agent to the Liverpool Bootle Waterworks Company for the ship- ping department. I have had occasion, since my residence there, to observe the manner in which the Lord's-day is generally obsei'ved in the town. It has become very notorious, for some time, that the Sab- bath profanation there has been on the increase. One cause of this is the opening of many of the lower order of shops, for the sale of provisions, &c. Many of the poor purchase theu' provisions at these places on the Sunday morning. The public markets in Liverpool are closed on the Sabbath. The popula- tion of Liverpool is about two hundred thousand ; but 1 find no complaints at all that the public markets are not open on the Sabbath-day. A short time ago, 1 had been very much affected by viewing the general state of the Sabbath profanation, and felt anxious to ascertain, from my own individual inquiries, what might be tlie average amount of per- sons going to any place of worship w^hatever within a given district. I selected a district of all others most likely to be destitute. I set about visiting every family in my own immediate neighborhood, begin- ning at the end of the street. I resolved I would go to every house ; that I would go through the street thoroughly, into the alleys and cellars, and try to as- certain, as accurately as I could, whether they went to any place of worship or no. In the course of my in- quiries, which continued for several weeks, I visited from four to five hundred families ; and the result of the investigation was, that the average of families going to any place of worship at all was only about as three to thirty; or twenty-seven families m thirty wlio IN SCOTLAND. 213 could not state to me that tliey went to any place of worship whatever. James Bridges, Esq. — I reside in Edinburgh, and am a writer to the signet In respect to the law re- lating to the obsei-vance of the Sabbath-day in Scot- land, I would say, in the words of Baron Hume, an authority of great eminence in the law of Scotland, " To secure the due observance of the Lord's-da}^, we have a long succession of statutes, most of them passed after the reformation, which prohibit the holding of fairs or markets, all buying and selling, working, gaming, or playing, resort to alehouses or taverns, salmon-fishing, going of salt pans, mills, or kilns, hiring of reapers, and in general all use of ordinaiy labor, employment, or sport, upon that day." With regard to the practice following upon these laws, I have observed, in the course of all my expe- rience, throughout the different parts of Scotland, that in general they are more or less pretty well ob- served ; at the same time, there is a general impres- sion that our habits are not improving in this respect, and particularly that, in the more populous and man- ufacturing districts, we have been deteriorating. I am not aware that any stage-coach passes from one end of Scotland to the other ; and I never heard any expression of inconvenience from that cause, and I nev- er, in my own experience, felt it. In cases of emer- gency, recourse is had to private conveyances. In Edinburgh there is a portion of the hackney-coaches upon the stand on the Lord's-day ; but there is a part of them which are not. The only trades I am aware of, in Edinburgh, as being openly carried on on the Lord's-day, are apothecaries' shops, which are open, 214 SABBATH OBSERVANCE and taverns. All shops for the necessaries of life, such as butchers', bakers', &c., as far as my experience and observation have gone, are strictly closed. Nor have I ever heard any complaints on the part of the inhabitants, that they are deprived of the conveniences of such shops on that day ; they are in the habit of supplying themselves on Saturday, and the habit of doing so has become so confomed that they do not feel any inconvenience. In point of fact, the Sabbath, on the whole, is strictly observed in Scotland, to all outward appearance — in the present day, more strictly in the agricultural than in the populous and man- ufacturing districts. With reference to the profession to which I belong, the law, I do noft think that in Edinburgh there are any who transact as much business on Sunday as on other days; but there are many who do carry on business more or less on that day. I know, at the same time, that there is a portion who decline business on that day ; and I take the liberty to mention it as a fact known to me, that a gentleman, now a judge of the Court of Session, who was long at the head of the bar, and believed to be overloaded vvdth business, habitually and positively declined all business on the Lord's-day ; and yet he was generally understood to have the greatest business at the Scotch bar. I have myself been in business twenty-two years, and never was much in the habit of transacting business on that day. For the last ten years, I have declined doing any business whatever on it, or taking up my letters from the post ; and though I have a pretty extensive business, I am not aware of having, during all that time, experienced any practical evil, or having caused IN SCOTLAND. 215 injury to the interests of tliose whose affairs were committed to me, by so doing. Indeed, I have found a greater facility of transacting business on the Mon- day morning, from the time when I observed the Lord's-day, than I had done before. I hold the relief to be highly beneficial in every point of view — in a worldly as well as a religious point of view. I am not aware of having experienced any practical in- convenience from the observance of the Sunday in any way. Rev. Dcr^cAN Macfarlan. — I am minister of the parish of Renfew, in Scotland. I am well acquamted \\ith the history of the Sabbath observance in Scot- land, having, from various circumstances, given special attention to the subject. The subject of Sabbath abuse was taken up by a commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last spring. Among the prevalent abuses, there are especially two classes that have occupied our attention : the one is in connection with public houses. In respect of the abuses connected with these, I beg leave to read a short extract from a work I drew up, illustrative of this: "Having been favored with the assistance of one of the officers of the police establishment in the borough of Paisley, we counted off all the cases which occurred on Sabbath, during the first six months of the year 1831, and also all the cases which occurred during the rest of the week, for the same period, and found them to be eleven hundred and thirty-eight cases, of which seven hundred and ninety-four occurred on the other days of the week, and three hundred and forty- four on the Lord's-day ; showing a proportion of one on the Sabbath for somewhat less than two and a third 216 SABBATH OBSERVANCE during the whole of the other six days, or more than two and a half on Sabbath for every case occurring on each of the other days. But even this does not show the w orst of it ; there is a monthly list usually drawn up from the daily record, in which the cases are classified according to the nature of the crime charged. Now, there ai-e certain classes of charges brought up which are peculiar to the other days of the week; such, for example, as passing bad money, exposing unwholesome meat for sale, &c. The su- perintendent having mentioned the cases which were thus peculiar to the other days, we summed them up, and deducted them from the aggregate for week days, and then, on comparing the number of cases common to both, as they occurred on Sabbath or during the week, they stood to each in the follow- ing proportion : — the aggregate of cases occurring during the week are to those occurring on Sabbath alone scarcely one and a half to one ; and thus the number of cases occurring on the Lord's-day were to the average of any other day more than as four to one I" Rev. John Lee, D. D. — I am a minister of the chm-ch of Scotland, of Lady Tester's Church, of Edinburgh. I have had occasion to attend to the law and practice of Scotland in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, both in early and later times, diuing the greater part of my life. My opportunities of ob- servation have been pretty extensive both in England and Scotland. With regard to the ancient laws and practices of the church, I have been led, by the sta- tions I have occupied, to pay particular attention to them. For ten years 1 was professor of church his- IN SCOTLAND. 217 tory in the University of St. Andrews ; and I con- ceived it to be my duty to lay before my students a distinct and cii'cumstantial view of the influences of the laws and practices of the church of Scotland, particulai-ly during that part of its internal history which is least generally known. I am disposed to identify the general improvement of the country, religiously and morally speaking, with the general diffusion of scriptural education. Indeed, I thmk there is evidence upon that subject that can- not possibly be controverted. It is found in a docu- ment still extant, and in print, viz., the dedication of the fii'st Scottish edition of the Bible to James the Sixth, which edition was printed in the year 1579, ex- actly twenty years after the reformation, m which it is expressly stated that, so gi-eat had been the progress of religious instruction, particularly in that form, in a countiy where, less than forty years before, the Bible was not suffered to be read, that almost every house possessed a copy of the Bible, and had the Bible read in it. It is ascertained, also, that, in the time of the Covenanters, — which I believe to have been a period of great religious light, and of great strictness and purity of morals, — there was scarcely an individual in the Lowlands of Scotland who could not read, and who was not in the habit of reading, the Bible, and scarcely a family in which the worship of God was not regularly performed, both by celebrating the praises of God, reading the Scriptures, and prayer. Such a description could not possibly apply to the Highlands ; at that period there was no such thing as a translation of the Bible into the native language of the Highlanders. A considerable supply of Gaelic or 19 218 SABBATH OBSERVANCE Irish Bibles was furnished to them in the yeeir 1690, at the expense of the Hon. Robert Boyle ; soon after- wards the book of Psalms, the Catechism, and the Confession of Faith were published in Gaelic ; but there was no edition even of tlie New Testament fit for being used in schools, or indeed for any purpose, till 1767; and from that period a great improvement may be dated. After the revolution, I find, from the accounts of the schools in towns and Lowland parishes, some of which I have in my possession, that in the periodical examinations which took place there are regular returns of the number of the children reading different books, some of them the New Tes- tament, but the greater part reading the entire Bible ; and that was the period, certainly, when the Sabbath was most strictly observed, and when, according to all the accounts that can be best relied upon, the morals of the people were likewise the most healthy. From my knowledge of liistory, I should most cer- tainly say that the description given by a celebrated novelist (Scott) of the period of the Covenanters is not historically correct ; there never was such gloom attending the observance of the Sabbath in Scotland as that writer alleges. The Sabbath, though observed with the greatest reverence, was a day rather of sober and cheerful piety than of any painful restraint. It may be, as the question has been asked, not improper to state, that the greater part of the description ap- plying to the religion and morals of that class of persons in Scotland who are known by the name of Covenanters must have been supplied almost alto- gether by the imagination of the writer. I have reason to tliink that a very considerable IN SCOTLAND. 219 change for the worse, in respect to the observance of the Sabbath, took place more than forty years ago. I perceive, in a curious paper pubhshed by the late Mr. Creech, an eminent bookseller, and at one time chief magistrate of Edinburgh, that in Edinburgh particularly the defection was very strongly marked about the year 1783. Mr. Creech contrasts the re- ligious and moral character of tlie townspeople in 1763 with that of 1783, in the following terms : — " In 1763, it was fashionable to go to church, and the people were interested about religion. Sunday was strictly observed by all ranks as a day of devotion, and it was disgraceful to be seen on the streets during the time of public worship. Families attended church with their children and servants, and family worship was frequent. In 1783, attendance on church was greatly neglected, and particularly by the men ; Sun- day was by many made a day of relaxation, and young people were allowed to stroll about at all hours. Families thought it ungenteel to take their domestics to church witli them. The streets were far from being void of people in the time of public worship, and in the evenings were frequently loose and riotous, particularly owing to bands of apprentice boys and young lads. Family worship was almost disused. In no respect were the manners of 1763 and 1783 more remarkable than in the decency, dig- nity, and delicacy, of the one period, compared with the looseness, dissipation, and licentiousness, of the other. Many people ceased to blush at what would formerly have been reproved as a crime. " In 1763, masters took charge of their apprentices, and kept them mider then' eye in then- own houses. 220 SABBATH OBSERVANCE In 1783, few masters would receive apprentices to stay in their houses, and yet from them an important part of succeeding society is to be formed ; if they attended their hours of business, masters took no further charge. The rest of the time might be passed (as too frequently happens) in vice and debauchery ; hence they become idle, insolent, and dishonest. In 1791, the practice had become still more prevalent. "In 1763, the question respecting the morality of stage-plays was much agitated. By those who at- tended the theatre, even without scruple, Saturday night was thought the most improper in the week for going to the play. In 1783, the morality of stage- plays, or their effects on society, were not thought of The most crowded houses were always on Saturday night. The practice of taking a box for the Saturday night, through the season, was much practised by boarding-mistresses, so that there could be no choice of the play ; but the young ladies could only take what was set before them by the manager. The galleries never failed to applaud what they formerly would have hissed at as improper in sentiment or decorum. " In 1763, the revenue arising from the distillery in Scotland amounted to £4,739 ; in 1783, to £192,000. "In no respect was the sobriety and decorum of the lower ranks, in 1763, more remarkable than by con- trasting them with the riot and licentiousness of 1783, particularly on Sundays and holidays." I have likewise a letter from the sitting magistrate of the city of Edinburgh at this moment, who states that, while the cases of outrages that come before his court throughout the week are about twenty daily, IN SCOTLAND. 221 on Monday last he had fifty cases, and that the gen- eral proportion on the Monday is perhaps nearly double. One respectable grocer in my parish mentioned to me two or three shopkeepers in the neighborhood, who, besides dealing in spirits, sold all sorts of gro- ceries on Sunday, and had far more business that day than any other. At the same time, it is almost invariably observed that these persons ai-e uupros- perous ; their habits are never respectable, and they can never possess the confidence of well-disposed people. The practice of keeping snops open on the Sab- bath is manifestly injurious to the community in another point of view, as it leads to many outrages, which add greatly to the burden of keeping up a police establishment, as well as to the expenses con- nected with the administration of criminal law. There were repeated cases of the mm-der of wives by their husbands last year in Edinburgh, which were perpetrated, 1 think, on the Sunday, and which arose out of the practice of Sunday dissipation. At the quarterly meetuig of the Commission of the General Assembly, in the beginning of March last, (1832,) it was unanimously agreed to institute an in- quii-y, through the several presbyteries, in respect to the non-observance of the Sabbath, and its appro- priate remedies. A circular was despatched to each presbytery, requesting information in respect to the "principal forms in w^hich the profanation of the Lord's-day prevails; the influence of Sabbath prof- anation on the increase of pauperism, disease, and crime ; the most prudent and effectual means of 19* 222 SABBATH OBSERVANCE remedying the particular abuses that might be named," &e. &c. To this circular 1 received forty- seven returns; that is, a return from about five- eighths of the presbAteries in Scotland. The con- tents of many of these communications were highly important. On the influence of Sabbath profanation, in leading to the increase of pauperism, disease, and crime, the returns contain many very affecting and impressive representations. The following is among the most moderate and qualified of the answers to this inquiry: — "It were perhaps difficult to trace directly to Sabbath-breaking, any particular cases of pauperism, disease, or crime ; but that all of them are often found in connection with the neglect of the Sabbath duties, is well known. The want or weak- ness of moral principle shown by Sabbath profana- tion, and the idling habits connected with it, must tend to the diminution of those energies on which health, industr}^ and virtuous character, depend. The desertion of public worship prev^ents the most in- vigorating and rectifying applications of moral sen- timent ; hence an increased exposure to pauperism, disease, and crime ; though it might be difficult to es- timate the precise extent to which the augmentation of these evils is referable to Sabbath profanation, that they have increased, is without all doubt." Others of the returns contain irresistible demonstration of the melancholy fact, that poverty, debility of constitu- tion, and various forms of disease, as well as general depravity of character, many guilty excesses and re- volting crimes, spring from this source. The follow- ing statement is taken from one of the returns on this head : — " Many of our parish paupers are persons who IN SCOTLAND. 223 were not in the regular habit of attending divine ordinances. It has been found by calculation, that the collection made by a common laborer, who regu- larly attends church daily twenty years, will do more than pay his share of the aliment required by the poor, even allowing double that which is usually granted ; so that, supposing all tlie inhabitants of a parish to be common laborers, but regularly to attend ordinances twenty years, their collection alone would do more than aliment all the paupers of the parish at double the ordinary rate of aliment ; and as, in some of our parishes, there are few dissenters, our poor's roll will show how closely connected the neglect of divine ordinances and pauperism are. In many cases, disease is the immediate effect of habits con- nected with Sabbath profanation ; but its influence will be especially found in aggravating the condition of the poor when overtaken with sickness. The criminal calendar abundantly proves the influence of Sabbath profanation in producing crime ; and we have it fully in our power to testify that the same in- fluence is at work in leading to crimes which do not usually find a place in such records." CHAPTER II. MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. In the former chapter we have the testimony of various individuals, in various walks of life, presented to a committee of the British parliament, and by them to the world, touching the advantages to be derived to health, life, comfort, morals, and religion, by a due observance of the holy Sabbath. It is the design of the present chapter to group together similar testi- mony gathered from other sources. I begin with the example of " the father of his country." George Washington. — In the "Anecdotes of Washington " is the following testimony: — "He lent the force of his example and authority to sanction the separation of a Sabbath, for the purpose of sustaining religious prmciple. Even in camp, no unnecessaiy duties were required, though it was well known that an enemy who burnt our churches, &c., accounted the nation religious and Sabbath-keeping ; and therefore were in the habit, for vexation, of endeavoring, es- pecially on that day, to 'beat up our quarters.' We know well, that, though burdened with the cai'es of the army, and the extensive correspondence and other official duties of his station, in an inclement season, and though his quarters were several miles distant from the main encampment at New Windsor, he was MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 225 punctual at the temple on the Sabbath-day. This re- gard for the Sabbath and public worship he continued afterwards, and proved, by his example and influence, the sincerity of his public and official declarations. So far from grudging one day in seven for the pur- poses of cherishing religion, by proclamation from the president, the 19th of February, 1796, was di- rected to be observed throughout the United States as a day of religious thanksgiving." Dr. Spurzheim. — " The cessation of labor, one day in seven, contributes to the preservation of health and the restoration of the bodily powers." Dr. Rush, of Philadelphia. — "If there were no hereafter, individuals and societies would be great gainers by attending public worship. Rest from labor in the house of God winds up the machine of the soul and body better than any thing else, and thereby invigorates it for the labors and duties of the ensuing week." Blackstone. — "A coiTuption of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath." A Distinguished British Writer. — "Let the degradation, the disgrace, and at last the expulsion of the race of Stuarts from the throne of Britain, serve as a public warning to all Britons. For who, in the least acquainted with the history of his country, knows not, that, from the time when James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England set himself to es- tablish iniquity by a law, by instituting the Book of Sports! in England, for the Lord's-day, the judgments of Heaven pursued that family with calamity upon calamity, till the line of princes in that house, to lay claim to the crown of Britain, is now no more ! " 226 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Sir Matthew Hale, an eminent English judge, gives the following as the result of his own experience : — " God Almighty is the Lord of our time, and lends it to us; and, as it is just that we should consecrate this part of that time to him, so 1 have found, by a strict and diligent obsei-vation, that a due observation of the duty of this day has ever had joined to it a blessing upon the rest of my time ; and the week that has so begun has been blessed and prosperous to me ; and, on the other hand, when I have been negligent of the duties of this day, the rest of the week has been unsuccessful and unhappy to my own secular employments ; so that I could easily make an estimate of my success, in my own secular employments, the week following, by the manner of my passing this day ; and this I do not write lightly or iuconsideratel}', but upon a long and sound obser- vation and experience." William Wilberforce.* — The following extracts are from the Life of Wilberforce, as republished in this country : — "Many entries in his Diaiy, at this period, (1789,) indicate liis love for the Sabbath, and he has said in conversation, ' Often in my visits at Mr. Pitt's, when I heard one or another speak of this man's place, or that man's peerage, I felt a rising inclmation to pur- sue the same objects ; but a Sunday m solitude never failed to restore me to myself.' " « ' Sunday, Feb. 8, 1789. O, blessed be God, who hath appointed the Sabbath, and interposes these * For Thomas Clarkson's testimony, see Sketch of the Con vention, &c , at the close. MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 227 seasons of serious recollection.' " — [Diary,) Life, vol. i. p. 91. « ' O, what a blessed thing is the Sunday, for giving us an opportunity of serious self-examination, retro- spect, and drawing water out of the wells of salvation.' " — [Diary,) Life, vol. i. p. 227. " At home, (at this period, 1798,) he was still the watchful guardian of public morals, and, at this time, was especially engaged in an attempt to promote the better observance of the Sunday. The result of the deliberations was the suspension of all attempts at legislative interference, and the adoption of a volun- tary engagement to promote the observance of the day. Much was effected by this effort." — 76. p. 228. " ' I feel the comfort of Sunday very sensibly to-day.' * Oh, it is a blessed thing to have the Sunday devoted to God.' was of great service to him ; and the full enti-ies of his Journal are a searching review of his spirit and conduct through the w eek." — Ih. p. 229. "In the winter of 1809, Mr. Wilberforce, meditating a trip to Bath, wrote to Mr. Perceval to ascertain the day of the meeting of parliament. 'Parliament,' was the reply, ' will not meet, unless something unforeseen should occur, until Monday, the 16th of January. I hope, therefore, you will lose no time in getting your health well set up at Bath.' His watchfulness for public morals at once suggested to him the amount of Sunday travelling which such a day of meeting would create ; and he begged, in answer, that it might, if possible, be altered. ' I thank you for j'Our note of yesterday,' rejoined the conscientious minister, *and am really sorry that I have given occasion for it. I 228 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. feel myself the more to blame, because, upon the receipt of your note, it brought back to my recollec- tion (what I had till then forgot) some observations which the speaker made to me some time ago upon the same subject ; if they had been present to mind when we settled the meeting of parliament, 1 would not have fixed it upon a Monday. We were, however, almost driven into that day.' Two days later, he wrote again: — ' Dear AVilberforce, you will be glad to hear that it is determined to postpone the meeting of parliament till Thursday, the 19th, instead of Monday, the 16th, to obviate the objections which you have suggested to the meeting on that day. Yours, very truly, Spencer Perceval.' Mr. Wilber- force has, in his diary, without any allusion to the part he had in it, ' The liouse put off nobly by Per- ceval, because of the Sunday travelling it would have occasioned.' " — lAfe, vol. ii. pp. 48, 49. The following extracts are from Mr. Wilberforce's Correspondence. In a letter to his sister, Oct. 18, 1793, he says : — • "My judgment is decidedly and strongly in favor of your taking an early dinner on Sunday, and going to church in the afternoon. I don't say it lightly, I be- lieve the contempt into which the Sabbath has fallen, bids fair to accelerate the ruin both of church and state more than any other single circumstance what- ever ; and it is the bounden duty of every friend to our civil happiness, no less than to our religious in- terests, to hold up its authority." — CorrespondencCj vol. i. p. 97. Writing to Mr. Ashley, September 4, 1800, he says : — " There is nothing in which I would recom- MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 229 mend you to be more strictly resolute than in keep- ing the Sabbath holy ; and by this I mean, not only abstaining on that day from all unbecoming sports and common business, but from consuming time in frivolous conversation, paying or receivmg visits, which, among relations, often leads to a sad waste of this precious day. Self-examination and much pri- vate prayer should never be omitted on this day. I can truly declare to you, that to me the institution of the Sabbath has been invaluable. I need not suggest, likewise, the duty of searching into our hearts on that day, examining ourselves as to om- love of God, and of Christ, and purging out all malice and ill-will towards any one who may have offended us, trying likewise, where opportunity offers, to make peace. In all we should ever associate the idea of our blessed Master, and endeavor to render him as much as pos- sible present to our minds." — 7&. vol. i. pp. 172, 173. Writing to Christophe, king of Hayti, October 8, 1818, giving him counsels for the improvement and permanent welfare of his people, Mr. Wilberforce speaks at length of the importance of a proper ob- servance of the Sabbath, and in the course of his remarks says ; — "In proportion as any of your people become influenced by true religion, they will most likely wish to devote the whole of this day to religious exercises or recreation, and to abstain at least from the ordinary labors of their calling ; and believe me, that, at the year's end, it will not be found that the sum of your labor will be lessened by this abstinence. I v/ell remember that during the war, when it was pro- posed to work all Sunday in one of the royal manu- factories, for a continuance, not for an occasional 20 230 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. service, it v^^as found that the workmen who obtained government consent to abstain from working on Sun- days executed in a few months even more work than the others." — lb. p. 275. Writing to one of his sons, in college, in 1824, he says: — "My very dear , I think I feel about you especially on a Sunday, when my mind always runs out more particularly on my dear children. I hope that on a Sunday you will endeavor to avoid company, and guard with the greatest care against whatever might tend to draw the mind and feelings downwards, and to clog them, if I may use Milton's language, ' With the rank vapor of this sin-worn mould." I must say that, on the ground of my own experience, I believe there is a special blessing vouchsafed to the keeping of that day devoted to spiritual purposes. Some of the happiest days of my life have been spent at inns where I have halted for the Sunday wherever 1 found myself on the Saturday night. I shall never forget one Sunday in particulai*, when Babington and I were fellow-ti'avellers in a tour through Wales. He speaks of it, as well as myself, with feelings of lively gratitude and tenderness." — lb. vol. ii. pp. 292, 293. It is not difficult to see where such a man obtained the moral strength, and firm integrity, and Christian spirit, that carried him so successfully through in his efforts for the deliverance of the enslaved. A Welsh Nobleman. — The London Times copies the following, in 1841, from a then late number of the North Wales Chronicle : — " Sir W. W. Wtnn. — We lately gave many de- tailed accounts of the magnificence and hospitality MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 231 attending the coming of age of Sir W. W. Wynn. We have now to add one httle anecdote, which, in the eyes of the right thinking part of our readers, will be well worth ail the rest put together, and which we had from a source of undoubted authority. On the Sun- day morning after the festivities, at breakfast, some of bis noble and honorable guests proposed to visit this place, and some that, among the various objects of in- terest and curiosity within twenty miles round. The worthy baronet, however, stopped them short in their speculations by saying, 'My good friends, I have made it a rule of this house, never to be departed from, that no horse or servant leaves my stableyard on a Sunday, for any other purpose than that of con- veying to church such persons as are unable to walk.* His own demeanor in the parish chm*ch, at all times exemplary, was on that Sunday marked by fervent but most unostentatious piety." Sir Robert Peel. — When Sir Robert was prime minister of the British government, remarks Were made in several of the London papers in respect to his health and his continued physical competency for the office. The Globe stated that his health was de- clinmg under the constant attacks of his political op- ponents. To this the Standard replied: — "We are gratified to believe that there is no sacrifice of health, and that there is no danger of any such sacrifice. Our experience may be taken for something, — for a newspaper editor's life is no life of idleness, — and we hold it to be an incontrovertible fact, that no man ever suff red in his health by the hardest conscientious labor during six days of the week. But we will add, for the instruction of the young and studious, to whom we '^3'2 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. pai-ticularly addi'ess this remark, that, during many years' observation of intellectual laborers, we never knew a man to work seven days in the week who did not kill himself or kill Ms mind. "We request our yomig friends to make inquiry upon this point. We will not give pain to surviving friends by pointing to some of the later victims of seven days' labor ; it is more gratifying to refer to the multitude of instances, in our biographical records, of life preserved, and mind preserved, amongst those who have respected the Sabbath ordinance. We be- lieve that the dull English Sunday, as it is called by those too idle to know that the mere cessation of labor is enjoyment, and too careless to feel that religious worship invigorates body and mind — the dull Eng- lish Sunday, as it is stigmatized by fribbles and by fools, is, in om- judgment, the principal cause of the superior health and longevity of the English people. " Now, this, we o\\ti, is our ground of reliance, un- der the cai-e of Providence, as to health of the prime minister. He works hard, no doubt, during six days of the week, but he resigns Sunday to its own duties. Instead of holding Sunday cabinets, regulai'ly, like his immediate predecessoi-s, he has never held a Sunday cabinet since he came into office ; on the contrary, every Sunday finds him on his knees at public worship, with his family about him. This is no extraordmary merit in a Clu'istian countiy, what- ever it may be in a prime minister ; and it is not as a plea of merit we use it, but as a proof that Sir Rob- ert does not work seven days in a week, which, to us, is fidl assiu-ance that his work will not impair biS health." MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 233 British Scientific Association. — "It is stated as a fact, that the ' British Association,' composed of ike most distinguished sons of science in the empire, have forty observatories in different parts of the world, for making astronomical, magnetical, and other observations ; and that particular orders are given to all who are engaged in these observations, that they should not continue their labors on the Lord's-day. As these observations regarding magnetic phenom- ena, require constant attention and care, it is more highly creditable to the Association that they thus pay homage to the Christian Sabbath. Two of their observatories, it should be added, are in infidel and heathen countries." — Boston Recorder, 1841. Mr. J. S. Buckingham, on the 17th of July 1840, while in Cleveland, Ohio, gave the following testi- mony : — " Of the benefits of this divine institution to man and beast, in a purely physical and mental point of view, without reference to its obligation as a religious observance, my own experience will abundantly testify. During all the time I held a maritime command, it was my constant practice to give my crew the in- dulgence and enjoyment of the Sabbath, by an entire cessation from all the ordinary labors of their pro- fession ; and the repose, and ablutions, and changes of apparel, and relaxation of mind, afforded by these periodical returns of the seventh day, were, I believe, highly favorable to the health, dispositions, and morals, of the seamen. "In England, whenever the question of passing laws for the better observance of the Sabbath was raised in the house of commons, during tlie five 20* 234 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. yeai's that 1 held a seat in that body, I always advo- cated such a law, on the ground that whatever differ- ence of opinion might exist among men as to the mode of observmg it as a day of religious worship, no one could doubt but that, as a mere civil ordinance and institution, it is of the highest value to the labor- ing classes, and especially the poor — as valuable, indeed, to the brute creation as to man ; and an es- sential part of that gi'eat system of periodical change which runs through all nature; which recruits the exhaustion of the day by the repose of the night ; which balances the heat of the summer by the cold of the vvuiter ; which alternates the autumn with the spring ; and which was designed, by a wise and benefi- cent Deity, to give to his creatures that expansion of heart, and cheerfulness of mind, and serene and satis- factory enjoyment of body, which the observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest brings to all." The Sabbath at Sea. — In the Sailor's Magazme for 1840, is a letter dated Boston, giving an account of a voyage to and from Cape Town, South Africa, in a vessel commanded by a pious captain, a member of the Mariner's Church in Boston, imder the care of Rev. Mr. Lord. The writer says ; — " Om- impression in favor of the captain turned out well founded. At eight, P. M., we had cleared Boston light, seaward, when an altar to the Lord was raised, and our little cabin filled with worshippers. A sailors' prayer-meeting at sea ! The captain read a portion of Scripture, with Scott's comments on it, and led in prayer, and sent up, we believe, an earnest prayer unto God, for his protection, and direction, and bless- ing, during the voyage then commenced, for the sal- MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 235 vation of all the kiudred of the earth, and especially for the sailor, at home or abroad, in sickness or iii health, in hospitals or on shipboard, chastened by the Lord, that he might be sanctified and saved. In the morning, at 8, A. M., the same order was observed, and so dui'ing the whole voyage. On Saturday afternoon, the men prepared for Sabbath, performed their wash- ing, or had the afternoon to study then- lessons for the ensuing day. " ' Freely ye have received, fi-eely give,' was an in- junction, it would seem, constantly in the mind of the captain. Between 5 and 8, P. 31., instruction was given to those who sought it, and several of the seamen, out and home, received insti-uction m reading, writing, and navigation. Even lunar observations are not withheld fi'om them; and a company of more thorough and practical seamen we have never sailed with. Religion, then, does not make men either mad or idle. Duty to God and man, we perceived, were as inseparable at sea as on shore. With the general effect of such a management we were greatly de- lighted. The men were active, cheerful, and efficient in duty. Peace reigned at both ends of the vessel. Respect and love to the captain were manifest in all the sailors did or said. " Our Sabbath at sea was almost uniformly pleasant and profitable. No sail was set, and none ever taken in, save in case of urgent necessity, which very rarely occurred. A Bible class met at 1, P. 31., in the cabin. During the day, the sailor was found reading it, or some volume out of the library', containing about sixty volumes of religious works, well selected. Our passage home was performed in fifty-two days. The 236 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Lord blessed us in going out and on our return. The vessel was not a fast one, seldom exceeding nine knots ; yet our average passages were far better than the rate of several swifter ships, showing that nothing is lost in the Lord's semce, or by refraining from labor on his holy day, at sea any more than on shore." Rev. Jared Curtis, chaplain of the Massachusetts State Prison, in an official report for 1838, published by order of the legislature, says : — "Of three hun- dred and thirteen prisoners interrogated on the sub- ject, two hundred and twenty-one " (or more than two thirds of the whole) " had lived a greater or less time, befbre coming to prison, in habitual disregard and violation of the Sabbath." — Report, p. 4]. Li a similar report for 1839, Mr. Curtis says : — " Of one hundred and eleven persons committed to prison during the year, and questioned with particular ref- erence to their former chai*acter and habits, &c., eighty-one, before coming to prison, had lived in habitual disregard or profanation of the Sabbath." And he adds, "It ought here to be stated that a very great proportion of this class of men have spent their Sabbaths at taverns, and tippling-houses, and in scenes of riot and dissipation ; and have been there trained for the vices and crimes which have followed." _ RepoH, pp. 25, 26. In the report for 1840, Mr. Curtis says : — " Of the one hundred and three persons admitted and questioned, seventy-four have lived in habitual violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath," — showing that, taking a series of years together, full two thirds of all the in- mates in that prison were, previous to the commis- MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 237 sion of the crimes that sent them there, habitual vio- lators of the Sabbath ! Citizens of Boston. — "No legislator should be ignorant that those members of the community who utterly disregard the Sabbath, are soon brought to make it a day of dissipation and riot ; and those who have thus desecrated the day for any considerable time, are prepared for the grossest vices and the most disgraceful crimes. Who does not know that the perpetration of fraud, theft, arson, burglary, robbery, and murder, has become frequent in most parts of the United States ? Who does not know that these crimes are perpetrated, almost exclusively, by persons who have long been in the habit of violating the. Sabbath ? In one of om* state prisons, containing five or six hundi-ed convicts, particular inquh-y was made on this subject. The history of one convict was the his- tory of all. They had never observed a Sabbath, or had ceased to observe it before they committed tlie crimes for which they were suffering the vengeance of the laws." — Memorial to Congress, 1829. The signers of another memorial from the same city at the same time said : — " Your memorialists regard the institution of the Sabbath as one of the most striking proofs of the divine beneficence, and as affording the only adequate means for preserving tlie fear of God, the sanctity of oaths, genuine personal integrity, the public morals, and our civil and polit- ical privileges." Merchants of Baltimore. — The signers of one of the memorials, sent about the same time from Baltimore, said: — "Without entering at all into the imperative nature of the obligation which requu*es of 238 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Christians to observe tliis day as sacredly set apart and appropriated to religious observances, we may urge, in favor of the prayer of the memorialists, the general usefulness of the institution — a fact attested by common observation, and universally admitted by persons of every religious persuasion. A proper ob- servance of the Sabbath greatly tends to promote and strengthen moral habits, and, in a variety of ways, to better the general condition of society." Again, " As merchants, we are, perhaps, more in- terested in the facilities afforded by the mail, than any other members of the community. We believe that the inconveniences which would result from the regulations prayed for would be very inconsiderable ; and were they greater than we anticipate, we are sure they would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits which would accrue to the community fi'om a due observance of the Sabbath." Sabbath Mails. — Hon. John McLean, postmas- ter-general, in answer to inquiries made by a com- mittee of congress in 1830, said: — "It is believed that the revenue of the department would not be lessened, to any considerable amount, if no letters or newspapers, &c., were delivered at the different post-offices on the Sabbath." There can be little doubt that a great part of the pecuniaiy deficiencies of the post-office department, for several years past, have been the result of the extra prices paid and losses incurred in the running of Sabbath mails. Take the following facts in illus- tration : — A short time since, (in 1841,) the department sus- pended the Sabbath mail between New York and MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 239 Boston. The Boston Atlas, at the time, said : — " The true reason (of the suspension) is the public sentiment and the moral and religious habits of the country through which this line runs, and the enormous expense of commanding the only mode of transportation which can be employed, on a day when its proprietors could only depend for indemnity on the mail pay ! Therein lie the true obstacles to Sabbath mail service, out of New York, eastwai'd, and not in any negligence of the government. — Look further at the facts. On the route from New York to New Haven, steamboat ser- vice is obtained, for six days out of seven, at eight thousand dollai's per annum, while for transportation between the same points, including Sunday, under the department, they demand twenty-fiv^e thousand dollars ; making a difference of seventeen thousand dollars for these considerations." The same year, (1841,) the Detroit Daily Advertiser said : — " We observe, from statements published in the Albany Argus and other New York papers, that, not- withstanding the vast amount of travel on the line of railroads through that state, the Sunday trains are run at a loss to the companies. This is true of other states, and it illustrates an important fact, that the observance of the Sabbath is fast becoming a settled principle with our people. Where inclination will not dictate such a course, interest will very soon induce a sus- pension of the railroad travel upon the Sabbath. And the sooner the better. Humanity, and the physical stiucture of man, aside from either morality or reli- gion, prompt to an observance of a day of rest." Still later, serious difficulties occurred between the post-ofBce department and the Western Railroad :43 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Company in regard to the transportation of the mails from Boston to Springfield and Albany. From the correspondence between the parties, published in February last, it appears that, at one period of the negotiations, "the Railroad Company bid for six times a week conveyance of the mail ten thousand dollars ; for daily service (Sunday included) fifteen thousand dollars " — charging one half as much for carrying the mail on the Sabbath only, as for the whole of the other six days. At a later period, the oiFer was, "for conveying the mail twice a day, except Sunday, and once on that day, nine thousand six hun- dred and twenty-five dollars a year ; for carrying it six times a week, five thousand five hundred dollars." How the matter was finally adjusted is not known, I believe, except to the parties. That the Sabbath mail, however, costs one half as much as the same mail during the whole of the rest of the w'eek, there can be little doubt. Legislature of New York. — In the winter of 1838, a petition was presented to the legislature of New York, praying the repeal of the laws for the observance of the Sabbath, &c. The subject was referred to a committee. Their report, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, was adopted by a vote nearly unanimous. In that report, the committee say : — " Aside from usual considerations under which the people of this country are disposed to observe the Sabbath, there can be no question that, as a mere civil institution, none could be devised more salutary. If it had no other eflTect than to pro- mote the personal cleanliness and cessation from bodily labor, so essential to the health and physical MISCELLANEOUS TESTIMONY. 241 energy of a population, it would be well worth legal protection. The experience of mankind has shown that occasional rest is necessaiy for the health of the laborer, and for his continued ability to toil Even the beasts that toil for man are entitled to their rest ; and it is found that they can accomplish more by ceasing from their work one day in seven. There is nothing in the countries where the Sabbath is disre- garded to commend their example to our imitation. We are persuaded that the petitioners would not, as good citizens, be willing to see cock-fighting, horse- racing, theatrical exhibitions, bull-baiting, and other demoralizing and brutal displays, take the place of the quiet and order, the tranquillity and peace, vvhich reign throughout our borders on that day. And yet, if we abandon our customs, and break down those barriers against vice that now protect us, there is no reason to suppose that we should not be visited by those offensive results as well as other countries." Harmon Kingsbttrt. — " It is said that, out of the 1,400,000 inhabitants in London, 500,000 do not ha- bitually attend religious worship of any kind. Out of 700,000 or 800,000 in Paris, not more than 60,000 pretend to have any regard to the Christian Sab- bath. In that city, Sundays can be distinguished from the other days of the week by the additional amount of festivity, dissipation, and licentiousness." — Kingsbury on the Sabbath, p. 317. " A GENTLEMAN acquainted twenty-five years in New York, says, that those merchants of his acquamt- ance, who have kept their counting-rooms open on Sunday, have failed, without an exception." — lb. p. a34. 21 242 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. "Mr. Schoolcraft, while examining the Upper Mississippi, in 1830 and 1832, with twenty men, says, tliat they performed their tours in less time than companies usually do which travel on Sunday, tliough they uniformly suspended labor on that holy day. He was convinced that they gained much by resting one day in seven." — lb. 334. "The Marquis of Londonderry, not many years since, destroyed his life in a state of mental derange- ment. Be was prime minister, and intrusted by the king with the principal concerns of the government. He observed no Sabbath. His mind, on Sundays, as on other days, was alike burdened, but its burden was loo heavy long to be borne. It hurried him to mad- ness and the grave." — ^/6. p. 339. "Where there is a regular system of Sabbath prof- anation going on, there other vices cluster, and grow, and thrive. It is said that, in the eighteen hundred boats on the Erie Canal in 1834, there were one thou- sand p7'ostitutes. This state of things is not peculiar to that channel of waters. These individuals, with their fifty thousand associates of both sexes, flock into the country and villages, during the cold season, and draw from the paths of virtue and peace, in our respectable families, each one his half dozen, and then they in their turn seduce others, and a mighty host are soon on their way to infamy, want, and per- dition." — 7&. p. 370. " We know a person, the son of a pious man, who moved from New England, some twenty years ago, into the valley of the Mississippi. He was then a nominal believer in the Christian religion. He opened a public house, was aj)pointed postmaster, and, like MISCELLANEOUS TESTLMONY. 243 Other men in such circumstances, began to do busi- ness on the Sabbath. The iTsult hr-s beer., not oiily intidelity in the father, but iu six or eiglit sons. Not long since, on that day, we were pained to see that all of them, together witli a large number of neiglibors and stage-di'ivers, could laugh, talk, and drink on the day of rest, sport with the Christian religion, ridicule the story of the cross, and blaspheme God, regardless of their own and the future well-being of others. Sabbath-breaking has made every one of these men open contemners of God's law. This is not a pecu- liar case ; many such families, and whole neighbor- hoods, can be found in that great valley." — P). p. 381. The Providence of God. — "Several persons were travelling to the west in company. Those of them who feared God and kept his commandments, would not travel on the Sabbath, and, of course, did not reach Buffalo in season to take passage in the ill- fated Erie. Those of them who set the law of God at defiance, travelled on the Sabbath, arrived at Buffalo just in season to step on board that boat as she left the wharf, and to be launched into eternity in a few minutes after." — JV*. E. Puritan, August, 1841. The New York Caxals. — "Whatever may be thought of the religious obligation to keep the Sab- bath, few men, who know what the facts are on the canals, will doubt that New York has been a great loser by not extending the Sabbath to them. Thou- sands of men and boys, employed on the canals, have become vicious and debased, beyond almost any other portion of our population ; and they have imparted their own chai*acters, especially during the idleness of 244 SABBATH OBSERVANCE. winter, to the contamination and ruin of other thou sands of our citizens. They commit great depreda- tions on the goods they carry. They furnish one half of the prisoners at Aubm-n, and commit, perhaps, one half the crimes which are perpetrated in the interior of the state. This would never have been the case, if the Sabbath had been observed on the canals. These men and boys are not themselves fond of driving on the Sabbath. On the contrary, they feel oppressed by being denied the rest which other citizens enjoy, and not unfrequently they stop, in violation of orders, and tie their boats to the tow-path during that day. It has been ascertained that a man or a beast will do more work in six days than in seven, and do it much better. There is, therefore, no gain to be set off against the immeasurable loss which results from desecrating the Sabbath through all the lines of our canals. We commend this subject to the earnest consideration of the canal commissioners and the legislature of the state. We are glad to learn that the terrible results of having no Sabbath on the canals, have excited the attention of the good people along the route, and that already extensive arrange- ments have been made for the religious and moral instruction of the boatmen." — Journal of Commerce^ April, 1842. Similar testimony and similar facts might be given to almost any extent. These, however, are sufficient. And how manifest do they make it that nothing is lost, but rather every thing gained, by a faithful ob- taOGRESS OF SABBATH REFORM. 245 servance of tJie LorcCs-day ! I will only add a single testimony respecting the Progress of Sabbath Reform. — The Cincinnati Watchman of Feb. 24, 1842, announces the receipt of the following cheering intelligence ; — " The proprie- tors of all the transportation lines on the Pennsyl- vania Canal have mutually agreed to discontinue running their boats on the Sabbath." The corresponding secretary of the American Beth- el Society has labored with the most cheering success on the great thoroughfare between New York and the lakes. In Western New York, he writes, "the Sabbath question is taking like an epidemic." The proprietors of four additional lines on the Erie Canal, in making arrangements for the coming season, have incorporated the Sabbath-keeping principle in their plan. This is truly a great and glorious achievement for the cause. Another cheering sign is the fact that one hundred boatmen have subscribed a petition to the legislature of New York, " praying for interference to protect them in their rights." The reformation has extended also to the tow- boat lines on the North River. The effort at first, though sustained with the sum of seventy-five thou- sand dollars raised for the purpose of establishing a Sabbath-keeping line, encountered the most appalling resistance. A propitious Providence at length accom- plished what the funds of Chi-istian liberality could not effect. The proprietor of the controlling interest of one of the lines, who had strenuously opposed the Sabbath scheme, was compelled, from pecuniary em- 24G SAUIJATH OBSEllVANCE. embarrassment, to transfer his interest, which very providentially fell into the hands of his son, who at once decided that the line should "nm hereaJUr six days in the week onli/." Who will not give his example, and lift his prayer, and lend his influence and efforts, to carry on this work to a complete and glorious consummation ? The Lord hasten it ! A SKETCH OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTTON FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE SABBATH, THE MINISTRY, AND THE CHURCH; • ALSO OF THE SUBSEQUENT ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. ACCOMPANYING REMARKS. BY REV. A. A. PHELPS. NEW YOPvK : M. W. DODD, BRICK CPIURCH CHAPEL. BOSTON: C. C. DEAN, 13 CORNHILL. BANGOR:— E. F. DUREN. 1844. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, By E. Whitney, [n the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. STEREOTYPED AT THE BOSTON TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. THE ANTI-SABBATH SESSION. ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE CONVENTION. On the 24th of September, 1840, at the close of one of the sessions of the New England Non-resist- ance Society, " a numerous meeting of the friends of Universal Reform," so called, was held in the Char- don Street Chapel, Boston, " for the purpose of con- sidering the expediency of calling a Convention to examine the validity of the views which generally prevail in this country as to the divine appointment of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, and to inquire into the origin, nature, and authority, of the ministry, and the church, as now existing." Of this meeting Edmund Quincy was chairman, and Maria VV. Chapman secretary. It was agreed that such a Convention should be held ; and Edmund Quincy, Maria W. Chapman, A. Bronson Alcott, Thankful South^vick, and John A. Collins, were ap- pointed a committee to issue the call, specifying the time, place, and purposes of the meeting. The call was issued ; and in accordance with it, the Conven- 4 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. tion assembled, in the Chardon Street Chapel, on the 18th of November last. It is understood that the Report, which w^as ex- pected, of the proceedings of this Convention, is not to be published. On many accounts, it seems de- sirable that some permanent record of those pro- ceedings should be made. The record made in this Sketch is not designed as a record of all the proceed- ings, much less as a connected report of the course of discussion on the main question, — that of the Sab- bath, — but only of such portions of them .as directly concern the argument, or as are important as an il- lustration of the real belief and spirit of those who were chiefly instrumental in originating and directing the Convention. The record is made from notes taken at the time ; and while it does not give, except in cases so marked, the exact language of the speaker, it does give, with strict fidelity, the substance and true import of it. ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. Wlien the writer entered the chapel, about an hour after the opening of the Convention, a chair- man and secretary, pro tern., had been chosen, a com- mittee appointed to nominate officers for the Con- vention, and a motion was pending to appoint a committee on business. Upon this motion, a desul- tory and irregular discussion was going forward upon the propriety of having any officers for the Conven- tion. ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. O Dr. Brown* said, I am opposed to officers. 1 don't want them. I came here hoping to have a Holy- Ghost meeting. Let us meet together as Christians, and wait upon the Lord, and speak as the Spirit gives utterance. And if any thing is revealed to one that sitteth by, let him get up and speak, and not be called to order by a chairman. 1 want a free meet- ing. I came here expecting to have one. But if you go to having your chairmen and your committees, it won't be a free meeting. I shall feel bound. I fre- quently go to meetings, and they call them free meet- ings, but they are not free. They are tied up to forms. They are tied up at one end to the minister, then to reading a chapter in the Bible, then to prayer by the priest, and so on, and at the last end they are tied to the doxology ; and they call them free meet- ings, but they are not. The children of God are shut up in them. I didn't come here expecting this meeting to be opened by man, or shut by man. I expected it would be opened and shut by God, who openeth and no man shutteth, and vvho shutteth and no man openeth, I want the meeting to be free ; then we shall all feel free, and there will be no high seats and no low seats, but there'll be a highway of the Lord here. I do hope that the spirit of God will prevail. Thomas Davis f said, 1 want to speak on this sub- ject. We have met together on very important * Mr. Brown was formerly a Freewill Baptist, or Christ-ian, (which I am not certain,) has practised some as a physician, and is now an Antinomian Perfectionist. + One of the Cape Cod Come-outers. 1* 6 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. questions, quite as important as that which called the primitive Christians together, when they met to consult about circumcision and some other things; and it seems to me very important that we meet together in a right way. Well, we read that they came together and waited on God by prayer and fasting. But we don't read any thing about their having any chairman, ("Amen! " by Dr. Brown,) nor about their having any president, (" Glory to God I " by Dr. Brown ;) and their result, we have every reason to believe, was according to the mind of the Spirit. Let us wait on God in the same way, and we shan't need any chairman; and we shall know, by our own experience, what the true ministry is, and what the true church is, and what the true Sabbath of spiritual rest is. Others ex])ressed similar views. VV. L. Garrison. I fully agree with these brethren about the importance of our meeting in the spirit of God ; but I have frequently met them in anti-slavery meetings, and I never heard them complain before, that their liberty was infringed by the appointment of a chairman and secretary. I certainly marvel at this, and call on them to be consistent. Dr. Brown. I didn't come here to address man as an officer. I expected to meet with no officers here but such as are officers in the church of the living God — the new Jerusalem, which is from above, and which is the mother of us all. I don't feel called on to address any man as president, or chairman, or to give flattering titles to any one. I feel bound the moment I do it ; and I perceive, by the grace of God given unto me, that all meetings are bound, as soon ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. 7 as they appoint a man to preside over them. The brother, over there, that spoke about the meeting at Jerusalem, spoke my mind, as the Lord has revealed it to me. Those only are Christ's freemen who are out from under the yoke of committees, and chair- men, and ministers, and every such thing. The bon- dage in which men are to priests is a terrible one : but they may thank themselves for it. They put the priest up, and then he puts on the yoke, and they have to wear it. And it will be just so with this meeting. If you put a chairman or a committee up at one end of it, they'll put on the yoke, and you'll ha> e to wear it. But I won't. I can't be ridden by a committee or a chairman any more than J can by a pri.ist. I hope the tide will rise here, — the Holy Ghost tide I want, — and 1 hope it will rise so high as to wash out all the wood, and hay, and stubble, there is here. Glory to God ! I want God to preside over this meeting. He that's joined to God is one sj^.irit to God. And so it is with every thing else. He that's joined to any thing is one spirit with it. He that's joined to Van Buren is one spirit to Van Buren, and he that's joined to Harrison is one spirit to Har- rison, and he that's joined to Congregationalists is one spirit to Congregationalists ; and so it is with every thing. He that's joined to a chairman is one spirit to a chairman, and he that's joined to a committee is one spirit to a committee. I want to be joined to God, and I want to have this meeting joined to God, and then we siiall be one spirit to him. The Lord keep the meeting pure. If it would do any good, I would cry for thunder and lightning, if nothing else would do it. O for a Holy Ghost 8 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. wind, to keep the meeting clear — such as they had on the day of Pentecost. A. Bronson Alcott.* When this meeting was called, I expected that each one would have an oppor- tunity to speak his own mind on the subjects named in the call. And as these subjects are related to al- most (Very thing else, I supposed that anything would be iu place. I had hoped that our method of meeting would be a reformed method. We need reform in our methods of meetings, as well as m other things; and I would, therefore, propose to this meeting, that we simply meet and converse together, and have no chairman, &:c. 1 wish to meet here as a man, and speak to the man in man — to universal man. Others wish to do the same. And I think, if the sense of the meeting were taken, a majority would be in favor of making it a conversational meeting. S. B. Bailey. I should prefer to have the meeting organized. Dr. Brow>\ I am opposed to organization. All organizations in nature revolve around some nucleus. If there is any one here, who wants to be the nu- cleus of this meeting, let him stand forth. God is my nucleus. 1 didn't come here to put a stopper in any man's mouth, nor to have any man put one into my moutli ; and I protest against one's being put into any brotiier's mouth, or any sister's mouth. I can't feel free in this meeting if any man is put over it; and if one is put over it, I shall want to get out of it. Glory * This Mr. Alcott is not Dr. Alcott, the author of the Young Man's Guide, The Young Husband, &c., but the School Teach- er Alcott, the author of Orphic Sayings, and other Transcendental writings. ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. ^ to God ! I feel as if I was out from under eveiy thing that is coming down, and as if I could cry out to every body, Stand from under ! stand from under ! O my God, confound the yoke-makers. Rev. S. Osgood, D. D., of Springfield. I didn't come here to hear this rant ; and if we are to be here vs^ithout order, and like the town meeting at Ephesus, the better part not knowing wherefore we are come together, I think we had better go home, and not stay here on expense, and to no purpose. Dr. Brown. I'm here on the king's expense. — Glory to God ! After considerable confusion, Dr. Brown put it to vote, whether the meeting would have a chairman or not. It was decided against him. The Committee on Officers then made report, which was accepted, and the chairman was about to proceed to the nomination of a Business Committee, when, with reference to what had been said before, Mr. Joseph A. Whitmarsh said, Mr. Garrison says that the Sabbath question will set us to searching the Scriptures. I do not know about this. I do not see any thing about searching the Scriptures in the call.* * Mr. Whitmarsh was one of Mr. Garrison's early disciples. He has since gone off to the no-money and other vagaries. On the 18th of May, 1839, he wrote the following in a letter to Mr. John E. Fuller, of Boston. " For one, I will only say, that I acknowledge no printed record, no Scriptures, nothing that ever was or is now printed, no man as my teacher or ruler. * * * I am a Mayt. From this time, henceforth and forever, I renounce all professions. I have no fellowship or sympathy with any re- ligious professedly ' benevolent ' party or sectarian establish- ment or concern, with which I was ever connected, or with any 10 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. N. H. Whiting, of Marshfield.* I didn't come here to search the Scriptures, as they are called. I came here for truth. And I mean to go over the w^orld for it, and find it wherever I can. 1 don't mean to be con- fined to any particular book, written by any body, or at any time, past or present. W. L. Garrison. I came here to hear what the Scriptiu'es say. I plant my feet on them. I know nothing of the Sabbath, the church, or the ministry, except as I learn it from them. I hold no argument on these subjects with those who deny the Bible. My remarks, so far as 1 make any, will be predicated on the Scriptures. There I stand, f The Business Committee was then appointed. Sev- eral members declined serving on it, some because they were opposed to a committee, and some for other reasons; and at length, on the suggestion of Mr. May, the committee was dispensed with. THE BIBLE REJECTED. Rev. J. V. HiMEs, of Boston. It seems to me im- portant, that we fix on some rule of authority in de- which ever have existed or do now exist. I mean churches, so- cieties, is?ns, ists, ites." * Mr. Whiting was not long since an agent of the old Massa- chusetts A. S. Society. He took a prominent part in the pro- ceedings of the Convention. t Yet, when Mr. Himes's resolution came up to make the Bible the only authoritative standard of appeal on the questions to come before the Convention, — a resolution which would require him to say in ichat sense he stood upon the Bible, — he at once opposed and voted against it ! ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. 11 ciding the questions that are to come before us. This will, of course, be the Bible, or the opinions, feelings, &c., of the individual minds here. I would therefore offer the following for the adoption of the Conven- tion : — " Resolved, That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are an authentic record of our faith, and the only rule of faith and duty." A. Bronson Alcott. I foresaw that there would be a previous question about the rule. I do not agree that the Scriptures, as they are called, — the Christian Scriptures, — are our only, or our highest rule. Tlie re are three Scriptures in the world — tradition, or un- written Scripture ; the Bible, or Christian Scriptures, and the Scriptures of other nations ; and our own con- victions. We should include in our rule not only our Scripture, but the Scriptures of all nations. Other- wise our standard is not broad enough. It is not broad enough, because it is not as broad as the soul of man. I do not think our Scriptures, then, are the higher and the only standard. I tiiink the standard should be this — a man's own convictions. Thomas Davis, of Brewster. I feel a great degree of seriousness on my mind, I trust, from the spirit of the Great and Holy One, respecting the cause of Christ. The topics of the call of this meeting have been long on my mind. I think great consequences are to result from this meeting. I have reason to fear we don't pray enough. We have not prayer enough in this meeting. I don't insist on vocal prayer. That isn't what I mean, unless brethren feel to do it. But 1 do feel that we need to have more prayer. 12 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. W. L. Garrison. There is a spirit of judgment in this meeting, which I feel bound to enter my pro- test against. I protest against the remarks just made by brother Davis. How does he know how much l)rayer there is here ? In regard to the rule, if we undertake to adopt the resolution of brother Himes, we shall be driven into an endless discussion in re- spect to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and shall not be agreed in the end. I would, there- fore, propose the following as a substitute : — '• Resolved, That, according to the Scriptures, the first day of the week is the true Christian Sabbath." Dr. Osgood. I am in favor of the resolution of- fered by Mr. Himes. We must have some authoritative book of appeal ; and settling this settles the question whether we are to meet as a body of infidels or Christians. Dr. Brown. I am opposed to that resolution, and any thing like it. Are we to be bound down by rev- eJations that others have had ? Why, this looks like each one's bringing a little god in here under his cloak, and then calling on all the rest to bow down to it. I shan't do any such thing. A. Bronson Axcott. I did not understand by the call for this Convention, that we ivere to discuss these questions as Christians. I supposed we were to dis- cuss tliem as men, and should, therefore, be at liberty to seek the truth in respect to them any where. W. L, Garrison. 1 am opposed to the resolution of brother Himes, and shall vote against it, because I foresee, if that passes, that it will defeat the object of the Convention. ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. 13 Rev. Silas Hawley, of Groton. I thiuk we must agree od some standard, by which to settle the vahd- ity of the common opmions on these topics. Other- wise we can make no progress in the discussion. Rev. John Pierpont, of Boston. I object to the idea that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. There are a great many subjects — scientific, for instance — on which the Bible does not pretend to be a rule at all. I would therefore offer, in the place of both the resolutions before the meeting, the following : — " Proposition. — The first day of the week is ordained, by divine authority, as the Christian Sabbath." Rev. J. V. HiMES. I am not disposed to be nice about terms. All I want is the thing. Some, I appre- hend, under brother Pierpont's proposition, will refer to "the divinity that stirs within them." What 1 wish is, an appeal " to the law and to the testimony." They are our only authoritative standard, and if they speak not according to them, it is not that they have got more light, but because they have got none — " there is no light in them." I wish a resolution, therefore, that shall make the Bible our standard of appeal. W. L. Garrison. I second the proposition of Mr. Pierpont. I like it better than my own. Brother Himes's resolution vvill not only shut out avowed infi- dels, but some who profess to be Christians.* Rev. Nathaniel Colver, of Boston. I am in fa- vor of brother Himes's resolution, for three reasons — * That is, such professing Christians as Brown, Whiting, and Alcott — Christians that scout the Bible as among the "musty records " of other days, and inferior in authority to our " own convictions." 2 14 ORGANIZATION OF TUE CONVENTION. (1.) The questions before us have their origin in the Bible. (2.) The Bible, if a rule at all, is an entire rule. Paul told Timothy, that "all Scripture was given by inspiration," &c. (3.) If we are to discuss the authen- ticity and authority of the Bible, let us do so at once, and not whip the Bible over the back of the Sabbath and the other questions before us. Mr. DiER, of Vermont.* I object to the reso- lution of brother Himes; and I will give my reasons. (1.) To say that the Bible is the only rule, &c., is to say that one half the human family have no rule. Whence, then, is their condemnation ? (2.) It is to deny that Jesus Christ is our rule. And, sir, Jesus Christ is my rule. Sir, you pin me down to the Scrip- tures, and you bind me down to forms and ceremo- nies. And I can't be bound down to them. The letter killeth. It is the spiiit, sir, that giveth life. I do hope, therefore, that that resolution will not pass. It looks too much like yokes, and bars, and gags, and I don't like it. I like JMr. Pierpont's, and I hope we shall adopt that. Rev. N. CoLVER. If there are any here, who feel that the Bible is yokes and fetters, it is pretty clear that they have nothing to do with the question before us. Dr. Browjv. When it is said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration," I take it, it don't mean that only which is between the lids (referring to the Bible) of that book. Rev. Mr. Parker, of Roxbury.f The Old and New Testaments are in many respects a contradiction. * One of the Anliuomian Perfectionists of that state, t A Unitarian clergyman, of the Transcendental school. ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION. 15 How, then, can they be made the only rule, as the resolution affirms ? N. H. Whiting. Whether the resolution (Mr. Himes's) passes or not, I shan't be trammelled by it. I came here for truth, and I won't be tied down to the Scriptures, or any thing else, for it. 1 mean to seek truth wherever I can find it. I don't care where it comes from. If it comes from a child, or from the devil, if it is truth, I'll receive it, and wherever I find it, I'll call it God's truth. Besides, it is a disputed question, what the real Scripture is. If 1 am correctly informed, a large portion of the Scriptures, as they are called, was not written when Paul said, " All Scrip- ture is given by inspiration," &c. The Bible, as we have it now, was not made up till some time after ; and it is not clear how much of it is real Scripture, and how much of it is not. After some further discussion, Mr. Himes's resolu- tion was voted down, and Mr. Pierpont's adopted,* and the Convention adjourned to the afternoon. COMMENCEMENT OF THE DISCUSSION. At the opening of the session in the afternoon, Mr. Pierpont's resolution was in order. As this presented the question in the affirmative form, the advocates of the Sabbath were called upon to step forward in its * Those only voted who were actual members of the Conven- tion. Messrs. Coiver, Lee, Osgood, myself, and others, though participating, by permission, in the discussions of the Conven- tion, did not enroll ourselves or act as members. 16 THE DISCUSSION. defence. They replied, that they themselves were satisfied with the current views on the suhject ; tliat they had no doubt of their correctness ; that if others had, and had actually summoned a Convention for the purpose of raising the question in regard to it, it be- came them to open the discussion ; and that it would be in season for the friends of the Sabbath to defend it after it had been assailed ; that as their opponents were the i-eal plaintifl^s in the case, it became them to act as such, and not, by the shape of their resolution, shift the case so as to make the friends of the Sabbath the plaintiffs, and themselves the defendants. They, therelbre, as the real plaintiffs, were called on to step forth will) their reasons against the proposition, that the first day of the week is ordained, by divine author- ity, as the Christian Sabbath. In the course of this discussion, Mr. Garrison par- ticularly challenged the ministry to step forward in defence of their cherished institution. He said, " 1 see here several clergymen, who do not hesitate to fulminate damnation from their pulpits on those \vho do not keep the first day of the week as Sabbath ; but now they are here with the common people, they are silent. Why don't they come forward and meet the question here ? Are they conscious of the weakness of thteir cause? I am glad to see this indication of a want of faith in their opinions. — Mr. Garrison was reminded, that it might be as well to reserve his boast- ing until we were through with the discussion, and that, in the mean time, the friends of the Sabbath would defend it, when, in their judgment, it was necessary. The discussion proceeded. Several individuals spoke against the current views of the Sabbath. Dr. 0» THE DISCUSSION. 17 GOOD, at the opening of the evening session, spoke in their defence. The discussion continued through the two succeeding days. Just at its close, on the even- ing of the third day, Mr. Garrison said, I wish to call the attention of the meeting to a remarkable fact. It is, that among all those who have addressed the Convention in defence of the Sabbath, there has not been one layman — they have all been clergymen ! There is the fact. I do not offer it as argument ; I only call attention to it. It strikes me as quite signifi- cant. The meeting will make what inference they please from it. Mr. CoLVER replied. According to brother Garri- son's theory,* we are all priests. Of course, we have had nothing but priests on that side. But the minis- ters — ay, there's the rub. It's in the man, and it will come out. The Clergy — the Clergy — the CLERGY — there it is. Brother Garrison can't let it go, without a ding at the clergy. Well, let it out — let it out. But really, such a fling does not come with very good grace from one, who, at the opening of the Convention, so boldly dared us to the discussion. Then, to be sure, he dared us to it ; and now, when we have met the challenge, he blames us for it, and very magnanimously flings it at us, as a significant fact. The fling, I think, w^ill be duly understood. * Referring to a remark of Mr. G., in another connection, that " There is a royal priesthood, and it is all those who be- lieve." 2 * 18 SENTIMENTS OFFERED. SENTIMENTS OFFERED IN THE PROGRESS OF THE DISCUSSION. At different stages of the discussion, the following sentiments were uttered by the individuals to whom they are respectively attributed. Rev. J>lr. Parker, of Roxbury. The first mention of a Sabbath was in the time of Moses. There was so much of the religious spirit among the old patri- archs, that they had no need of a Sabbath. Moses instituted the Sabbath because the Jews of his day were disposed to overwork themselves and their slaves. And when he accompanied this and his otjier institutions with a " Thus saith the Lord," it was only as their political head, and for the sake of giving them more effect. The meaning was nothing more than this, — " Be it enacted." It was not that God spoke it in so many words to him. Moses pro- fessed to receive directly from God, what he really received, like other wise men, indirectly. Gentlemen seem to be in favor of lumping all the books of Scripture together, as if they all taught the same thing. But it is not so. The single book of Isaiah, for instance, which purports to have been wi'itten by one person, was unquestionably composed by several writers. In the first chapter of it some things are said of the Sabbath, as if it were not alto- gether very agreeable to the Lord. But from the fortieth cha})ter onward, it was obviously written by some one who honored the Sabbath. Mr. P. made a variety of statements, which showed, SENTIMENTS OFFERED. 19 as he said, that in fixing upon and observing the first day of the week as Sunday, the early Christians did it arbitrarily, and as a civil institution merely — an in- stitution called for by the general wants of society, and therefore, on the ground of a sound expediency, entitled to general observance. In this view of it, he said, I would still cling to the Christian Sunday, if it were only for the oxen and the horses. I would be the last to give it up. At the same time, I. would have it observed according to liberal and enlightened views. There are some here who would have no book but a religious one read on the Sabbath — who would allow of no conversation but religious, &c. ; but such an observance is alien to the spirit of Chris- tianity. It savors, I will not say of Judaism, but it does savor of Pharisaic superstition. I would have it a day for religious instruction and worship, to be sure, and also a day for social visits, and for the leisure and refreshing walk in the fields.* * This same Mr. Parker uttered the following sentiments in the Union Convention, at Groton, on the 12th of August last. The extracts are taken from a report of his speech, made by Mrs. M. W. Chapman, and published in the Church Reformer, No. 3. The subject before the Convention was sectarianism. Mr. Parker said, Peter, " misunderstanding the Old Testament, with right Jewish narrowness, (!) declares, ' there is no othername ' (meaning Christ's,) 'given under heaven, whereby men can be saved.' * * * There was sectarianism in the New Testament; sectarianism among the very apostles whom my friends appeal to as infallible. * * * Jt yet remains for us to apply good sense to religion ; when this is done, it will be of very little importance, what a man thinks of the Old Testament or the New Testament, so long as he loves man as himself, and God above all. Then the difference between the creeds of Hopkins and Edwards, the 20 SENTIMENTS OFFERED. W. L. Garrison. But we are pointed to France. Yes, look at France. This is capital stock for the priesthood ! But what made the infidelity of France ? The false and spurious Christianity they had. * * * And what is France now ? The Sabbath is as much unknown there now as ever. It is a day of universal indulgence and profanation. They have no more Of a Sabbath really now than in the days of the revolu- tion. .But do we hear any lamentations about the horrible state of France now ? And what is the reason ? They've got the priesthood again, and the church again, and they will have their Jacobinism again. Tliat Jacobinism was the legitimate fruit of their false Christianity ; and as long as we have the priesthood and the church imposed on us here, it will, in the end, be just so here. We shall be obliged to have a Sabbath once a week, "to make us feel so peculiarly pious." The community will "keep going on six days of the week, cheating their neigh- bors, (honestly, in trade, to be sure,) and then have their Sabbath to get them right again." But our doctrine is, that men are to be holy every where, and at all times ; that Holiness to the Lord is to be writ- ten on every thing; and that men need not always be in bondage to sin, and to days and seasons, and forms and ceremonies. No, thank the Lord, it is not death, but Christ who is the Savior of men, &c. — And, dogmas about the miracles, the ascension, the resurrection even, and the inspiration of the apostles, will be subjects of speculation for the curious, but which have as little to do with our religion, as a farthing candle has with the shining of the noon-day sun." — Now, what is all this but deism, under the name and in the phraseology of Christianity ? SENTIMENTS OFFERED. 21 (in another connection,) — " Whoever has Christ within him won't need a particuJar day to get religion in." Again — Christ came to deliver us from the bur- den of rites, and forms, and holy days ; but if he has only changed the day of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first, he has not relieved us at all. The bur- den remains just as before. Again — The standard of morality under the gos- pel dispensation is infinitely higher than it was under the old. Again, — commenting on Gen. ii. 2,3, — It is as- sumed here that God was just six days in making the world, which is not quite so obvious. Geology, I believe, has pretty thoroughly proved that it could not be so. Besides, according to the Bible itself, it does not appear that the sun was made until the fourth day. Of course, there could not have been regular days before that. And moreover, in Gen. ii. 4, the term " day " includes ^the whole six previously named. There cannot be a doubt, then, that it de- notes here, as it does in other parts of the Bible, a long and indefinite period. Again, commenting on Lev. xix. 30, "Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary," he said, Where is the sanctuary they were com- manded to reverence? It was destroyed with Jerusalem. And since then, God is to be wor- shipped in Spirit. For myself, I have no rev- erence for wood and mortar. The only sanctuary 1 need is Christ. Christ was in constant trouble with the scribes and the Pharisees because he was a Sabbath-breaker. And it is just so in these days with us. The Jewish priests are continually crying 22 SENTIMENTS OFFERED. out against us as Sabbath-breakers, &c. — The Sab- bath is not necessary for man or beast. Who says it is, but the overvvorker of himself and beast ? But men have no right or any need now to overwork themselves or their beasts. In the Christian dispen- sation, we are to be redeemed from the curse, " in the sweat of thy brow," &c. Christ gives us all our time ; and if we make proper use of it, we shan't need one day in seven to rest. We can live without so much labor. Machinery is to do it for us. The s])iritual is to have command of the material world, and man is to be fully redeemed. — 1 did not say that the clergy preach directly, that if men will keep the Sabbath, they may do as they please on other days. No, they, for the most part, preach truth in the ab- stract, but practically they fellowship unrighteous- ness. Whatever they may preach, they are, in fact, the deadliest enemies of holiness, as a body, in tlie land. A. BRO>'so:y Alcott. I do not feel called upon to worship as other people do. I go into our churches, but I don't find there what I want — must I continue to go ? If I incline to worship one ' day or two days of the week, or all days, what is that to others, so long as I am sincere ? If I dance when I worship, as one religious sect does, if I do it sincerely, it is true worship. If I labor, but not for lucre, that is worshij). Labor is a ritual. Labor is divine. I have an objection to the Sabbath as now con- ducted. What are the facts ? We leave our homes, those sacred institutions, and go with our families to the church. And this takes up nearly all the time, so that our families are left without instruction at home. But I believe that the family is the church, SENTIMENTS OFFERED. 23 that the parent is the priest, and that the children are the audience. And until the church and state are organized around the family, there can be no per- manent improvement of society. Listead of going to the churches on the Sabbath, I would have our famihes remain at home, and have the parents spend their time in teaching then- own children. And I would have the parent a prophet — teaching by in- spiration. Wheresoever there is a pure and holy soul, there is, or may be, inspiration. It is the con- science that is a "Thus saith the Lord." And when a man disobeys this ever-present Deity within him, he is rebuked. If pure and holy, ive are lawgivers. A pure life recorded is sacred scripture. An impure life recorded is profane scripture. If a person should rise here and say, I am as much inspired as Jesus was, ahnost all would say, What arrogance ! what pro- fane and blasphemous words he utters ! He claims to be equal to Jesus Christ. But for a man to be a Christian, is to be in degree and kind what Jesus was. It is to believe tliat he is inspired as Jesus was, and holy as Jesus was, and divine as Jesus was. It is not in printed documents, (referring to the Bible,) old, ghastly, cadaverous, that put us all to sleep, that inspiration dwells. Do you say that that is preach- ing, because the preacher opens a certain book and takes a text ? No, we should all be priests as Jesus was. We should be inspired as he was. The the- ological school is not there, or there. The medical school is not there, or there. But the instructor is here. It is within our own breast. Let us, then, revere our own conscience, and not commit the un- pardonable sin of not revering the Deity within us. 24 SENTIMENTS OFFERED. N. H. Whiting. As I said before, I shall go for argument, on this question, wherever I please. If others are disposed to dig up the musty records of former times, (referring to the arguments drawn by myself and others from the Bible,) they can do so ; I shall not. Or if any one is disposed to waste his life in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics in rela- tion to it, he can ; I shall not. I go against the Sab- bath as false in philosophy, as false in physiology^ and false in morals and religion. We are told, that God rested on the seventh day, and therefore we are to rest. I don't find any such command. It seems to be supposed by some that a truth between the lids of the Bible has more authority than if it were found any where else. But if a child gives me truth, I re- ceive it as of equal authority. It makes no difference with me where I find it. I regard every truth as a revelation from God, come from what source it may. If the devil should say to me that two and two are four, I should receive it as truth. And so with any other truth. I care not where I find it. I don't see the command for a Sabbath any where. It isn't pal- pable to my mind in nature. Men need rest, it is true, but they need it when they are tired, not one day in seven. The fact that man is overworked in the present state of society, is no argument, because society is now all wrong. What is the Christianity of the present day? It is a speculating Christianity. It is a trading Christianity — a cheating Christianity. It compels the laborer to toil on to support the idler, who feeds like a vampire on him. Such a Chris- tianity, I admit, needs a Sabbath. Suppose you should convert the world to the Christianity of the SENTIMENTS OFFERED 25 present day, — what good would it do? You would have the same bloated wealth, and the same starving, wretched poverty, by its side, that you have now. (Some one, " True ! ") The first step 3'ou have got to take, if you mean to effect any real and permanent reform, is to strike at the foundations of society as at present existing. Society, as now existing, is but one grand system of slavery, of which that at the south is only a more palpable form. (iVIr. Garrison, " True ! true I ") It has been said that the opposers of the Sabbath are generally among the most dishonest, vicious, .and wicked of the community. I venture the assertion, that when this great question of the Sab- bath, which is the centre and cement of society, as it is, comes to be fairly agitated, you will find that the robber and the slaveholder, &c., will hold on to it to the last, (Mr. Garrison, " Hear ! hear ! hear I ") and be the loudest in its defence. The Sabbath, in a cor- rect state of society, is not needed by man, either morally, religiously, as a day of rest from overtoil, or for any good pui-pose whatever, though it is ne- cessary, I admit, for the system of society under which men are crushed, killed, and murdered. The morality of the heathen world is in many cases above that of the Christian world. I should say that Christian society, as at present constituted, is one great system of fraud, corruption, and murder ; and the Sabbath is one part of this system, and absolutely necessary to its continuance and support. 3 26 REMARKS. REMARKS. In the foregoing sketch the reader has a fair illus- tration of the belief and spirit of those who were chiefly instrumental in calling and directing the Con- vention, and who were among the foremost in assail- ing the Sabbath, and its kindred institutions, the church and the ministry. Several of the public prints have spoken of the Convention as designed to over- throw those institutions, and leave us no Sabbath, no church, and no ministry. Mr. Garrison (Liberator, Dec. 18, 1840) complains of this, and says of the articles generally, "They are replete with defamation, with ridicule, with consternation, with falsehood, with rib- aldry. The object of the late Convention was not to oppose the church, the ministry, or the Sabbath, as based upon the gospel of Christ ; but EXACTLY THE REVERSE." And does Mr. G. suppose that an in- telligent community are to be deceived by such pre- tences ? The object of the Convention was to advo- cate these institutions, " as based upon the gospel of Christ." Indeed ! And what was the Sabbath so advocated ? Why, that all days were alike, and that "whoever (see p. 21) has Christ within him, won't need a particular day to get religion in;" i.e. it was a Sabbatli which left no Sabbath, as distinct from or- dinary days. And what was the ministry, so devoutly advocated ? Why, tliat " there is a royal priesthood, and it is all those who believe." In other terms, there is no ministry, as such. Christians are all priests ; and besides this, there is no priesthood — no ministry at all. And yet the object of the Convention was to REMARKS. 27 advocate the ministry, &c., "as based upon the gos- pel of Christ"! Was ever pretence more disingenu- ous or dishonest ? Abner Kneeland's disclaimer of atheism alone can match it. Mr. Kneeland is an atheist, said the people. Not at all, said Mr. Knee- land — nothing can be farther from the truth. I be- lieve in the being of God, as devoutly as the devoutest of you — only, you will understand, my God is all na- ture! And so, in the pretended belief of a pantheistic god, he covered up his belief in no god, and sought to do away behef in the true one. The trick was worthy of the occasion and the man, and is equalled only by that, wliich, under the pretence of advocating the Sabbath, the ministry, and the church, really seeks (vain work !) to abolish them. Again — some of the pubhc prints have spoken of the Convention as infivlel in its character and tenden- cies, if not in its designs. Mr. Colver, indeed, in writing to some friend in England, has termed it " an infidel Convention." Others have spoken of it in the same way. All such representations Mr. Garrison pronounces unqualifiedly false. Of the statement of Mr. Colver, he says, (Lib., Jan. 29, 1841,) "Every w^ord, every syllable, in this sentence, is untrue. No such Convention has been held ; " and subsequently, ^^JVot an infidel spoke in the meeting.''^ More than this, he says, (Lib., Dec. 18, 1840,) " that all who spoke in opposition to the popular views of the first day of the week, insisted upon the duty of all men to perfect themselves in righteousness, to consecrate their time, talents, and means, to the service of the living God, and to he holy and ivithout blemish. And yet they are denounced as infidels." 28 REMARKS. These are important statements. In connection with the proceedings of the Convention, they enable us to learn, what Mr. Garrison and those who agree with him, have never yet dared to tell the public, viz. what they mean by infidelity ; and, therefore, what they mean when they disclaim it, and cry. Persecution ! if charged with it. Among all the disclainjers on this subject; when or where have they told the public what they mean by infidelity? The Convention was not infidel, they say. Yet it deliberately rejected the Bible as its only authoritative rule of faith and duty. It thus declared in terms, that it did not meet as an assembly of Christians, with the Bible for their rule, but as an assembly of men, untrammelled by such rule. And for this William Lloyd Garrison voted. True, he said he took his stand upon the Bible, and that he held no argument touching the S.bbath, &c., with those who denied the Bible. Yet, when called upon, by Mr. Himes's resolution, to say in what sense he stood upon it, and what he meant by those who denied it, he voted the Bible down, as the only authoritative rule of faith and duty, and so declared, that such as Whiting, Al- cott, Parker, &c.j were not, in his view, deniers of it. And is it so, that a man, or body of men, may reject the Bible, as above, and yet not be infidel ? Then is not deism infidelity ; then is there no such thing as an infidel Convention, short of a convention of blank atheists. The truth is, reject the Bible as above, and, aware of it or not, you have passed the dividing line between the Christian and the infidel ; as to any final and authoritative rule of faith, you are an infidel. How can it be otherwise ? Where else can you draw the dividing line? The deist, the pantheist, Abner REMARKS. 29 Kneeland even, consult the Bible, and, where its teach- ings concur with their " own convictions," receive them as true, just as do Whiting and Alcott, and others of that class. How is it, that the one are infidel, and the other not ? Yet the Convention, we are told, was not infidel, nor did an infidel address it ! What ! did not men speak there, who sneered at the Scrip- tures, as " musty records ; " who placed them on a level with the scriptures of the pagans ; who held them in- ferior in authority to our "own convictions;" who esteemed them "a contradiction;" and who even gloried in receiving truth from the lips of a child, or the devil, with as great deference as from them ? Yet, Mr. Garrison being judge, ^^not an infidel spoke in the meeting.''^ The Christian public will, hereafter, know how to estimate these disclaimers of infidelity. And so of the plea, that those who spoke against the popular views, urged the duty of being "holy and without blemish." True, they did, and yet in the same breath, set the Bible unceremoniously aside, and ex- alted each man's "own convictions" above it, as the standard of holiness! But what is such holiness.^ And what is such religion ? It may assume the name of Christianity. It may clothe itself with some of its features. Its disciples may think they are doing God service in its promulgation. But all this does not change its nature. Call it what you will, and be its form and the motives of its disciples what they may, the nature of the thing remains the same. What is that nature ? What is that thing, which discards the Bible as our ruleof duty and the standard of holiness; which substitutes obedience to our " own convictions" in the place of Christ, as the ground of acceptance 3 * 30 REMARKS. with God ; and which, Iiaving thus eaten out the vitals of Christianity, sweeps away, at a blow, those institutions and ordinances that give it visibility and ptrinanency ? That thing, which swept away the vi- tals and the visibilitij of CJiristianity in other days, was mjideliiy. What is that thing, which now seeks, in other forms, if you will, to do the same ? It calls itself Christianity — a higher and purer form of it. Such, in the belief of some of its advocates, it doubt- less is. But is it so in fact ? Or is it the old things under a new name'? Name it what you will, yet wherein does the thing itself, in its best form, differ from pure deism ? In what one fundamental ele- ment are they unlike? If the one sets aside the Bi')le, and robs Christianity of her distinguis^hing doctrines, and so saps her foundations, so does the other. If the one sweeps away all that is peculiar in her institutions and ordinances, and so sweeps away her visibility, so does the other. Both equally rob Christianity of her distinctive doctrines and her distinctive institutions. Both leave her nothing of doctrine or of institution, to distinguish her from pure deism, or, indeed, from Pan- theistic and Transcendental Atheism, itself. Both, in fundamental elements, ARE THE SAME; AND LET HIM THAT DENIES IT DRAW THE LINE OF DISTINCTION, IF HE CAN. Lideed, while Mr. Garrison, (Lib., Jan. 29, 1841,) says, " The result of the Convention led me to give thanks to God, and greatly to rejoice in spirit, because I believed that the truth as it is in Jesus was signally promoted by it," Abner Kneeland's infidel Investiga- tor, of this city, (Dec. 2, 1840,) also exclaims, in refer- ence to the same, " The cry is up — the race is well REMARKS. 31 begun — ineu begiu to see the fallacy of priestcraft, the absurdity of doctrinal preaching, temple worship, and tlic reign of good seiise is at hand. A Convention, &c., has just closed its sessions in this city. And the result IS most encouraging to the friends of human ngMs. It is a monument of the vincibility of prejudice, and the triumph of plain truth." Thus, from some cause, the self-styled "friends of universal reform," and avowed infidels, are animated by kindred emotions in view of the result. Both exult in it, as the triumph of truth ! Whence this oneness of sympathy and feel- ing ? Has Infidelity mistaken herselfj that she and " the truth as it is in Jesus " go thus lovingly together ? Or does she see, and truly, too, in such truth, her real self — the old thing, under a new name ? And will it now be said that this is judging the re- formei*s too harshly; that they indeed resent the idea of being infidel in their principles; that they place an exalted estimate on the character and teachings of Christ, and are in fact zealous for Christianity itself? So were many of the deists and infidels of other days. Rousseau said, " If the life and death of Socrates are those of a pljilosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God." Gibbon does not " deny the truth of Christianity." Nay, he speaks of it as " the divine revelation," and avers that its early suc- cess was " owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great author."* Shaftesbury used to declare himself " a very orthodox believer," insisting "that he faithfully embraced the holy mysteries of our religion, notwith- * Prieslle^f's Church History, vol. vi. p, 366, and Gibbon's History, vol. i. p. 536. 32 REMARKS. Standing their amazing depth ;" and he actually finds fault with those who " represent not only the institu- tion of preaching, but the gospel itself, and our holy religion, to be a fraud." * Collins (Letter to Dr. Rogers, p. 112) represents the cause in which he is engaged as "the cause of virtue, learning, truth, God, religion, and Christianity.^^ Boli>^gbroke says, " Gen- uine Christianity is contained in the gospel. It is the word of God. It requires, therefore, our veneration and strict conformity to it." He speaks even of his "zeaZ for Christianity.'^'' f Wools ton declares "that he writes, not for the service of infidelity, which has no place in his heart, but for the honor of the holy Jesus, and tn defence of Christianity.''^ He concludes several of his discourses by declaring, that his "de- sign is, the advancenient of the truth, and of the Mes- siaiiship of the holy Jesus, to whom be glory forever, Amen."| And Chubb, one of the most prominent of the deistical writers of his time, actually entitles one of his tracts, " !Z%e true Gospel of Christ asserted.''^ It is no new thing, then, for deism to imagine itself, or to pretend to be, Christianity ; and so doing, to re- sent the charge of infidelity, and claim for itself the character and the honor of being but a purer and better form of Christianity, oi*, rather, original Chris- tianity herself. Time will show whether such be the fact with certain " friends of universal reform," in these days. Thus far, it would seem to be so. Further developments wilJ, doubtless, decide the question. * Leland's Deistical Writers, vol. i. pp. 54—62. t Works, vol. iv. p. 631, and vol. i. p. 182. t Leland, vol. i. pp. 114, 115. THE ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. The preceding account of the first, or Anti-Sab- bath Session of this Convention was published at the time, with the first edition of this book. In pubhsh- ing a second edition, it has been thought best to add a brief account of the subsequent sessions. The second, or Anti-Ministry Session of the Con- vention commenced on Tuesday, March 30th, 1841, in the Cliardon Street Chapel, Edmund Quincy, jun. in the chair. Much reproach had fallen upon Mr. Garrison in consequence of the doings of the former session — he being regarded as the real, though not the ostensible, master spirit of the movement. To remove this, Mr. Quincy, on the 15th of March, just before the second session, published a letter exoner- ating Mr. Garrison from all responsibility in the case ! He even said that Mr. G. had not the honor of first starting the " new ideas," of which this movement was the development ; but, in what he had done, he had " but obeyed the spirit of the age ; " and Mr. Quincy added, "As for myself, I had attained the views I now hold on the church, ministry, and Sab- bath, before I knew of your (Mr. G.'s) existence, I be- lieve ; certainly several years before I had any ac- 34 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. quaintance with you, or knew any thing of your opinions on any subject, except slavery. My error and sin (which I confess and repent) consisted in giving my countenance to them for a time, from a mistaken idea that the views I held were dangerous to be known by the common people, who needed a little jugglery and legerdemain to keep them in order." Having thus exonerated his friend and confessed his own former hypocrisy, Mr. Quincy entered, a second time, on his duties as chairman of the Con- vention. Invitation was given to all, as before, wheth- er members or not, to take part in the discussion. Messrs. Colver, Torrey, myself, and others, were pres- ent, ready to do so. As soon as the chairman an- nounced the meeting opened, Mr. Colver rose, and said he held a letter in his hand, which had been addressed to the Convention through him, from the venerable Thomas Clarkson, on the subject of the Sabbath, which he was desired to have read to the Convention, and published. If that was the proper time, he would present it to the Convention then. The chair decided it in order, and Mr. Colver then read the following LETTER FROM THOMAS CLARKSON ON THE SABBATH. " To the Convention to be held at Boston^ in March, 1841. "Ladies and Gentlemen: — I know that if I were present at your Convention, I should be allowed to speak, and to be heard, because all who attend it are allowed this privilege : but it does not follow, ANTl-:uINI:iTRY SESSION. 35 where a stranger is hindered, as I am, by living on this side of the Atlantic, from being present, any let- ter from hira, on the occasion, will be permitted to be received or read; and yet I am so interested in the result of the debates which will spring out of the sub- ject, that I cannot avoid troubling you with a few short observations, whether they are received or not. If they are not read, they will be put, I hope, in some of the American papers. " One of the questions to be agitated by you, is the validity of the Sabbath. Now, I think you cannot doubt, that the first command came from God hhnself. This is a sufficient authority for the validity of its ori- gin ; and as this command came when men were as one family, without distinction of Jew or Gentile, it was intended /or all viankind; and I think, moreover, you will allow that it must have been obsen^ed in the first ages of the world, seeing that Adam and Eve had been too severely punished for violating the first pro- hibition, to disobey a second law from the same au- thority. " I believe, myself, that the Sabbath was kept as a divine institution by Noah after the flood, and Abra- ham also, and by Abraham's posterity, who carried it into Egypt, where they were permitted to celebrate it while they were in Goshen under the first Pharaoh ; but it is likely that under the second Pharaoh, an austere man, this privilege was denied them, because then the Israelites were made slaves, and their cruel masters would hardly allow them a day to themselves, as a day of relaxation and rest from their labors ; and because the same Pharaoh and his taskmasters, being then idolaters, would be unwilling to give them one 36 AXTI-MINISTRY SESSION. day in the week for worshii)piug the true God, whom they theinselves had discarded. And this supposition is confirmed by the consideration that so early as the second day after Moses had arrived in the wilderness after his escape, he (Moses) revived the custom of the Sabbath, and in such a way as to leave no room to doubt, if you will read the account, that they to whom he gave the command for this purpose, as well as they who were to obey it, understood it, not as a new custom, then for the first time introduced, but as the revival of an old one, to which their ancestors had been used. From this time, the Sabbath was ob- served among the Israelites, and afterwards the Jews, as of divine institidion, till our Savior's time, who de- clared the Sahbath to have been made for man, that is, for man generally, one seventh part of his time having been designed for rest to the body from labor, and for refreshment to the soul by religious exercises. " After our Lord's death, the apostles changed the day on which it had been formerly observed, to an- other for the same purpose, fixing what we call Sun- day, the day in which Christ rose from the dead, for its celebration, instead of Saturday, in which God, after the creation of the world, rested from his labors. Now, this, I believe, has given a handle or an occasion to those who dispute the validity of the Sabbath, namely, ' tJiat tJie Sabbath is not kept on the day on which it was ordained by God,'' but transferred to another. 1 do not think that this signifies materially, for as many days elapse between Sunday and Sunday, in our way of keeping it, as formerly between Saturday and Saturday, in the Jewish way of its observance, so that the space of time in the observance of it in both cases ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. 37 is the same. But what is of the greatest consequence in this discussion, is, that it is kept now, though on a different day, /or the same purpose as before, namely, rest to the body, and life and spiritual animation to the soul But what will be said, if it be shown, as it can be shown, that the apostles had a right from our Lord himself to make such a regulation as this ? for ha\ang signified to his apostles that he must go to Jerusalem, and there suffer death, and leave them, he gave ih£m power to make such regulations as they should think fit for the good of the church after his death. His words on this occasion were these : ' And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heav- en, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Now, the words 'to bind and loose,' were words in daily use in the Jewish schools by the rabbles and students there, and the meaning of them, which was to ' sanction or reject,' to ' insti- tute or forbid,' to ' make valid or void,' was well un- derstood by the apostles. Perhaps there are no words in the New Testament of more importance to us than these of our Savior, as they relate to the doctrines and discipline of the churches at the present day. " That they, the apostles, had this power, there can be no doubt; and our Savior knew that he could ti-ust it with them, inasmuch as he knew their hearts, and that they would be guided by the Holy Spirit. On this authority, then, the apostles changed the Sab- bath-day, in order to commemorate the resurrection ; and this new regulation, as was promised by our Lord, was no doubt ratified in heaven. " We are told that there were Jews in Paul's time 4 38 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. who cast it in bis teeth, tliat if his law of faith should be adopted, it would wholly set aside the moral law, or the law of Moses ; but the apostle takes special care to answer the objection, in these words: — 'Do we then make void the law through faith ? God for- bid ; yea, we establish the law.' Rom. iii. 31. " I should suppose that what I have already said would be decisive of the question ; but as there are texts of Scripture to show that it was God's intention that the Sabbath should be valid forever, or of eter- nal obligation upon men, according to its original principles, I will mention one. Jesus Christ says, (Matt. V. 17, 18,) ' Think not that 1 am come to de- stroy the law or the prophets ; I am not come to de- stroy, but to fulfil ; for verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no w^ise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' But to what law does our Savior allude ? To the moral law of Moses, undoubtedly, which was so necessary to the morals of men, and the well-being and happiness of society; to the whole of the ten commandments, in which the keeping of the Sabbath was one, and, I may say, one of the greatest value among them all. For the Sabbath not only allows the opportunity of re- fi-eshing the body after the fatigues of the week, and of contributing to its health, but affording to the man himself time to cultivate his religious and eternal in- terests. Yes, not one" of these divine commandments was to be done away, or any part of them to be in the least mutilated or changed. But till when was the Sabbatli, one of these divine laws, to be kept, in the full sense and meaning of our Savior's words ? Till heaven and earth should pass — till the judgment-day AXTI-MIXISTRY SESSION. 39 — till the fiual end of all things — till all that God had resolved on and prophesied of in the Scriptures, with respect to the inhabitants of this terrestrial ball, should be fulfilled. '• Thomas Clarkson. " Playford Hall, FeL 9, 1841." The anti-Sabbath men, who are mostly abolition- ists of the Garrison school, were not a little surprised at such a letter from the great apostle of abolition in Great Britain. In the excitement of the moment, Mr. O. Johnson said, "I move you, Mr. Chairman, that a committee be appointed to answer that letter." A committee, of which AVilliam Lloyd Garrison was chairman, was appointed. This was setting Mr. Garrison and the venerable Clarkson fairly at odds. It was a bad position. Mr. Garrison was not present at the time. In the afternoon, having been informed of what his friends had done, Mr. G. came to the Convention, and declined the serv ice. He said he should be very will- ing to unite with the other members of the commit- tee in making a reply ; but he did not think the letter demanded a reply, or that one was expected; but only that it should be published, which should be done in his paper. Mr. Johnson moved the discharge of the committee, and the motion readily prevailed. Many were present, who had not heard the letter in the morning, and its reading was called for. When the reading closed, Mr. Garrison said, "It would be an object of curious inquiry, to ascertain how, and by whom, and for what purpose, this letter had been ex- 40 ANTI -MINISTRY SESSION torted from Thomas Claikson in his old age, and sent this distance across the water to be read to this Convention. You and I, Mr. Chairman, can very readily imagine how and why it was done, but it would be instructive to get at the facts in the case." Mr. C. T. Torret said he hoped, for the honor of the Convention, for the honor of all concerned, if there were circumsxances to justify any person in saying that this letter had been extorted from the venerable Clarkson, they would be made known at once. Otherwise, the insinuations that had been made would be understood to be gratuitous, and without foundation, and would pass for what they were worth. Mr. Colver said the suggestions of Mr. Garrison seemed to say that somewhere there had been foiU play with the venerable Clarkson. For himself, he knew nothing of the letter, until he received it, through a mutual friend in England, with a request that he would present it to the Convention. He stated what he presumed were the reasons that in- duced Mr. Clarkson to write it. He was not aware that any improper attempt had been made to influ- ence Mr. Clarkson. If Mr. Garrison thought so, he hoped he would write to England and ascertain, and publish the result to the world. Meanwhile, his innuendoes were an insult to the venerable Clarkson ; they were ungentlemanly ; they were unbecoming a man ; and he threw them back upon their author. Mr. Garrison was silent ; and thus ended the de- bate on this important document. The world will now understand that Thomas Clarkson, in common with the great body of British abolitionists, has no ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. 41 sjnupathy and no fellowship with the anti-Sabbath and kindred notions of the Garrison school in this country.* THE BIBLE AGAIN REJECTED AS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY. At the former session, the Convention rejected a resolution affirming " that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are an authentic record of our faith, and the only rule of faith and duty" — meaning, of course, the only rule of religious faith and duty. The resolution was understood, by its mover and friends, as affirming that the Scriptures are of para- mount and supreme authority in deciding religious questions, particularly such as were coming before the Convention ; and it was in this understanding of it that it was debated, as the discussions show, and finally rejected. On account of this rejection of the Bible, as of supreme authority in matters of religion, Mr. Colver, myself, and others, called it an " Infi- del Convention." This was loudly complained of by the other party. At the present session, therefore, as soon as Mr. Clarkson's letter had been disposed of, the friends of the Bible submitted the following resolu- tion to the Convention, for its adoption or rejection : — " Resolved, That this Convention, in the discussion and decision of the question now to come before it, receives the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the para- mount and only authoritative rule of religious faith and duty." * See the sentiments of Wilberforce, p. 226, of the pre- ceding work. 43 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. The friends of the resolution stated that they brought it forward that the Convention might distinctly define its character and position, so that there should be no mistake about it in future. They stated that, as the former resolution was loosely worded, and as some might have voted for it who were not fully aware of the length to which they were going, it was but just that the Convention should have another opportunity of saying whether it would or would not receive the Bible as supreme authority in the matters to come before it. If it did so receive it, as it was hoped it would, it Avould thereby proclaim itself a Christian Convention. If it did not, it would equally and de- liberately proclaim itself an "Infidel Convention." So, at least, they should regard it ; and so, they believed, the great body of Christendom would. The resolution was at once warmly opposed. One said, it was contrary to the spirit and letter of the call. Mr. Johnson said the doctrine of the resolution itself was anti-scriptural. The Bible nowhere sets up such a claim ; it made no such demand ; it never shut him up to that book as the whole of religious truth ; nor did he believe there was evidence from any other source to show that the Bible was intended to have any such authority over the minds of men. Another wished to know whether the advocates of the resolu- tion were quite certam that they had got just that gospel that Paul had ; or that, when Paul said, " All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c., he meant just the books between the lids of the Bible as we now have it, and no more. Another thought, if the reso- lution passed, they could not sustain the objects of the Convention ; for one, he did not take the Scrip- ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. 43 tures as his principal guide. Mr. N. H. Whiting said he saw no necessity for any action upon it. The Convention, at its former session, had acted on just such a resolution, and had already decided that it would not adopt the Bible as such a rule. The discussion proceeded, occupying the whole morning. Those who opposed the resolution earn- estly protested, with one exception, against being considered as mfidels. One young man, of little con- sequence or character, however, avowed himself an atheist, and said he did not acknowledge his " broth- ers Garrison and Johnson " as infidels, because they did make the Scriptures a partial rule. A friend of mme informed me that he recognized three other persons of his acquaintance present, who are avowed infidels of the Kneeland class, one of whom expressed to him his high gi'atification of what was going on, only they did not go far enough. The question was taken ; and, by its own deliberate act, the Convention rejected the resolution, by a majority of Jive to one. All who had joined the Convention before, or who intend- ed to do so now, whether men or women, were in- vited to vote ; and, when taken, the vote stood thirty to six, all told ! THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION. An important point was now gained. The Conven- tion, by this vote, openly and deliberately defined its position. At first, the friends of the Bible thought they would retire, and have nothing further to do with the Convention. Lest, however, the other party should charge them with fearing to meet the question, 44 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. they concluded to remain, giving notice that they should not participate in the discussions of subsequent sessions. Tlie subject for discussion at this session was the Ministry. Of course a minute report of the discus- sion cannot here be given ; a mere outline, fixing on the points most worthy of attention, must suffice. It was repeatedly stated by Mr. Torrey, myself, and others, that in calling the Convention irifidel, no per- sonal disrespect was intended to the members as in- dividuals, and as men ; and that it was not intended to say that they were all individually infidels. On the contrary, it was cheerfully admitted that many of them were not so. But it was maintained that some of them were so ; that they had in fact avowed it, and that, out of deference to such, the Convention, as such, had taken an infidel position before the world ; that, in- stead of meeting, as a Christian Convention, on the platform of Christianity, and appealing to the Statute- Book of Christianity as pai'amount authority on the question before it, it had really met as an assembly of men, on the broader platform of all religions in gen- eral, and none in particular, and with no standard of appeal of paramount authority in the case ; in other terms, the platform of infdelity itself With all these explanations, however, in favor of individual character, the members of the Convention could not get over the charge of being an infidel body. It annoyed them excessively from beginning to end — so much so, that, on the afternoon of the last day, on motion of Mr. Garrison, a committee was appointed to bring in a report that should disabuse the public in respect to it, and spread before it the true reasons for the rejec- ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. 45 tion of the resolution in question. — W. L. Garrison, O. Johnson, and Edmund Quincy, were appointed said committee. In the evening, Mr. Garrison sub- mitted a report, which was adopted without dissent. It is a singular document, admitting, and yet seeming to deny, all that the friends of truth alleged against the Convention. The first reason assigned for the rejection of the resolution m respect to the Bible is as follows. The Italicising is mine. " Because the adoption of it would have been contrary to the design and object of the Convention — which were merely to discuss a particular topic, (relating exclusively to the ministry,) and to allow all persons, whether Chris- tians or infidels^ freely to express their sentiments on that particular topic, and to draw their arguments from any source they might think proper." A plain confession that it was the very design and object of the Convention to bring " Christians and in- fidels " together upon the same platform, and to place the Bible, as a standard of appeal, on a level with one's " own convictions," or the scriptures of pagans, or the Age of Reason, or " any source " of appeal whatever. And what is this but an infidel position ? The last reason is equally significant, and is as fol- lows : — " Resolved, That this is strictly a Convention of the peo- ple, and does not assume to be any thing else ; and that, while it cannot properly claim to be, in the technical sense, a Christian body, it declares those who apply to it the term ' infidel ' to be guilty of gross defamation." A confession equally plain that it did not meet as a 46 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. Convention on the platform of Christianity, but, as the friends of truth alleged, on the broader and infidel ground of all religions in general, and none in par- ticulai*. A fact or two, in this connection, may throw some further light upon the subject. During the Convention, a paper was distributed to such as would receive it, published at Providence, and entitled the " Plain Speaker." There were individ- uals in the Convention who sympathized fully with the views it advocates. In the leading editorial of the number distributed, in which " the church, the state, and the school," are all assailed as things to be done away, is the following : — " What is Paul's word to me, or Peter's, or Socrates', or Jesus', or any man's. Am I not a man ? a son of God therefore, and capable, if I am but willing, of being filled even to overflowing with his directly-given truth ? And why should I pause to dwell on the records of other men's visions, when the heavenly rays are ready to fall on me ; to crown me rather with a sublime halo ? Here, in our own bosonf, is the oracle. Here is the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. And the denial of this is blasphemy, or atheism." Such is the nature of the skepticism, out of deference to which, the Convention rejected the Bible as of par- amount authority. The true position of the Conven- tion, in so doing, is therefore obvious. No disclaimers, however earnest, can conceal it. The Bible disposed of, the proposition submitted to the Convention for discussion was this : — " The ministry, as at present existing m the professed Christian church, is a human institution." ANTI-xMiNISTRY SESSION. 4< The Convention then adjourned. At the opening of the afternoon session, to evade, in part, the strange position of arguing on such a subject on purely infidel grounds, and of seeming to shrink from the discus- sion of it on scriptural grovmds, the proposition was changed to the following : — " The order of ministry, as at present existing, is anti- scriptural, and of human origin." The preliminaries settled, the discussion proceeded — Messrs. Johnson, Wright, Whitmarsh, Whiting) Garrison, Quincy, and others, on the one side, and Messrs. Torrey, St. Clair, Lee, myself, and others, upon the other. Messrs. Brown and Wright, the chief speakers against the ministry, had much to say of man- made ministers ; of the present clergy as a pro-slavery, a military, a sectarian, a time-serving, hireling, am- bitious, titled ministry; as one opposed to all thor- ough and unpopular reform, and as having been, and still being, the great obstruction to the temperance, abolition, and peace reforms. On all these points they were fully met. Mr. Torrey presented a mass of facts, showing that the ministry had been the great pioneers in the temperance reform. He also trium- phantly vindicated their character in respect to other reforms. A similar mass of statistics was presented by myself, showing that, instead of being led, they had been several hundred per cent, in advance of the people in the anti-slaveiy reform. These statistics were afterwards published in the Free American. On the afternoon of the last day, Mr. Lee presented an able and unanswerable scriptural argument for the 48 ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. ministry. It is worthy of remark, that no attempt was made to reply to one of his arguments. Whether it was because the Bible was considered of little author- ity in the case, or because his arguments were felt to be conclusive, the public may decide. It is worthy of remai'k (attention was repeatedly called to the fact in the Convention) that the prom- inent speakers against the existing ministry as an in- stitvtion, were the same persons who, in anti-slavery meetings, have been loudest in their denunciations of ministers. On those occasions, when charged with waging war with the ministry as an institution, they have insisted that their war was not with the institu- tion or the office, — for they believed in that as much as any one, — but with the men who were m it On the present occasion, they assailed the institution or office itself. " The ministry," said H. C. Wright, " is not a profession or a calling, as is that of a physician or a farmer, but a duty. Every Christian is a heaven- ordained minister of Christ. The Spirit of Christ is his commission. If he has that, he needs nothing more — no course of study — no process of mental discipline, except that which God gives in the great school in which he places us. I would have every man his own minister, and his own church, and his own state, under God." And not only did they now assail the office of the ministry as such, but their arguments to prove it anti-Christian were the very arguments which they had been wont to use on former occasions against the men that filled it Their argument in anti-slavery meetings has been, the men who fill the office are bad men, therefore (hey should ANTI-MINISTRY SESSION. 49 be rejected as true ministers. Their argument now was, the men are bad men, therefore away with the office. The Convention adjourned at the close of the third day, subject to the call of its committee. THE ANTI-CHURCH SESSION. This session of the .convention was held October 26, in the Chardon Street Chapel, Edmund Q-uincy, Jun. still in the chair. The attendance was smaller than at any previous session, though pains had been taken to secure a large attendance. The subject for discus- sion was the Church. The Convention being opened, William Chase, of Providence, offered a resolution, affirming the church, as at present existing, to be a divine institution, ordained of God, which all men are bound to sustain. A Mr. Gifford proposed, as a sub- stitute, " That the true church of God consists of those only who have the spirit of Christ, and who exhibit this spirit in their labors to remove sin from the world." Mr. Gifford offered a few remarks in support of his res- olution, and was followed by a Mormon preacher of the name of Nickerson, who advocated miraculous as well as other gifts. Mr. Garrison came next It was grat- ifying, he said, though their numbers were small, to look round upon the meeting. He was glad to see so many there, showing by their presence that they were not to be intimidated by the efforts that had been made by certain men to fix the brand of infamy on all who should dare to meet for the discussion of the subjects ANTI-CHURCH SESSION. 51 that had called them together. He had looked around the room since he came in, for those men who were there at the former meeting, and charged them with being infidels, but he had looked in vain. They were not there ; and he charged them with a want of fidelity to the public in not being there to expose and refute their error, and to apprize the public of its danger. He would submit the following resolutions, in place of those before the meeting: — " Resolved, That the true church is independent of all human organizations, creeds, or compacts. " Resolved, That it is not within the province of man, or any body of men, to admit to, or to exclude from, that church, any one who is created in the divine image. " Resolved, That it is nowhere enjoined as a religious duty by Christ or his apostles, upon any man, to connect himself with any association, by whatever name called ; but all are left free to act singly, or in conjunction with others, according to their free choice," Mr. Garrison offered these, he said, as an expres- sion of his own views, and as presenting, in a distinct form, the subject for discussion. As soon as he was seated, being present, I arose and said, " Mr. Chair- man, Mr. Garrison did not happen to look this way. Had he done so, he might have spared some of his cowardly and unmanly flings. He well knows that, at the former meeting, my associates and myself gave distinct notice that we should not participate in the discussions of the present, not because we were afraid to, but because the Convention had deliberately re- jected the Bible as the final and authoritative standard of appeal in the case ; and that that is the reason why, 52 ANTI-CHURCH SESSION. though we may be present as spectators, we shall not be here as participators in the discussion. It may be convenient, under such circumstances, to appear brave, and talk large ; but it will doubtless be properly appreciated." Subsequently, Mr. Garrison said the resolutions contamed what he believed to be the truth, as re- vealed in the Scriptures. The Lord's freemen, he said, are independent of all organizations. They may act singly, or they may act together. Combination is purely a matter of affinities. All such organizations are human, and purely voluntary, and union with them, or not, is no evidence or test of Christian char- acter. The idea that it is a religious duty to belong to some church, I believe to be a dangerous heresy — a heresy that enslaves millions, and ought to be ex- posed and exploded. In the course of the discussions, the usual quantity of bald infidelity was developed. One wished the words "enjoined by Christ and his apostles" stricken out, because they seemed to imply that we took them as authority, and for one he did not do it. Another said he believed the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth ; but if he understood divinity, it is something that flows, or may flow, through all men ; so far as he him- self was a Christian — a true man — he was as divme as Jesus was. Another said, Christ was a good man, perhaps ; but he did not think that he was the best man that ever lived ; and as to the Bible, he was sure it was a book of bad moral tendency. Mr. Garrison professed not to agree with these men. With him, the authority of Christ was final, and he had yet to learn that he and his apostles conflicted. ANTI-CHURCH SESSION, 53 Yet he agreed with them, it will be seen, in the general result. They get at it in one way ; he in an- other. Both agree in the result ; and both have so many sympathies and affinities in common, that they are "hale fellows well met." Their difference, radi- cal as it is, if real, makes no breach between them. The Convention continued its sessions three days, and the discussions were generally tame. At its close, a committee was appointed to call another Convention, at such time and place as they may think best, to con- sider the question of the avihority of the Bible, 5» THE ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. This was in form a new Convention, but in fact only the fourth session of the old one — the decision to have such a Convention, and the arrangements for calUng it, having been made at the close of the third session of the other. The call for it was published some months beforehand, in several of the city papers. The committee calling it were R. Waldo Emerson, A. Bronson Alcott, Maria Weston Chapman, and Ed- mund Quincy. It was called at the Masonic Temple, and " for the public discussion of the credibility and authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ments." It was evidently expected that the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Masonic Temple, &c., would bring together another and a higher class of persons than those who had constituted the Convention at Chardon Street. This expectation, however, was doomed to a sad disappointment. The Convention met, according to the call, on Tuesday, March 29th, at ten o'clock, A. M ; the same classes of persons present and giving direction to the meeting ; the same chair- man — Edmund Quincy, Jun. ; the same prominent speakers— N. H. Whiting, A. Bronson Alcott, Wil- liam West, Abby Folsom, Elder Nickerson, (the Mor- mon,) &c. — all rendered it manifest that it was only the Chardon Street Convention reassembled. ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. 55 As the Convention was assembling, and a part of the time during its session, a young man stood at the door of the Temple, giving, to such as would receive it, the tract entitled " A Word for the Bible." Within doors, the Convention having been duly organized by the choice of a chairman (Mr. Quincy) and other officers, in the midst of which they were favored with an harangue from Abby Folsom against all officers, Mr. N. H. Whiting offered the following resolution : — '■'' Resolced^ That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are to be judged, like every other book, by the light of the present hour, and should, like them, be re- ceived or rejected in accordance with the understanding of each individual." Considerable discussion ensued, which ended, about half past eleven o'clock, in a decision to adopt the terms of the call, as quoted above, as the formula for discussion. The following sketches of the debate, extracted from reports in the Daily Advertiser and the Post, reveal the character and result of the meeting : — Mr. a. Bronson Alcott spoke, at some length, in support of his well-known views of the inspiration of Christ and the Scriptures. He closed by saying that he hoped the debate would take the form of a con- versation ; he had been conversing, he hoped others would do so. I myself say what is in my mind at the moment I speak. I hope others may do the same. They may not perceive the connection between my remarks and the subject ; they may say, " What is this man driving at ? I do not understand what this has to do with the subject." I may not always myself see the 56 ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. direct connection which what I say has with the prop- osition. It occurs to me, but the connection is too subtile for me to observe, too deep for me to see. It occurs to me by the law of my own mind, and be- cause it does occur to me, there evidently is a con- nection with the subject which interests us. I hope that any persons here, whose word has not been re- ported, may, sitting or rising, speak as they may be disposed to. Let us hear the voice of woman also ; for has not a revelation been made to her, and has not she something to say also? I should be veiy sorry if we should meet here and do all the speaking ourselves. The revelation to mankind cannot be complete unless it be heard through man and woman both. Mrs. Folsom expressed her concurrence in these views. Mrs. Thankful Southwick asked Mr. Alcott, if^ by his views, the religious wi'itings of the Brahmins and Mahometans could not be proved to come from God as much as those of Christians. Mr. Alcott replied that he certainly considered them inspired in the same manner as the Christian Scriptures, though probably no books contained so full an exposition of the truth as do these. He wished a collection could be made of the truths ut- tered by all the ancient writers. Mr. William West, in derogation of the authority of the Bible, and in opposition to those who consid- ered that they had established its credibility and au- thority when they proved it to be the word of God, said that the first step in the argument which such persons ought to take was to establish the existence ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. 57 of the Being to whose inspiration they attributed the work. He denied that there was a God — that there was avy distinct spiritual existence. He did not rest his opposition to the Bible here — he did not oppose it only because he believed it to be erroneous, but because the tendency of its doctrines was to occasion unhappiness to man. He examined the existing state of society, and in every department of it he saw the evil effects of Christianity. The institution of mar- riage, which he termed a system of " legalized prosti- tution," came in for a particular share of his animad- version, and he condemned those laws as unjust which pimished men and women who are unfaithful to their marriage vows. Such people, he held, in- stead of being punished, " should receive the meed of praise as true men and women." He was not con- tent with proving that this w^rld and all that apper- tains to it is bad, but went on to show how much better it might have been constructed, until, in his zeal, he exclaimed, «i could make a better world than this one ; I should like to have the power to make a world ; if T had, what a world it would be ! " Mr. West was here called to order on the ground of irrelevancy. Elder Nickers on's extravagances, on the other side, were nearly as extraordinary as West's. It did not please him to go into a labored argument in defence of what he termed " the divine authenticity of the Scriptures ; " he Icneio that they were time — that their origin was divine ; " the Spirit " had taught it to him. He had seen miraculous proofs of the divine authority of the Bible; the sick healed — the dead raised — angels had ministered to him — he had talked to God 58 ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. face to face. He assured his hearers that it was only necessary for them to repent, and be baptized, and receive the Spirit, to see what he had seen, and to en- joy the same familiar and friendly conversations with heaven's inhabitants. While Elder Nickerson was giving utterance to this nonsense, we noticed, at a short distance from him, a gentleman who steadily kept his eye upon him, and seemed to give to every word he uttered the most profound consideration. This was 3Ir. Parsons, whose former controversy with the Mormon at Winchester Hall may have been heard of On arising, he assured the audience that, had the elder seen fit to have re- mained silent, he would not have opened his mouth ; but it was morally impossible for him to sit still and hear such sentiments advanced. The Mormon doc- trines were all humbug, and then* pretended miracles all imposture, as he had proved in his work on the subject, one thousand copies of which he had caused to be printed, and a part of which thousand he then held aloft in his hand. To satisfy himself perfectly on this point, Mr. Parsons said he had made a pil- grimage to Nauvoo, where it was a common remark with the people that " they would not go a hundred rods to see a man raised from the dead, the tiling was so common ! " Before concluding, he administered a rebuke to Mr. West for the manner in which he ad- vanced his atheistical sentiments, and informed the Convention that he himself was a deist. The philosophers of the Transcendental school were represented in the debates of the Convention by Messrs. A. Bronson Alcott and Nathaniel Whi- ting. They opposed the common views held by ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. 59 Christians in relation to the divine origin of the Bible, in a manner peculiar to themselves. They admitted that what truths it contained were of God, but con- tended that the errors which it contained could not be of God. They denied that it had in itself or in its origin any thing mysterious, or that it could be looked upon as more sacred than the religious books of the Brahmins, or the writings of Confucius, Plato, or Shakspeare. Every man or woman who utters truth they hold to be inspired in the same maimer that Christ and his apostles were inspired; and also that every soul must judge for itself what truth is. They asserted that the fundamental doctrines taught by Christ may all be found in the writings of heathen philosophers- Mr. Whiting allowed that truth was presented with more distinctness in the Bible than in any book that preceded it ; but he believed that this was attributable to the progress which the race had made in truth, and that the truths of the Bible were better under- stood at the present day than they were by those who uttered them. The friends of the Bible generally stood aloof from the Convention. Something, however, was said in its defence by two or three persons of humble abilities ; and Mr. O. A. Brownson and a [Jniversalist minister of the name of J. B. Dons are represented by the Post as having made " two powerful, logical, and conclusive arguments " in defence of " Christianity," and against " the charge, advanced by West, that the doctrines of Christianity cause unhappiness to the human race." Wliat either of them said in defence of the Bible, or to what extent they regard the Bible as credible, in- spired, and of divine authority, does not appear. 60 ANTI-BIBLE CONVENTION. In the evening those who w^ere most active in calling the Convention began to find, as they said, that 'the public mind was not ripe for the move- ment.' Indeed, it was with considerable difficulty that money enough was collected to pay the expenses of the Convention during the time it had been in ses- sion, and an effort which was made to raise means to pay the rent of the hall for another day failed com- pletely, but three persons signifying a willingness to contribute any thing for that purpose, although it was announced that Messrs. Parker and Emerson would probably address the Convention the next day, if it remained in session. This led Mr. Alcott to observe that the next Convention called should be one to dis- cuss the tenure by which property is held, and that in the mean time the members of the Convention should individually go forth among their fellow-men, and by reasoning with them prepare them for another Bible Convention, which he hoped might be held in five, if not in two years. The Convention then ad- journed. The Post adds: — " The number of persons in attendance did not exceed one hundred, a majority of whom were women, and, with a few accidental exceptions, they were the same individ- uals who have figured in various similar Conventions at the Chardon Street Chapel." The number actually members of the Convention did not exceed twenty. And thus has ended the movement that began with questioning and assailing the divirie authority of the Christian Sabbath. (iiiin l*]!?''"; Sem,nary-Speer 111 mm J 101201003 3076 34 THE SABBATH when the regular or stated tiiue tor it came round. The next record (Gen. iv. 26) is, that at the birth of Enos, when his father, Setli, was one hundred and five years old, " began men to call upon the name of the Lord." What was this but j)ublic, social wor- ship ? The writer surely does not mean to inform us that there was no family worship before. For we have the record of that in the offerings of Cain and Abel. Nor can he mean to say that there was no private worship — that Adam and the pious Seth never prayed until the birth of Enos; i. e. until Seth was one hundred and five years old, and Adam two hundred and thirty-five. Surely Adam and Seth did not live all that time without private prayer. What <*,an the passage mean, then, but that when Enos was born, — i. e. as soon as men began to multiply, — they then began to call on God in a public, social way ? But such worship must have had its mutually-agreed upon, or div'me]j-appointed stated times. How else could it have been conducted ? * * Since the sitting of the Convention, 1 have solicited the opinion of Professor Stuart, of Andover, concerning' the proper translation and interpretation of several passages used in the discussion. The following' is his view of the passag'e above : — " Gen. iv. 26, ' Then began men to call,' etc., or, ' Then was a commencement made of calling,'" etc., is rightly translated. The phrase, ni'n^ Dt^D ^"^T^l {liq,i'Oibe.shemYehovah,)xci&?tx\s, T : •• : |: • invocation upon the name of God, and this in a social and public manner. (Compare Gen. xii. 8 ; xiii. 4 j xxi. 33 ; xxvi. 25. Ps. cv. 1. Is. xii. 4 J xli. 25.) It can mean neither less nor more here, as I think, than that public social worship then commenced, i. e. so soon as men began to multiply. The writer does not mean to intimate that the pious Seth did not pray, before his son was born to him ; what can he intimate but social worship ? When — is not said." IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 35 Fui'ther, in the subsequent history, we find that whenever the patriarchs pitched then* tents with a view to dwelling for any length of time in a place, they always huilt an altar there for public worship. When Noah came out of the ark, (Gen. vii. 20,) the first thing was to "build an altar unto the Lord," and offer sacrifice. When Abraham originally entered Canaan, at his first stopping place, (Gen. xii. 7,) " there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." When he removed, (Gen. xii. 8,) and " pitched his tent" at a second place, "there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord." On his return from Egypt, whither he had gone on account of a famine, he sojourned a season in Abimelech's country, and then came (Gen. xiii. 3, 4) to Bethel, " unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the first ; and there he called on the name of the Lord." When, on his separation from Lot, (Gen. xiii. 18,) he "removed his tent, and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, he built there an altar unto the Lord." Subsequently, (Gen. xxi. 33, and xxii. 19,) when he " dwelt at Beersheba," he made a similar arrange- ment for public worship there. The other patriarchs did the same. When Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 6, 25) " dwelt in Gerar," he " builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord." When Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 18,20) "pitched his tent" before Shalem, "he erected there an altar, and called it God, the God of Israel." When, in that residence, some of his family (Gen. XXXV. 1 — 6) had fallen in with the surrounding idola- try, God directed him to go up to Bethel, and " dwell there, and make there an altar unto God;" and he did so. And, finally, when he took up his journey 34 Tin: sabbath when the regular or stated tiiue lor it came round. The next record (Gen. iv. 26) is, that at the birth of Enos, when his father, Seth, was one hundred and five years old, "began men to call upon the name of the Lord." What was this but jjublic, social wor- ship? The writer surely does not mean to inform us that there was no tamily worshij) before. For we have the record of that in the offerings of Cain and Abel. Nor can he mean to say that there was no private worship — that Adam and the pious Seth never prayed until the birth of Enos ; i. e. until Seth was one hundred and five years old, and Adam two hundred and thirty-five. Surely Adam and Seth did not live all that time without private prayer. What can the passage mean, then, but that when Enos was born, — i. e. as soon as men began to multiply, — they then began to call on God in a public, social way ? But such worship must have had its mutually-agreed upon, or div'me]y-appointed stated times. How else could it have been conducted ? * * Since the sitting of the Convention, 1 have solicited the opinion of Professor Stuart, of Andover, concerning the proper translation and interpretation of several passages used in the discussion. The following is his view of the passage above : — " Gen. iv. 26, ' Then began men to call/ etc., or, ' Then was a commencement made of calling/ etc., is rightly translated. The phrase, n in ^ 01^3 i^-ir^^ (liqra beshejti Yehovah,) means, T : •■ : |: • invocation upon the name of God, and this in a social and public mcuiner. (Compare Gen. xii. 8 j xiii. 4 j xxi. 33 j xxvi. 25. Ps. cv. 1. Is. xii. 4 J xli. 25.) It can mean neither less nor more here, as I think, than that public social worship then commenced, i. e. so soon as men began to multiply. The writer does not mean to intimate that the pious Seth did not pray, before his son was born to him ; what can he intimate but social worship ? When — is not said." IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE, 35 Fuilher, in the subsequent history, we find that whenever the patriarchs pitched theu* tents with a view to dwelling for any length of time in a place, they alivays huilt an altar there for public worship. When Noah came out of the ark, (Gen. vii. 20,) the first thing was to " build an altar unto the Lord," and offer sacrifice. When Abraham originally entered Canaan, at his first stopping place, (Gen. xii. 7,) " there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto Piim." When he removed, (Gen. xii. 8,) and " pitched his tent" at a second place, "there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord." On his return from Egypt, whither he had gone on account of a famine, he sojourned a season in Abimelech's country, and then came (Gen. xiii. 3, 4) to Bethel, " unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the first ; and there he called on the name of the Lord." When, on his separation from Lot, (Gen. xiii. 18,) he "removed his tent, and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, he built there an altar unto the Lord." Subsequently, (Gen. xxi. 33, and xxii. 19,) when he " dwelt at Beersheba," he made a similar arrange- ment for public worship there. The other patriarchs did the same. When Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 6, 25) " dwelt in Gerar," he " builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord." When Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 18,20) "pitched his tent" before Shalem, "he erected there an altar, and called it God, the God of Israel." When, in that residence, some of his family (Gen. xxxv. 1 — 6) had fallen in with the suiTOunding idola- try, God directed him to go up to Bethel, and " dwell there, and make there an altar unto God;" and he did so. And, finally, when he took up his journey