網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

late to the application of the money levied, but shall only observe, that the principle which it admits, and which is adopted with so much avidity in this country-that because a person dissents from the established church, he ought not to pay church rates-is a principle fallacious in itself, and fraught with the utmost danger and mischief. I contend that an established church is as legitimate a subject of national support as a national establishment for distribution of justice -a national naval or military force-or a national monarchy, and its appendages. It is no more reasonable for a dissenter to refuse payment of church rate, because he does not approve of the national 'church, than it is for a Quaker to refuse taxes, because he does not approve of paying an army or navy, or for a republican, because he does not like to support a monarchy. If any of these persons lived under a Popish, a Mahomedan, or an idolatrous government, and that government thought proper to uphold the churches, the mosques, or the temples of its religion by some public tax, would it be tolerated that they should refuse to pay the tax on the plea that they conscientiously dissented from that religion? Would they attempt to resist such a tax? No. But in a Christian and Protestant land, and for a Christian and Protestant church,' they fancy they are bound, in conscience, to refuse payment, and a Protestant administration sanctions the principle. Let them beware how far it may be extended. 'The churches, be it remembered, are in a very different situation from the meeting-house. They are for ever set aside for the religious worship of such of the parishioners as choose to resort to them-they become sacred for ever to the uses of national religion. They cannot be built up on speculation, and afterwards, if the speculation fails, be converted into ball-rooms, theatres, or mechanics' institutions. But they are part and parcel of the national edifices for the service of Almighty God, and the edification of the people. That any individual should, because he dissents from her doctrines, whether on serious grounds or (as in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand), from caprice, or, without knowing why, refuse to contribute towards the support of them, appears to me a principle altogether incompatible with good government; and a making individual whims, and not the general good, the rule of legislation.

I shall not now trespass further upon the limits which, in this Magazine, must necessarily be set to the communications of its supporters; but I shall perhaps, on a future occasion, comment on some other provisions of this Act.

ON THE BILL "TO PROMOTE THE OBSERVANCE OF THE

LORD'S DAY.”*

M.

I REGARDED with feelings of no ordinary interest this Bill, believing that a due observance of the Sabbath, which it was intended to pro

As the time for the meeting of Parliament approaches, in which the subject of the Sabbath will be again discussed, it seems desirable to call public attention to the Bill of the last year, and to point out some of its errors.

mote, is essentially connected with the spiritual and temporal happiness of the community. I cannot doubt for a moment, that the more extensively a reverence of the Sabbath shall prevail, and the more carefully its duties be attended, the more abundant will be God's grace and blessing upon the nation-while the desecration of this sacred day will be followed by a proportionate deterioration in the faith and morals of the people, and a proprotionate manifestation of the displeasure of God, against those who dishonour his name, and know not how to appreciate his mercies. Such being my views of the importance of a due observance of the Lord's day, and such my concurrence in the object to be promoted by those who framed the Bill in question, I trust that my remarks upon the Bill itself, and considered as a means for attaining the object, will not be regarded as unfriendly, if they shall tend to suggest defects in some of its provisions. Still less should I desire to be identified with that portion of its opponents, who, substituting sneers for arguments, and not having taken the trouble to examine the evidence on which it is founded, wished to raise against it popular prejudices, and to decry it as emanating from a meddling and tyrannical desire to circumscribe the legitimate privileges and enjoyments of the middling and lower classes. I have no doubt whatever that the poor have no worse enemies, no more mischievous deceivers than such men as would persuade them, that those who desire to inforce the observance of the Lord's day, wish to invade their comforts. On the contrary, the avowed and true intent of the measure is to protect them-to secure to them one day out of seven as a day of rest-to prevent man and beast from being forced to work. The man that teaches the poor to lend a hand in desecrating the Lord's day, teaches them to place a heavier burden on their own shoulders-to load them with seven days' work, for the week's wages. For they may be assured that a week's wages is all they will receive, whether the working days of that week consist of six or of seven days. Most cordially do I join, therefore, the promoters of this Bill, in the object they have in view-most deeply do I sympathize in their endeavours, and, strongly am I impressed with the peculiar difficulties of the task in which they are engaged. I shall, therefore, offer my suggestions and remarks with a view to prevent the ultimate defeat of the object, either through over zealous attempts at more than is practicable, or through captious opposition, arising from ignorance, or misconception of the importance and the tendency of the measure. In the discussion of this matter, it must necessarily be viewed in two general points of view: First, what are the religious obligations of the Lord's day; and, secondly, what is the province of legislation in regard to its outward observance.

Though of these the latter may seem to be the principal consideration in reference to this Bill, yet, owing to the questions relating to the former which have from time to time been agitated, it will be necessary to briefly advert to them.

I shall not, of course, enter upon the controversy relative to the primeval observance and divine authority of the Sabbath, any farther than simply to state, that upon the best examination I have been able to give the subject, I am fully satisfied, that God, at the creation,

did set apart one day in seven to be sanctified and appropriated to his worship-that this appointment received a new sanction, and the mode of its observance was declared to the Jews in the Fourth Commandment.* I am also satisfied that the apostles, when acting as rulers of the church of Christ, and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, did select as their seventh, sanctified day, the first day of the week, the Lord's day; and did employ it in prayer and preaching the word of God, and that their practice was followed by the church down to the present time, in its main principle. I am satisfied that they and the church of God had authority to make this alteration; that this authority, independently of any divine command, is sufficient to claim the obedience of any Christian. Therefore, I contend, that, without troubling ourselves with discussions upon the obligations of the Jewish Sabbath, we have ample ground for claiming, under pain of God's wrath and displeasure, the observance of the Lord's day. The question, how it is to be observed, is a separate consideration; and also another consideration is, to what extent the legislature is justified, or even called upon to enforce its observance. This brings me at once into contact with the late Bill. And a very difficult question I must admit I find it. I am quite sure that not only the bulk of the people, but that many pious and well informed people cannot be aware of half the difficulties which beset this measure and embarrassed its promoters. To have any conception of these, the controversies on the subject, as well as the voluminous evidence collected, should be carefully perused, together with the arguments stated by its supporters.

No man who had impartially examined them would be disposed to sneer, or to upbraid, but rather to thank them for the pains they had taken, and to regret the opposition and opprobrium they encountered. He would differ from them, as I do, with hesitation and with pain, and would offer, as I do, his suggestions with humility and even doubt,

With these feelings I express my fears, lest by attempting too much, they should lose all; and I beg to suggest that some of the provisions of the Bill are framed, if not upon a questionable principle, at least upon an unequal and inconsistent application of their principles, and such as may tend to excite one of the most unfavourable prejudices imaginable against the whole measure-viz., a prejudice that its object is to coerce the poor man, and circumscribe his few privileges, his scanty pleasures, his necessary indulgences, while it gives free scope to the luxurious and uncalled for violations of the Sabbath by the rich.

The questionable principle to which I would allude is, the assumption, as the basis of legislation, a controverted position-namely, that

I consider the authority for the Lord's day to rest upon the primeval institution of the Sabbath or seventh-day's rest, and upon the authority of the church exercised by the apostles in fixing on the first day of the week to be the day set apart for that purpose; and that both of them virtually recognize the principle laid down more distinctly in the Fourth Commandment, that it is to be devoted to religious exercises, or to repose from the cares and labours of our ordinary business. 5 L

VOL. IV.-Dec. 1833.

the mode of observance of the Lord's day must be the same as that of the Jewish Sabbath. Whatever assent I may give to the proposition in my own conscience, and whatever obedience I, as an individual, may voluntarily choose to pay, it becomes a serious question, whether the legislature ought to assume this to be of divine authority, and to circumscribe the liberty of those who dissent from it. It is one thing to adopt an opinion on this subject for our own direction, and another to force others to do the same. Many claim, in this respect, a Christian liberty which they must use at their own eternal peril; they rest upon the conduct of our Lord himself, in seemingly ordering marked violations of the entire rest of the Jewish Sabbath-in his walking in the fields on the Sabbath-in his declaration that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath-in the alteration of the day-in the practice of the primitive church. They rest upon these and other facts and declarations in contending that they are not bound to the Jewish mode of the observance of the Sabbath, or the Lord's day. They claim to be the proper and responsible judges of those actions, which are allowable under the plea of necessity and benefit, provided these shall not constitute a breach of public decorum, or trench upon the liberty of others. They maintain, that though it may be laid down as an axiom that, on the Lord's day, Christians ought not to perform any other works than those of necessity or charity; yet that in these days men will not easily submit that human law should deny them the liberty of judging at their own eternal peril what are works of necessity, particularly in cases where the divine law has not so expressly decided the question as not to leave it open to controversy. Is it then a correct principle to legislate upon the assumption that we are bound to interpret the rest and sanctification of the Sabbath, as admitting of no qualification, and that no permission can be given to trafficking, or to the opening of houses for refreshment, without sanctioning the breach of rules laid down by divine authority. It is, indeed, affirmed, that this Bill was protective, and not prohibiting. But I cannot, in candour, admit this. It did not merely permit the innkeeper or horsekeeper to rest, but it compels him to do so; and however those who have petitioned for the Bill may be disposed to consider it as protection, those, who have not, will regard it in a very different light. I think the ground it took was too high for any practical purpose. It must concede more to the comforts, I may say, necessities of the people (I allude particularly to London), to render the enactments acceptable or useful. If it be said, by those who advocate the full obligations of the Jewish commandment in all its details, and to the very letter, that this would be an abandonment of principle, it is clear that the Bill as it stood was an abandonment of such a principle-it allows travelling at certain hours-its enactments did not commence at the same period of time as either the Jewish Sabbath, or probably the Lord's day did. These commenced at six in the afternoon of one day, and terminated at the same hour the following day. The Bill, therefore, should be in force at six on Saturday, until only the same hour on Sunday. If no enactment is to be attempted but upon a

rigorous adherence to such a principle, the difficulty of legislating upon the subject will be insuperable-it will be clogged and rendered ridiculous and impracticable by perpetual inconsistencies.

The unequal legislation, too, into which they have been driven, must be fatal; that while the tradesman or the mechanic, confined during the whole week to the close atmosphere and sedentary occupations of the shop or manufactory, amidst the foggy and gas-polluted streets and lanes of the metropolis, may not hire his gig or horse to bear him for a few hours into the pure air of the country, the rich man may roll about in his carriage unrestricted, though he is at liberty to enjoy the same every day of the week. Sir A. Agnew, indeed, to avoid this difficulty, gave notice of a motion to address his Majesty, praying that the carriage-gates of the Park might be closed. But, after all, even supposing the petition of the address granted, this would only have caused the carriages to be driven elsewhere, and would not have removed from his bill the objection of a partial application of its principle,-of enforcing that principle on those classes who might plead health and reasonable relaxation, not to say necessity, for its violation, and of exempting from it those who have no plea but luxury and pleasure. I know that they cannot overcome this evil; they must concede its existence; but while it exists, it is a departure from their principle, and there are obvious reasons for which concession must be made in the other case. I contend, therefore, that no enactment can be made with a prospect of being practicable, which does not admit, under proper limitations, a provision for the relaxation of the trades-people and mechanics of the metropolis and of large towns.

I know, however, that it is much more easy to censure than to amend; and that, after the objections I have made, I may be fairly called upon to state what I thought right and practicable.

I think the legislature bound, as far as circumstances will permit, to prevent all flagrant violations of the decorum of the Lord's-day; and to provide that a man, by a conscientious observance of it, should not be injured by the profanation of it by others less scrupulous. All trading on Sunday should be stopped, excepting such as may be absolutely requisite. Public-houses for refreshment, eating-houses, &c. should not be allowed to receive any guests from twelve on Saturday night till after one o'clock on Sunday. They should then be open to inspection of officers. No public stage, &c. (excepting those plying within ten miles of London, and starting at the hours specified in the bill) should be allowed to commence its journey on Sunday before five o'clock. All carriages and horses travelling during divine service should be subjected to very heavy tolls. Public-houses should not close* their doors during divine service, but the publican should be

The closing the door affords the best means of concealing those who are very easily let in upon making a signal. We question whether it might not be a useful regulation that tap-rooms should always adjoin the street, and have a large window without curtains. The tipplers would then be seen, and shame might influence many : when men's deeds are evil, they love not the light.

« 上一頁繼續 »