Part 2

Seriously, it is earnestly to be hoped that religious shareholders will take warning from the miserable experience of the past, and hold on, should Mr Locke’s bill pass—not giving way to a second panic, and betaking themselves to foolish flight, intimidated by the bugbear of an anti-Deity act of Parliament. And again, while we say this in reference to the event of the bill becoming law, neither, we entreat, let the friends indulge now in any false security that it never will pass. If it ultimately fail, it will fail only through the blessing of God on an energetic pull from the religious world at large. Who can doubt that, if the country be quiet and seem acquiescent, the formidable minority of 122 to 131—one of the most successful openings of a new agitation ever witnessed in Parliament—will soon become a majority? O let our friends be firmly persuaded, that no man will more please the adversary than he who counsels to withdraw from the railway companies when the bill shall pass into a law! The great drift of the engineering interest, and secret of their bill, is to drive strife and controversy (which tell awkwardly on the share-market) out of the railway companies. If the enemy once believe that the good men will fly, their efforts will be redoubled for its passing. If they be given to understand that the good men will continue, after it passes, to meet them at the railway Philippis as of old, and will there treat them to two motions (and perhaps two movers—fresh Richards in the field) in place of one as before, their courage will cool, and the righteous indignation of the country against their selfishness will have time to arise for the hiding of their diminished heads, so that the truth may prevail. Up then, we say, and be doing. The measure may be yet discomfited. But let it pass; let it become the law of the land—no matter; it will share the fate of Judge Jefferies’ law and James’s proclamations. It is contrary to God’s law; it cannot stand. It will be overthrown through the force of the EVANGELICAL PRINCIPLE, which shall yet, steam-power-like, burst the bonds asunder that may have been imposed on it by engineering artifice, and stream forth on the right hand and on the left to hallow the day of sacred rest, and to refresh the land with showers of blessing.

The fact itself of the bringing in of this bill ought to be regarded by the friends of the Sabbath as a favourable indication of the state of the question in the country. Parliament is not troubled with bills about trifles. The Sabbath controversy was long regarded by the country, and of course by Parliament, with indifference or contempt; and had its advocates limited their efforts to the abstract question and to Exeter Hall, and mere tractism and preaching, this would have remained the prevalent mind of the country for a generation. But so soon as the spiritual principle came to embody itself in a practical measure—so soon as the world met the Sabbath as an active agent in what is regarded as its own department, its railway coaching—indifference became abhorrence, and contempt fright; and feeling itself to be worsted from half-year to half-year in argument, and seeing its proxy-power to be sliding from under its feet, the evangelical monster came so to bulk, that it became conquerable only through the brute force of parliamentary law. What better sign can there be than this of the stringent force of the internal railway controversy? what higher premium on its prolongation! And if the House of Commons, on the first appearance of the hateful thing within its walls, has been a bear-garden rather than a deliberative assembly, reducing the Cowans and M‘Gregors, the Scottish representatives of the Scottish religion, pretty much to dumb-show in their moving and seconding—what is this but the Queen Street chambers of the old Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway over again, where, amidst the din of strife, was to be seen stout Macgill Crichton stretched to tiptoe height, that he might elude the circle of infuriated anti-Sabbatarian fists which compassed him about like bees, and straining his trumpet-like tones to the very crack of eardrums that he might drown their variegated vociferations?—futile attempt to ordinary-voiced mortals! But let honourable members take courage. This was in the railway affair, the mere surf of the near shore on the first launching of the Sabbath boat, which, once battled through, conducted to the deep-founded calm beyond. Such, no doubt, will be the comfortable experience of the good men in Parliament, _if they will but hold on and persevere_. The railway lions after a time became lambs when they were confronted in a lion-lamb like spirit; and now as _they_ have become sober and well-behaved, so will also the worldlings of Parliament, whether titled or trading, when they shall once have made their little bully-like play. They will soon condescend to be silent, if not to listen. Speeches, besides, made in Parliament, should they discontent the honourable House, have the quality of telling on the country at large through the pleasant echoes of the reporters’ gallery, and the cause stuck to, will, like every other based on the rock of Bible truth, in the wisely appointed time prevail.

Quitting preliminaries and generalities, it is now time to present to the Sabbatarian soldier the manual of his exercise and tactics, to which all that goes before is introductory. The manual shall be narrowed within the closest practicable compass. “Be practical, be practical!” then—the frequent exclamation of our departed leader—shall be our steady aim—_in medias res_, our watchword.

I. PRINCIPLES OF ACTION.

First of all, the strength of our position, the foundation on which we rest, the star which is our guide, the stay in defeat, the hope in adversity, the confidence in weakness, the power that makes invincible, is the word of God: “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy.” The divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Fourth Commandment of the Moral Law, is the creed and test of the true Sabbatarian. This is the _sacramentum_ of our legion. None who does not take it is worthy to contend in the Sabbath ranks, or will stand firm in the shock of conflict.

2. The Sabbath contended for is one natural day in seven, every single portion of which is as sacred as every other portion; and no distinction of canonical and uncanonical, or morning and evening hours exists, or is to be listened to. All the day is the Lord’s day.

3. Works of necessity and mercy are not exceptions to the Sabbath rule; they are a part of the commandment implied in its terms, and authoritatively sanctioned by the Lord of the Sabbath. But the necessity must be real, and the mercy unquestionable; the one not such as prudent foresight or patient waiting would supersede, nor the other mere trifling or mawkishness.

4. Such being the doctrinal test of the true Sabbatarian, it may not be amiss to add, that there is a practical test which has been found valuable, viz., that he repudiates all systematic Sabbath railway traffic, whether morning or evening, and whether for man or mail—hating post-office traffic equally with railway traffic. He rejects the morning and evening scheme both on principle and on policy—on principle, because he holds all portions of the day equally holy; and on policy, because he knows that the iniquity once insinuated into a portion of the day will diffuse itself over the whole; and that the public, once swallowing the little bait, and committing the little sin, will become familiarised with the whole evil, and soon have neither moral principle nor courage left to oppose its out-and-out establishment. In regard, again, to the mail train, this is certainly, in the Sabbatarian’s eyes, as bad; he probably regards it as worse than the other. The combination of both is just a double iniquity, with this aggravation, that the post-office work is a national offence, sending worldliness in all the infinite varieties of correspondence into houses and families, which, but for it, might have enjoyed the blessing of one day’s repose in seven from the destructive tear and wear of life.

5. It follows, as a portion of the Sabbatical principle, that it never yields—no, not by a hair’s-breadth. The command is exceeding broad, and no apparent good is a real good which involves the slightest concession. The absolute purity of the principle is the talisman of success, never to be tarnished without ruin to the cause.

6. It farther follows, in the memorable words of the departed Baronet, “That we have nothing to do with success; that is in better hands than ours. We have only to do with means.” The consequence of which is, that we never trouble ourselves with the anxious inquiries of the timid—“What chance is there of succeeding? Have you got any more votes? Is it worth while to try? Is it not hopeless?” &c. &c. Contending for the command and honour of God, these things affected our Sabbath course practically in no way; they generally were the snare of the half-and-halfers alone. No doubt we counted our numbers, glad of their increase; but the less carefulness about these things, and the more confidence in the impregnability of the principle there is, the better for the cause, and the better for the man.

7. Decided firmness thus is of unspeakable value in this work. But it is not all. It must ever be tempered with courtesy. Temper indeed and courtesy, beautiful ornaments of the Sabbath defender, are powerful aids to his argument—“Remember, gentlemen,” said our late leader, “these men are just as well entitled to hold their opinions as we are to hold ours. To be sure you know (smiling) they are wrong and we are right; but they must be met fairly and respectfully. Who knows but they may come round?” Things did indeed now and then occur to stir up his indignation, but few and far between were the rufflings of his benign heart. To ordinary mortals they are very rarely lawful. The practice of a friend, with whom the author was once associated in an important negotiation, is worth following on occasions of trial of temper. When an exceedingly irritating or impertinent thing was said, he pulled out his very handsome snuff-box, and, expending his wrath in a violent rap on the lid, and noisy draught of its contents within his inflated nostrils, proceeded thereafter to the reply, which was not the less effective for the pause.

II. MODE OF ACTION BEFORE MEETINGS.

1. Two men (or any greater number, _ad libitum_) thus principled, having established themselves in a railway company by the purchase of (at least) as much stock as will yield a vote, may proceed to action without fear. The whole agitation in the railway companies so began; and, for many a long day, it was carried on but by a handful. {20} They were strong, however, in the strength of their position and foundation; and the band grew and multiplied.

2. Let the men who enter the arena be assured that it is very good to arrange with the clergy and religious classes of the town where railway companies have their headquarters, to hold meetings for public and private prayer, and to appoint these especially for the Sabbath preceding the railway meetings; for it must be reiterated to satiety, that the struggle is a religious one; and while there is even worldly policy in ever keeping this prominently before the public mind, there is undoubtedly a blessing on believing prayer. It cannot fail.

3. In the same way, the little band must meet before the hour of the company meeting, and join in prayer. The Edinburgh and Glasgow handful never appeared in the Queen Street Chambers without having previously in the Bath Hotel, or other rendezvous, prostrated themselves before Almighty God, in earnest seeking of his guidance. And then, come weal or come woe, every thing came right. This previous meeting is useful for other than the business of prayer. Here it is right to arrange the order of battle for the day. The parties to move and second, for instance, must here be fixed, as well as the skirmishers who are to be ready to support them. The motion to be made must also be determined on.

4. On this subject, it may, after all experience, be stated that the best motion to make is, “That no systematic traffic be carried on on the Lord’s-day.” This form of words excludes the obnoxious thing, meets the commandment, and leaves an opening for all needful arrangements for “necessity and mercy” cases—a class multiplied and magnified to worldly vision, but scarce known in fact and truth.

III. MODE OF ACTION AT THE MEETINGS.

1. On this subject, it is of great consequence for the party to be well versed in the forms of conducting the business of a public meeting. These, in general, are borrowed from the admirable, and most just, and time-saving forms of the House of Commons, more or less acknowledged, and, it may be added, increasingly adopted at all public meetings in this country. The genius and principle of these forms is, and the duty of a faithful chairman ever is, _the protection of the minority_. A majority is always safe, and can protect itself. But the form of business throws a shield over the minority by securing a hearing, or a standing at least, for all, in spite of clamour and violence. It is to be remembered that on every new question there is a right to speak once; and it is advisable that no friend should attempt to speak more than once. He can thereby better challenge the like liberty when taken by the obstreperous opponents. He may indeed “explain;” but a good chairman will rigidly enforce the rule against multiplied speeches. Where, indeed, a gentleman says merely, “I second the motion,” he is not thereby exposed on rising afterwards to the “Spoke, spoke,” which ordinarily shuts mouths; on the contrary, he is understood as having reserved his fire for an adversary, and must have his full swing. But the great protection is, the right of moving an amendment to any effect, and upon any motion; and, an amendment moved and seconded, the chairman must allow to be debated and put. Where two or more amendments are moved, the two last are put against each other till the ground be cleared of all but the original motion and amendment, which are then voted. This is not quite the House of Commons’ amendment system; but it is a very good one, well adapted to Scotch ideas. The mover, it will be kept in view, has always a right of reply; and this suggests the practical remark, that the party, having chosen a leader, should always stick by him; for much depends on his judgment and tact as to the time to speak or to be silent, the time to ask for more or to ask for less, as the tide ebbs or flows, and so forth.

2. Where the business of the meeting is conducted with fairness, it is advisable to allow the directors’ report to be discussed and disposed of, and to leave the secular business proper to be settled before the Sabbath motion—which is the secular-sacred—be tabled. But where there are symptoms of unfairness, and of a disposition to suppress the discussion, then the safe course is to move an amendment on the motion for approval of the report, to the effect that it be disallowed in so far as it sanctions Sabbath traffic. A strictly courteous mover and seconder cannot be overborne, even where there is force and unfairness. A protest tabled with the clerk, or, if rejected by him, taken (as once the Friends were driven to) in the hands of a notary-public, will put all right.

3. One thing to be added is, that the Sabbath party ought to make a point at all meetings of dividing. Generally the personal attendance of friends is greater than their proxy strength; and it is very encouraging to the friends to know one another by face. On the contrary, there are not a few of the opponents who feel themselves somewhat in an awkward predicament—professors not quite relishing the exhibition of themselves as enemies of the Sabbath; and who knows but that, where this feeling is found, it is symptomatic of incipient change? At any rate, the division brings all the real friends into prominent action; and so, their names being dotted down at the time by the whipper-in, they may be summoned henceforth to the private meetings, and become doubly efficient; as much more so than before, as a party of drilled soldiers are than an awkward squad of recruits.

4. And this leads us to say, that all friends should, where possible, attend in person, instead of resting at home and flying their mere proxy into the field. The moral influence of the living man is great. It ought always, besides, to be remembered, that where directors fight within a wall of majorities, personal and proxy-form, the defenders of the faith are exposed to an overbearing pressure, which is to be met with a serried strength on their side. Their great point is, _to be heard_, that they may speak the words of truth in the ears of the company and of the country. But this the adversary instinctively hates; and this, therefore, he shifts where he can. But where the Sabbath phalanx is not only compact but strong, it makes itself to be respected and heard. Therefore the friends are exhorted to come to the meetings.

5. We add a word on the subject of the proxy system at large, which gives an unlimited preponderance to wealth over number. Bad as this is, it would be tolerable if wealth must always hear before it strikes. But the proxy system acts without hearing. Directors spending the monies of companies in providing themselves with proxies, establish for themselves a sort of despotic power, which, even after an argument that would have reached the conscience of wealth itself had it been there to listen, declares its pre-determination, and proceeds in its reckless course, regardless of reasons. This is a system which ought to be stopped by act of parliament. The power of granting proxies should be taken away; and then the truth on every question, secular as well as sacred, would have fair play. For the wholesome effect would not be limited to the Sabbath question. There are many things coming home to worldly business and bosoms which the ventilation of personal attendance would greatly tend to rectify.

6. The Sabbath party had better not generally incur the expense of proxies; they should merely ask individual proprietors to send them in extraordinary cases. Their best general policy is, to request friendly shareholders, prevented by necessary causes from giving personal attendance, to address letters to the leader expressive of their adherence to the cause, and adding the number of shares held by them. These the leader will put in by way of exordium to his speech, naming a few of the more influential and conspicuous.

7. It is necessary to add, that the debate having proceeded, and the motion being disposed of—it may for the present be assumed unfavourably—the leader then publicly intimates that he will renew it at the next ordinary meeting. It will be right for him to see that this notice is minuted, for thereby it enters the advertisement of the following meeting. He must, at the same time, give a public notice on the adjournment, that there will be a meeting of the friends at a place and hour to be then named; for in addition to the preparatory meeting, before the assembling of the shareholders, already adverted to, it is always good to hold another after their adjournment; first, for the purpose of unitedly rendering thanks to Almighty God for what may have taken place, confessing the sin that may have mingled itself, and asking strength and counsel for the future; and secondly, for the purpose of arranging the course of policy for the ensuing six months.

8. One important point remains to be considered. What ought to be the subject-matter of the railway debate? On this point it is proper to bear in mind, that while, at the opening of the controversy, the discussion most properly assumed a polemical form, embracing questions of Christian faith at large as opposed to dissolute infidelity, latterly the field has been considerably narrowed. Whether the enemy were driven from the infidel position by the power of argument or the force of shame, we know not; but latterly the line of defence has fallen back very much on the “necessity and mercy” plea, which of course assumes the divine authority of the day of rest. And most certainly it is advisable to follow their lead, and address the argument as to Christians frankly and avowedly, leaving all others to vindicate and vote for their Sabbath traffic at pleasure. This saves the necessity of a great deal of preaching; for if, according to the standards of all evangelical churches, the Lord’s day is to be kept as a sacred day of rest—the institution of God himself—then it must be vain to argue with men professing to be members of these churches who advocate its breach otherwise than as a question of mere necessity and mercy; because, when they go farther, they in the very act violate their own principles. This pre-eminently applies to all members of the Church of England, all of whom, after having read the fourth commandment in its solemn particulars, are accustomed to exclaim on their knees, “Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!”

9. The question of necessity and mercy then, which alone remains, is capable of much and varied illustration, and deserves and will repay careful study. In a few words, it may be stated as a question, Whether, in order to provide for the few and far between real cases of this description, it is necessary or expedient to entail on the railway staff of the whole island, the tyrannical burden of a toil which knows neither interval nor remission, from week to week and from year’s end to year’s end, save the middle of the night—if that—and as completely deprives unhappy railway officials of the moral and religious blessings of God’s appointed Sabbath as if they were so many beasts. London proclaims that the land needs no Sabbath post. Old Scotland proclaims that it needs no Sabbath coach. Where then is the necessity? where the mercy? Echo answers, Where?

10. On the subject of motions for statistics bearing on the number of Sabbath travellers, and the expense, and consequent profit (or loss) of Sabbath traffic, let the Sabbath leader free himself as much as possible of either. The profit or the loss forms no portion of his principle, just because it forms no part of the commandment; and he is apt, entering into this walk of inquiry, to be ensnared into secularity, whereof the enemy always takes strong and sometimes unfair advantage. Besides, through the process of “cooking” (using this technical term in the gentlest and honestest sense of which it is susceptible), he can always be defeated in his attempt to establish a loss. He knows, that “in keeping of the commandment there is great reward;” and that is his strength even on the profit and loss account.