Part 2

But we may be told, again, that “the Sabbath is a Jewish institution.” We marvel that any should practically forget that the law of the Sabbath occupied a place on those tables of stone on which the Great Lawgiver inscribed a law with His own finger, which had nothing ceremonial, Jewish, or national in their aspect, which was constituted for all time, and which the Great Author of the New Testament dispensation declared that He “came not to destroy, but to fulfil.” No merely ceremonial institution, no “_positive_” and transitory law, could have had penalties so awful, or blessings so precious annexed to it, as we find attached to the Sabbath, and that before the advent of the Messiah, and throughout the whole course of Jewish national history. Born as the institution itself was, so to speak, in Paradise; recognised by patriarchs from Noah onward, as indicated by the division of time into weeks; lost and trampled down under the hoof of slavery in Egypt (as it has ever been where slavery has prevailed), but experiencing a resurrection in the wilderness, where Israel was free to serve and sacrifice, to worship and give praise to their fathers’ God—Sinai’s thunders but gave awful sanction and permanent establishment to a “law” which from the beginning had its moral claims over the whole race, and which, irrespective of all typical institutions, was intended for the race as such, and was thus emphatically “MADE FOR MAN.”

Under the Christian dispensation, the seventh portion of time is still consecrated to God, the change of the day but adding a higher and holier lustre and sanction to the Sabbath than it ever possessed before, because it commemorates the resurrection of Him by whom Paradise is to be restored, and who has declared from His throne, “Behold, I make all things new.” His own example and that of His Apostles, as well as of the churches formed by them, and the honour put on “the Queen of days” (as Justin Martyr calls it), by the primitive Church, reminds us that the Lord’s-day claims _our_ homage, _our_ devout and holy observance, too; and that just in proportion as we hallow it, shall we “sanctify the Lord God in our hearts,” and conform our practice to the pristine model of all that is “pure, and lovely, and of good report,” as well as bring down upon our families and upon our country the blessing of Him who is the Governor of nations. No human government, no earthly ruler, therefore, can set aside, or abrogate, or modify the requirements of this law, so as to limit its sacred hours virtually to the half of the scriptural standard, without pouring contempt on the very statute-book of Heaven!

It may be further said that, under the Gospel Dispensation, “the strictness of its observance is relaxed because capital punishment is not to be inflicted on its transgressors, as of old.” We reply that, in the instance cited, capital punishment was inflicted under a theocracy (by God Himself, as the IMMEDIATE GOVERNOR of Israel), and that this was an emblem of that sore and everlasting punishment—that death eternal, which will surely overtake the impenitent transgressors of the Sabbath.

Again: the apologist for the relaxation of Sabbath observance may take shelter under the authority of the Apostle to the Gentiles, and plead that we are free to act as we please, because Paul says, “One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” But we reply, that this passage has special reference to the _feast days_, which some Jewish converts to Christianity thought binding, and others did not; and which the Apostle, in a catholic spirit, left to the discretion of each individual, as conscience might dictate. In the same spirit he says to the Colossians, “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” Now, the Sabbath days here mentioned as not imperatively binding were the _seventh-day_ Sabbaths, and not the _first day_ of the week, the Christian Sabbath, commemorative of the _New Creation_, when God the Son finished the work of Redemption, as God the Father on the seventh day ended the works which He had made.

And here an objector may say, “if the command is to be strictly fulfilled, the _seventh day_ should be observed.” That such an objection should be put forward by any professing Christian is indeed strange. For the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, we have the example of Christ and the Apostles, and the command is in spirit and in truth obeyed by dedicating to the service of God a _seventh portion of time_, that portion in the Christian Church being the first day of the week. In point of fact, it is impossible that identically the same hours can be set apart for Sabbath observance in every part of the world. The sun that sets on Calcutta rises on the towers of Quebec. If two ships leave England, and sail round the globe by different routes, they will have lost a day in their reckoning; the seventh day of the one will be the first of the other. But amidst these variations, arising from the earth’s motion, the Sabbath remains an immutable institute and ordinance of Heaven. It still continues of Divine authority and of perpetual obligation. Under the gospel it is accompanied with fresh claims on our reverence and regard, and it is set apart under the most solemn sanctions for the worship of Jehovah’s name.

Further, it may be pleaded that “it is unjust for those who have leisure and opportunity during the week, to object to the opening of the Crystal Palace on part of the Sabbath, while the masses have no other season for relaxation from daily toil, or for inspecting the wonders of nature and art.” Still we urge the command, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” The day, the whole day, belongs to God; and he has solemnly said, “I hate robbery for burnt offering.” The Lord of the Sabbath day has declared that “the Sabbath was made for man”—yes, and emphatically for the poor man. It is his, as an immortal and responsible being, and his devout observance of it can alone make it to him a blessing and not a curse. It is thus that the poor of this world are to be made “rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him.” _In the estimate of God_, _one day in seven is not too much for either poor or rich to prepare for eternity_.

But in truth this plea is the subterfuge of eager covetousness. While we honour the character and labours of many Christian philanthropists among our merchants and men of business, it cannot be denied that this is a mammon-getting age, and that it is culpably careless of the poor. We desire and plead for fresh air and relaxation for the poor. But it is not by this new plan they can be rightfully secured. Let us see the poor man’s home made comfortable and cleanly; let us cheer on the philanthropic labours of Sabbath-schools, Ragged-schools, and City missions; let us have our workmen’s wages paid on _Friday_, and not at public-houses; and (as was once the case in Scotland, under the sanction alike of custom and of law) let labour cease early on Saturday afternoon. The poor man will thus have ample leisure furnished him to survey the works of nature, or the wonders of art, and breathe the fresh air. Let this be as the preparation for the Sabbath, on whose enclosure neither labour nor pleasure may intrude, because it is “holy ground.”

Another plea remains to be considered. “The tendency of this exhibition (it is said) will be to elevate and purify the mind. Art, and science, and taste, will educate and reform; they will empty the public-houses, and wean the people from gross indulgence.” Still, we say, the day is God’s, and we are not to do evil that good may come. Shut up the public houses, and they cannot be filled. Close those railways, and stop those steam-boats from plying the river, which now allure multitudes from the house of God on the Sabbath. Let us _abolish unscriptural laws_, instead of filling up the measure of our iniquity by a crowning act of guilt. “The sights of the Crystal Palace will educate and purify!” Why, when vice loses its grossness, has it necessarily lost its power? Is it true that statuary and painting, and works of art and genius, can refine and regenerate men? In their own place we despise them not. They bring honour to the great Creator, who is the source of all excellence in genius and skill. But they cannot change the heart, or quicken the conscience, or prepare for eternity. And be assured, that if the Crystal Palace be opened on the Lord’s day, and fifty or sixty thousand spectators be admitted, the nation’s morality will be undermined more surely and more rapidly than ever it was before. What though the use of spirituous liquors be strictly prohibited _within_ the grounds, facilities for obtaining drink _without_ will increase on every hand. Sunday trading will receive a fresh impetus, and the afternoon spent by tens of thousands in these excursions of pleasure, our churches will be emptied and our domestic circles broken up; while, in the train of these evils, personal demoralization will inevitably follow. In this downward career we may, ere long, descend to the position of France. There public galleries are thrown open on the Sabbath, and the multitude stands entranced in admiration before the sculptures and the paintings of the great masters of art. But this people, so polished, and so joyous, are strangers to that deep-toned earnestness and gravity which makes a nation great through the inspiring hopes of a life immortal and divine;—they are “filled with all unrighteousness,” and, in times of political excitement, amid scenes of cruelty and savage violence, they give awful proof that “they have no fear of God before their eyes.”

The new Crystal Palace, now in progress in the neighbourhood of this metropolis, is to be a spacious temple, dedicated to science and art, in which all that is ingenious and beautiful and rare may be exhibited for the improvement and intellectual gratification of the people. This is an object which assuredly every enlightened Christian would applaud and approve, if confined within the limits which Scripture prescribes. We consider it most desirable that facilities should be afforded to our population devoutly to contemplate the works of God, as in glory and beauty they have sprung from his plastic hand, and to survey the marvellous productions of that genius and skill of which He is the Divine original. We believe, science and learning and art, even now, are so many pioneers preparing the way of the Lord; and that at the period when the religion of the cross shall triumph, they will bring all their trophies and lay them down at Emmanuel’s feet. But, my brethren, before that day can come, science, genius, learning, and art, must be “baptized and sanctified:” they must be subordinated to the progress of the Redeemer’s kingdom. And sure I am, that if they are put in the place of religion—if they are brought into collision with, and antagonism to a law that is alike immutable and divine—if they arrogate to themselves half the day which belongs exclusively and entirely to Him who is Lord of the Sabbath—if, in the language of impious presumption, they say, “we have a fane as holy as the Christian temple—our claims to impart instruction are equal to those who preach the gospel to the poor, and who speak of death and judgment, of heaven and hell”—then, I say, science however profound, genius however soaring, art however exquisitely skilful, put forward blasphemous claims; and if we, as a nation, from deference to their pretensions, sanction the public profanation of any portion of the Sabbath, “our root shall be as rottenness, and our blossom shall go up as dust, because we shall have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”

But it may be further said, “that the working classes should not be debarred from bodily rest and relaxation on the Lord’s day.” We cheerfully grant it; but we deny that the opponents of the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sabbath seek to deprive the working man of his Sabbath’s bodily rest from toil. How great the difference between the two classes of working men—those who “rest according to the commandment,” who repair in clean and decent garb to the house of God morning and evening, and spend the intervals of public worship in reading and meditation, or in the instruction of the young. We ask you by personal examination to contrast the refreshment both of mind and body with which this class return to their work on Monday morning, with the jaded spirits, the shattered nerves of the frequenters of steam-boats, the occupants of excursion-trains, the patrons of the tea-garden and the public-house, who go back to labour unrefreshed and unblessed, and too often the victims of surfeiting, drunkenness, and riotous excess. And are we to be told that such an argument is invalid in the present case, because no spirituous liquors are to be sold within the park or the palace on the Lord’s day; when (as present preparations _without_ the walls clearly indicate) we know that the gin-palace and the public-house will thrive and prosper on the traffic of multitudes who will enter them _first_ and visit them _last_, and without whose unhallowed stimulants the sculpture, the flowers, and the fountains would lose half their charms?

And, moreover, instead of Sabbath rest, will not the opening of this building on the Lord’s day lead to _a vast increase of Sabbath labour_? Must there not be a large addition to the staff of railway officials, as well as of police, required, not only on the main line of traffic, but also to attend to, to accommodate, or to keep in order the multitudes who, by excursion-trains on other lines, will fill our streets and crowd our public vehicles on their way to this scene of profanation?

And now, let me conclude by calling on all Christians to come forward without delay, and to raise a loud, united, and solemn protest against this iniquitous project.

If this Protestant nation speak out boldly and decidedly, we do not see that any Minister of the Crown will despise the remonstrance and the warning. And, most of all, we are strong in the confidence, that if the _real_ tendency of this measure is fully explained to our gracious Queen, and if she find that it is disapproved of and abjured by the great religious bodies of the empire, she will not rashly imperil our safety, or be the instrument of establishing a Popish and a divided Sabbath.

Can we, I ask, afford to despise the authority of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe? If He has visited us already with famine and pestilence, two of His “sore judgments,” why may He not, if we persist in rebelling with a high hand, permit us to know, also, the horrors of “war,” and that from the presence of an invading foe? There may be some who trust with confidence to our wooden walls and to our disciplined armies; but we, even while remembering their past achievements and undying renown, dare not do so. If the present ruler of France has boldly resolved to imitate, step by step, the policy of his great and ambitious uncle; and if, as is confidently said, he cherishes with bitter hate the memory of the bloody field where the star of Napoleon’s destiny set for ever; who can tell (if we provoke God to desert us) whether he may not be permitted to make an assault on our island home, which for a time would paralyse our commerce, outrage our liberties, and stain the pride of our boasting confidence in the sight of the whole world?

May that God, before whom our fathers did walk, save us from the guilt which would draw down His vengeance. May He increase among us the number of those whose patriotism is animated and directed by Christian principle. May He give “peace in our borders, and fill us with the finest of the wheat.” May He be “a wall of fire around us, and the glory in the midst!” May he give us grace as a nation so to keep His own Day, that we may reap the blessing with which he has promised to crown its faithful observance:

“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, HONOURABLE; AND SHALT HONOUR HIM, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, NOR FINDING THINE OWN PLEASURE, NOR SPEAKING THINE OWN WORDS: THEN SHALT THOU DELIGHT THYSELF IN THE LORD; AND I WILL CAUSE THEE TO RIDE UPON THE HIGH PLACES OF THE EARTH, AND FEED THEE WITH THE HERITAGE OF JACOB, THY FATHER: FOR THE MOUTH OF THE LORD HATH SPOKEN IT.”—_Isa._ LVIII. 13, 14.

NOTE.

The Rev. D. Moore, in a note to his sermon “Our Sabbaths in Danger,” quotes the following statement, supplied to him from a source which may be “implicitly relied on.”—“There are no less than seven public-houses now in course of erection, or about to be erected, near the Crystal Palace, one of which is to cost £30,000, and to contain stabling for 500 horses, tea-gardens, &c. The road leading from Anerly is literally thronged from ten to six o’clock every Sunday, and persons of all grades are to be seen there, some selling by the way side, others gambling; and in the roads on either sides of the way scenes of the most revolting nature are taking place in open daylight.

“A labouring man, some two or three months since, took a small cottage and large garden in the Anerly road, and opened it as a beer-house and tea-gardens, and he now has from _four to five hundred persons_ in his ground on the Sabbath day. Many more particulars of a like kind might be added, but with great difficulty, owing to the _secrecy observed by all parties_.”

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

In post 8vo., price 3_s._ ROMANISM:

EIGHT LECTURES FOR THE TIMES.

“These lectures deserve the widest circulation.”—_British Banner_.

“Logical, well-informed, and lively, evidently the ripe fruit of former and careful study of the Romish controversy; and the justice done to the Pope will bring credit to the Presbyter.”—_Presbyterian Messenger_.

“They bear the amplest evidence of the most perfect knowledge of the controversy itself; are prepared with the greatest care, and are characterised by the spirit of love for the souls of men, while they are most determined in their opposition both to the Romish and Tractarian error.”—_Christian Guardian and Churchman’s Magazine_.

“Popular, but carefully prepared, and full of useful information. They are well adapted for general perusal, and must have been heard with great acceptance from the lips of the lecturer.”—_Christian Times_.

“Zeal is combined with learning, and argument is enforced by eloquent persuasion throughout the lectures. They have our hearty commendation.”—_Evangelical Christendom_.

_Any profits from the sale of this work will be devoted to the spread of the Gospel in Ireland_.

* * * * *

Second Edition, price 6_d._ SERMON ON THE DEATH OF REV. JOSIAS WILSON, RIVER TERRACE, LONDON. With a Sketch of his Life and Character.

* * * * *

Second Edition, price 6_d._ APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION,

AS TAUGHT BY TRACTARIANS AND ROMANISTS, CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE, PRIMITIVE ANTIQUITY, AND THE FATHERS AND FOUNDERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

* * * * *

In cloth, gilt edges, price 1_s._ LIFE, A VAPOUR.

* * * * *

LONDON: N. H. COTES, 139, CHEAPSIDE.