IT is sincerely hoped that all readers of the Magazine have read carefully the series of articles on the Sabbath from the pen of the late Principal Fairbairn, which concluded with the December issue. It would be difficult for any candid reader who has any regard for the authority of Scripture to avoid being convinced by the lucid reasoning and clear exposition presented in these articles.
As in other fields, the true friends of the Sabbath have more to fear from so-called friends than from open enemies. No one who disregards the authority of Scripture can be expected to agree with the divine authority of the Fourth Commandment. Sad to say, however, there is a large and influential section of the Christian Church who call themselves Evangelical and Fundamental and who claim to adhere to the whole Bible, who maintain that the Decalogue has no more divine authority for the believer than those institutions of the ceremonial law which were merely typical and temporary. We refer to the many interdenominational groups and those within the various denominations who adhere to such widely known authors as the late editor of the Scofield Bible, the editors of the Sunday School Times, L. S. Chafer, and others of the same school who place the institution of the Sabbath on a lower plane than the divine command, and who countenance practices which destroy the sanctity of the Holy Day. These people are invariably pre-Millenarian in their interpretation of prophetic Scripture.
A mild form of this pre-Millenarian view prevailed among some of the early Free Church ministers, including the Bonars. It appears that Principal Fairbairn, in his early career, held this view and wrote a pamphlet in its support. He later, however, changed his opinions and published another pamphlet in support of the opposite view. We understand that both these pamphlets have recently been reprinted in America in one volume.
Another prominent modern author, who was both a pre-Millenarian and anti-Sabbatarian, Philip Mauro, has recently turned right about and publicly renounced his former views and now condemns the teaching of the “Scofield Bible.”
Readers of Fairbairn’s articles will notice that he mentions the fact that Dr. Paley, who did such useful work in other fields, but who was astray in his views of the Sabbath, also repented in his later years and recommended “the keeping holy the Lord’s Day regularly and particularly.” These facts, while not exactly pertinent to our present purpose, are at least interesting and significant.
The Westminster standards are quite explicit on the perpetual and binding obligation of the Fourth Commandment, and it is surprising how little difference of opinion on this point has prevailed throughout the history of the Scottish Church, as well as in the ranks of the Puritans. The first fifty years of the Free Church corresponds approximately with the introduction of steam railways. During the early years of this period we find strenuous opposition to the operation of the railways on the Sabbath. Latterly, when the authority of Scripture began to be undermined, we find a corresponding relaxing of vigilance against the encroachments on the Lord’s Day, and even open attempts by Presbyterian ministers to destroy its sanctity.
It is interesting to notice that the period covered by the Declaratory Act controversy and the advent of the Free Presbyterian Church on the page of ecclesiastical history of Scotland coincides with the widespread introduction of street railway systems in our large cities. These modern conveniences widened the battle front of the Sabbath conflict and brought new problems of teaching and discipline before the Courts of the Church. It would be very wonderful, considering the circumstances, if every step the Church has taken in this connection should have met the approval of all within her pale, and, perhaps, still more so, if no false step has been made. It is the purpose of this present article to review the attitude of our Church towards the particular problem introduced by the operation of these street railways on Sabbath, and we will endeavour to show that the Church from the very beginning has held that such operation is a direct breach of the letter and spirit of the Fourth Commandment, and hence that the use of such conveyances on Sabbath for the purpose of attending public worship is contrary to the Commandment.
Much might be written from personal experience or from the experience of others, or from hearsay evidence regarding cases of discipline or refusal of privileges, but we will confine ourselves to indisputable evidence gleaned from the pages of the Free Presbyterian Magazine. The following extracts speak for themselves:—
March, 1897.—“Travelling in cars is another rampant form of Sabbath desecration. Apart from those who travel for amusement or pleasure, we think it is no less a breach of the Sabbath law for church goers to make use of them. Hearers at a distance may worship at home, and there is no necessity why one divine command should be broken in order to keep another.” (Vol. I., p. 436).
August, 1897.—Sabbath Observance. Deliverance of Synod.—“The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland met at Inverness on 6th July, 1897, viewing with deep concern and alarm the existence at the present day of widespread disrespect and profanation of the holy Sabbath, hereby express their profound sorrow and humiliation at this state of things, and desire, first, to bring before the members and adherents of the Church, and all who are concerned, the weighty obligations that rest upon all men to sanctify the Sabbath; secondly, to deplore and condemn Sabbath desecration in every form and especially in those more obnoxious forms presently prevalent—the running of railway trains and coaches . . . the service of cars and buses in some of our large cities.” The deliverance thus concludes: “The Synod concludes this deliverance by pointing out . . . that it is impossible for any nation to have spiritual or temporal prosperity that does not sanctify the Lord’s Day.” (Vol. II., pp. 126-7).
June, 1901.—Extract from letter, Mr. George Forrest, Ontario, Canada.—”I am sorry to say that the same state of matters prevails on this side of the ocean. A few years ago there was a sharp contest in the city of Toronto with respect to running street cars on the Lord’s Day, and many wrought eagerly and earnestly against the introduction of that profanation of that day of rest. But they did not take high enough ground. They emphasised the evil of depriving the labouring man of his day of rest, but little was said about the divine authority. Surely there must be something very far wrong when it must be submitted to a popular vote whether we will obey God or not: and it must be horrible profanity to give disobedience to Him the sanction of Law. The Lord has not left it to be decided by our vote how the Sabbath is to be observed. He has decided that Himself; and His imperative command is: ‘Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.’” (Vol. VI., p. 71).
January, 1901.—”Sabbath Cars in Edinburgh. On Saturday morning, 30th November, Sabbath-loving citizens of Edinburgh got a most painful surprise. It was intimated in the Press that the tramway company intended the following Sabbath day to run cars . . . It might have been expected, however, that the clergy would have risen up as one man against the new form of desecrating the Lord’s Day, but should the expectation have been cherished, it has been doomed to disappointment. With very few exceptions the professed ambassadors of Christ and defenders of God’s commandments are totally apathetic and inert. Principal Rainy has spoken; of course he was opposed, but on most flimsy grounds; he never mentioned the Fourth Commandment.”
Let us assume now that a kirk-session or a presbytery was divided on the point of refusing the privileges of the Church on the ground of using Sabbath street cars, and that the minority appealed to the Synod. The Synod would, of necessity, have to make a ruling for the guidance of the lower courts. Whether any particular case was before the Synod of 1921 we do not know, but it is well known that some who were office-bearers of the Church were not in agreement with the teaching and practice of the Church on this point. In any case, we find in the records of Synod, as published in the Free Presbyterian Magazine of July, 1931, on pages 82 and 85, the following declaration and resolution:—”The Synod declares in accordance with former resolutions that church privileges, such as baptism, are not to be given to any who engage in Sabbath work (other than works of necessity or mercy), or who travel by trains or cars run in systematic disregard of the Sacred Day . . . .”
Motion against members travelling on street cars on Sabbath: “That it be an understood matter that such as receive church privileges from the Free Presbyterian Church should not make use of trains or street cars run for secular purposes on the Lord’s Day.”
Our paper might very well stop here, but a few general remarks on the subject may be permitted.
It should be remembered that street railways are a very modern invention, and hence not a necessity. No doubt they have themselves created conditions which make them, to some extent, an apparent necessity, but essentially they are not. It must also be remembered that railways and street railway systems as such are in a different category from more simple and private means of transportation. These systems are operated, owned or sanctioned by the civil authority and, as we know them, are operated in open, flagrant defiance of God’s Law. Hence it is imperative that the Church, as such, as well as the individual citizen, must give not only emphatic publicity to her protest, but practical demonstration of their opposition of not being associated in any shape or form with such operation if they are to escape the individual and corporate guilt involved in such disregard of Divine Law.
It is conceivable that a street railway might be operated on the Lord’s Day for the purpose of necessity and mercy only, but as a matter of fact this has never been done, and from an economic point of view would be an absurdity. We can see, therefore, that church-goers by street cars are not only involving themselves in the responsibility for robbing the employees of their Sabbath rest, of asking them to break the command by being at their ordinary occupation, of depriving the citizens as a whole of the quiet and peacefulness of the sacred day, of putting temptation in the way of many to take them away from church and home; but also actually accepting the co-operation and even the financial assistance of the pleasure-seeking multitude in order that they may be provided with a means of being carried comfortably to the house of God. Read Hebrews xi., 36-38.
We confess that we have never been able to learn the difference between a street railway, an electric railway, or a steam railway, as far as the Sabbath use of such is concerned, and we are at a loss to understand how many sincere Christians can get past the implication of the facts here presented. The Free Presbyterian Church, as we have seen, teaches that church-going does not come under the exceptions of “necessity and mercy” found in our standards.
We do not expect to see the day when every member and office-bearer of the Church will see eye to eye on every detail of duty, but we believe that all who have an eye single to the glory of God will be scrupulously concerned as to abstaining from all appearance of evil. Such an attitude, it seems to us, is better calculated to bring peace and prosperity than that which demands the full measure of one’s liberties under the Gospel.
Speaking of intolerance, we venture to say that it is they who are guilty of intolerance, who would prevent us from placing a hedge around ourselves and our families. We cannot prevent them from breaking through the hedge, but for ourselves we prefer to be under the shelter of the Divine Lawgiver and be claiming an interest in the promises given to such as keep His commandments.
The operation of a street car system on Sabbath is, or is not, a breach of the Fourth Commandment. If it is, and we have shown that this has always been the view of the Church, then the matter should be settled as far as the conduct of all loyal Free Presbyterians are concerned.
This position cannot, we believe, be put clearer than it is put by Mr. Forrest in the extract which we have given from his letter published in the early days of the Magazine. Mr. Forrest, of Brucefield, Ontario, Canada, was the leader and spokesman of that group in Ontario, who, in 1901, petitioned the Home Church to send them a minister, and which later joined the Church. All our readers should turn back and read again the extract from his letter we have given.—A Reader.