FOR those of our readers, who are familiar with the history of the Free Presbyterian Church, there was little that was really new or enlightening in the article by the present writer which appeared in the February issue. It was merely intended to be an attempt to define clearly the past and present attitude of the Church towards a serious problem, which is, to all appearance, being ignored by all the other Christian bodies.
A wider survey of the problem of the Sabbath in the modern world appears to be timely, especially for the benefit of the younger people and others who have not been thoroughly indoctrinated in the application of the Fourth Commandment to our existing social and religious life. It is very evident that there is something radically wrong with our boasted Western
civilization when so many millions of our fellows find themselves without the opportunity to earn a livelihood and on the borders of destitution. In looking for a remedy it might not be out of place to suggest that unless the complicated machine, which the genius of our age has created, is operated in harmony with the immutable laws of the Creator of the Universe, we can expect, only present confusion and ultimate collapse.
We believe it to be no small part of the duty of the church to interpret the laws of God in terms of the ever-changing social and economic conditions of mankind and to endeavour by precept and example to lead the way in their universal application. While she has not the power to enforce these laws on those outside her fold yet it is not only her right but her duty to insist that those who are under her spiritual supervision, govern their conduct in accordance with her teaching and so demonstrate to the outside world, not only, that these laws are perfectly adapted to the temporal as well as the eternal wellbeing of human society, but also, that it is only by implicit obedience that we may expect lasting peace and prosperity in family, church and state.
One aspect of the teaching of our church was discussed in the previous article, viz.: that the operation of a street railway system on the Lord’s Day was a direct breach of the Fourth Commandment and, therefore, illegal. At the time of writing that article we were aware of a fact which we could not verify by written evidence. We find however in the F.P. Magazine for May, 1928, a lecture on the Sabbath by Rev. Neil Cameron in which the following occurs:—
“Since 1896 there has been a resolution on the records of the Kirk Session of St. Jude’s, Glasgow, to the effect that no one who worked, or travelled by street cars or trains on the Lord’s day would receive church privileges from the session.” We insert this here as a valid piece of evidence and also as a means of carrying the thread of our previous article into this one, the purpose of which is to show, that in her interpretation of the Commandment our Church is only applying a principle that
has been endorsed almost unanimously by the evangelical party, not only in the Scottish Church but in the churches of England and America.
As we mentioned in our previous article, the introduction of street railways coincided approximately with the early days of the Free Presbyterian Church so that we cannot look for much help in the records of the past. The literature on this particular phase of the Sabbath question being necessarily limited. We also noticed that Principal Rainy was opposed to the running of the Edinburgh cars on Sabbath. He was the leader in the liberal party in the Free Church, which then embraced perhaps more than half of ecclesiastical Scotland. A reasonable inference, we think is, that the majority in Scotland at that time would have opposed the Sabbath operation of the cars if a vote was taken. The writer is not in a position to consult the records of the period except as contained in his own library; anything herein quoted is entirely from that source.
On the general question of Sabbath observance we would like here to point out the general excellence of the work of Rev. John Willison of Dundee, whose writings are so easily available to any who are really anxious to study the subject. The late Bishop Ryle of Liverpool, in an essay on the Sabbath, published in 1882, has the following as a footnote:—”These sermons [Bishop Wilson’s of Calcutta] and ‘Willison on the Lord’s Day’ are by far the two best works on the Sabbath question” (Knots Untied p. 368). Here we have an English Bishop recommending the teaching of Willison, whose directions for Sabbath observance will, we feel sure, put many Free Presbyterians to shame. In the light of Willison we are surely fallen on evil days.
Let us now quote from a tract entitled: “To Travellers by the ‘Sunday’ Tram” being number four, published by the Edinburgh Working Men and Women’s Christian Sabbath Society. “Do you go to church by car? (Street Car). A strange spectacle indeed—a breaker of God’s Law on the way to worship Him. . . Is not obedience better than sacrifice? . . . the end never justifies the means. What about the driver and the conductor? What
right have they to give up their God given heritage to you? What right have you to take it from them? They are to get another day instead! . . . How can that other day be an equivalent for the Sabbath? . . . How can he tell his children to obey the commands of God? . . . Have you forgotten that love is the fulfilling of the law, that the driver and conductor, their wives and children have immortal souls to be tended, nourished, saved—or lost? . . . Keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary. That was the lofty ideal of our Scottish forefathers . . . .”
We will next give some extracts from a 300 page volume published in Edinburgh in 1891 by the Sabbath Observance Society, entitled: “The Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Servants” by the Rev. J. P. Lilley, M.A., being a scholarly Essay, awarded the first prize by the Sabbath Observance Committee of the Free Church of Scotland. The extracts from this and the other sources are worthy of reproduction apart altogether from their immediate bearing on the subject under discussion. When the word “Sunday” occurs in this article it is because we are quoting the exact words of the original. In this and other respects we do not necessarily approve of every word quoted. “The younger generation of the present day have been so familiarised with several encroachments on the Day of Rest, that they have hardly learned to regard them in that character at all. It is not surprising, however, that those who are older, or who were brought up in parts of the country where these practices did not prevail, should think far otherwise. It yet remains to be shown that they are not entirely justified. The right to run Sunday trains, or to deliver ‘Sunday’ mails through the post-office, or to maintain traffic by other conveyances, has never yet been vindicated. Till this is done, we are bound to keep up our attitude of protest” (p. 255). “Rest and worship stand or fall together. The Fourth Commandment is the divinely-appointed safeguard of both. Neglect the Commandment and there is no garrison left on earth that will enduringly withstand the invasions of the world on the sacred day of heaven. This
is the great lesson taught by the history of the Sabbath in the nations of the European Continent. Their Reformers failed to apprehend clearly the relations of the Decalogue to the other parts of the Hebrew legislation . . . in their zeal for Christian liberty they too often left the Lord’s Day without a firm basis in the moral law. Through the church this error has been propagated in the whole life of the people for generations, with the most disastrous results . . . Herein, again, Knox was enabled to avoid all reproach to error. In his view, the Ten Words of Sinai were evidently the publication of a purely moral law of universal and everlasting obligation” (p. 249). Referring to Dr. Norman Macleod’s attack on the Sabbath he says:—”Many showed how deeply he had erred as an interpreter of the Scriptures; but the extent to which he failed to apprehend the larger lessons of history was shown by no one more distinctly than by his friend Dr. F. D. Maurice . . . Dr. Maurice declared, in the dedicatory letter to Dr. Macleod himself, prefixed to his little volume on the ten commandments:—”I believe that the reverence for an unchangeable law and a living Lawgiver has given to the Scotch character its strength and solidity” (p. 250). In an introductory letter to this volume, written by John Greig, J.P., Secretary to the Sabbath Observance Society, he says:—”In many cities omnibuses and tramway cars are also being run on the Sabbath, with the same evil results; and it has been repeatedly affirmed by the press and confirmed in a variety of ways, that even ministers and office-bearers of churches are found travelling by railway on the Sabbath, and are more or less in the habit of using cabs and cars on that day. It surely behoves all Christian men, not only to see that they are guiltless in this matter, but that strenuous efforts are used to put an end to all Sabbath traffic whatever. Nothing less is called for in the Law of God.”
Bishop Ryle, in his work already quoted, has this to say after speaking of the various prevalent ways of Sabbath desecration:—”The public ways of profaning the Sabbath I have referred to are likely often to be thrust on our notice, if we live many years
in England. Let us remember that they are an open breach of God’s commandment. Let us have nothing to do with them ourselves, and let us use every lawful means in our power, both publicly and privately, to prevent others having anything to do with them. Let us not mind the epithets of puritans, pharisees, methodists, bigoted and narrow-minded or be moved by the specious arguments of newspaper writers . . . Whatever others may think lawful let our sentence ever be that one day in seven, and one whole day, ought to be kept holy to God” (p. 383).
The famous Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, chapter on the Fourth Commandment, says:—”It is a condition of service in connection with any railroad which is operated on ‘Sundays,’ that the employee be not a Christian” III. p. 346).
The following is from an American book, “The Sabbath for Man,” by W. F. Crafts, 1892 edition; “Petition by four hundred and fifty of his locomotive engineers to President W. H. Vanderbilt for the cessation of ‘Sunday’ labour on his railroad. After pointing out how Sabbath labour had become a great hardship, they continue:—”Our objections to ‘Sunday’ labour are: The customs of all civilized countries as well as all laws, human and divine, recognise ‘Sunday’ as a day of rest and recuperation; and notwithstanding intervals of rest might be arranged for us on other days, we feel that so doing we would be forced to exclude ourselves from all church, family, and social privileges that other citizens enjoy. . . . nearly all the undersigned have children that they desire to have educated in everything that will tend to make them good men and women, and we cannot see that our example in ignoring the Sabbath day has a demoralizing influence upon them.” The comment follows:—”The refusal to grant this petition will be heard on some judgment day, in this world or the other, or both” (p. 294). The same author further says: “What I have described as the only defensible ground of Sabbath observance, centering in the heights of a public conscience that recognizes the day as of divine authority, with an impartial prohibition of all needless
work on one flank and all public amusements on the other, is more perfectly realized in Toronto than in any other large city of the world, and there proves itself both practical and popular. Even a proposition to allow ‘Sunday’ street cars was refused by the ratepayers in 1892 by a vote of 14,000 to 10,000″ (p. 21). But this was forty years ago.
Turning again to Mr. Lilley’s Essay, which was written at the time when street cars were being introduced we find the following:—”A young minister of our acquaintance once took advantage of this system on a wet Sabbath morning, and, when it was too late to change, found himself in the company of several acquaintances bent on having a day’s outing in the country. The experience was too painful to repeat it or commend it to others; for he felt that, in spite of the attempt in this way to save time and remain at home and avoid the trouble of hospitality at his own or other households, he was still countenancing a traffic that had its root in worldly motives, and was operating as a persistent temptation to the people of the neighbourhood to violate the Fourth Commandment . . . . Whatsoever is not of faith is sin . . . . Where the power of conscience is only but slightly relaxed, a preacher cannot speak with the same tone of unwavering conviction. The Spirit of God is thus also grieved and where He withholds His power, who shall command success?” (p. 126).
It does not appear to have occurred to our essayist that a mere worshipper might have presumed to use the cars; however, in some respects he appears to be more scholarly than robust and no doubt reflects the general attitude of the leaders of the Free Church previous to 1893. At any rate something seems to be lacking, and this may turn out to be the very thing we are looking for. Perhaps we will find it in this same essay. Let us turn to page 125. Speaking of those who show the most neglect of the Sabbath and its services, he proceeds:—”Church discipline is a saving ordinance of Christ, and it is more readily
conceivable than some imagine, that the faithful exercise of it might produce improvement.”
We would like here to insert some quotation by way of recording the opposition by the Evangelical Churches of Glasgow and some other cities against the introduction of Sabbath tramways; and the injustice done to former employees of these systems, who were compelled for conscience sake to give up their means of livelihood, and who took joyfully the spoiling of their goods that they might have a better and an enduring substance. These things are vivid personal recollections but we have no access to the records of the period.
If faith without works is dead what shall we say of doctrine without corresponding practice. Is it not time that this potent weapon, which has been given to the church, was given an honest trial. It is right that the civil authority should safeguard the rights of the citizens so that they may be at liberty to observe the Lord’s day according to the command; but how can the church point out the line of duty to the state if she herself countenances openly the very thing which, according to her teaching, is illegal.
It has been said that the Free Presbyterian Church has overstepped the limits of her constitutional powers in her legislation on the Sabbath question. We do not profess familiarity with the technicalities of ecclesiastical polity but would merely venture as our humble opinion; that if this charge is true, then it is time that the constitution was changed so as to permit the church to practice what she preaches. We do not commit ourselves to everything that the church has done, but as indicated in our former article we are in full sympathy with the Church’s attitude on this question.
In presenting this second article on the Sabbath question, we would wish to adopt Luther’s saying: “When you meet with anything of no worth, delete it, delete it” as our own and recommend to the reader; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—READER.
The late Mr. Alexander Maclean, Elder, Glendale.
ALEXANDER MACLEAN, the eldest of a large family, was born at Glendale, Skye, in the year 1856. He had the privilege of having godly parents who brought up their children in a Christian manner, and by their own life and conversation set before them an example of how a Christian life should be led. His father, Donald Maclean, was a man who was greatly respected, and during his whole lifetime was noted for his carefulness in word and deed.
Alexander was a good Gaelic scholar. Few could equal him in the reading of God’s Word. He followed the occupation of his father—being a fisherman. He told that on two occasions while at the East Coast, the crew of the boat lost all hope during a storm. No doubt such an incident had an effect on his mind. We are not able to say at what time in his life the change came, but that it did take place was abundantly evident. He had no hesitation in casting in his lot with the Free Presbyterian cause in 1893, and he never regretted nor was ashamed of the stand he took. He was in full membership for thirty-one years and was made an elder some twenty-five years ago.
He was of a very humble and quiet disposition, yet firm as a rock to his own convictions. He took no step unless convinced in his own mind that he was doing the right thing, and he made sure of his ground before acting, with the result that he always adhered to principles that he considered scriptural.
In prayer and in speaking to “the Question” on the Friday at Communion seasons, his simplicity and tenderness drew the hearts of many towards him, as they felt that they were listening to one of whom it could be said:—”Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.”
During the greater part of his life he was afflicted with a severe form of stomach trouble, which he bore with Christian patience. This ultimately was the cause of his death. Soresly afflicted as he was, he was very rarely absent from the means of grace until about three months before the end. In the month of
December last he had a bad attack which rendered him unable to go out much. On the Thursday previous to New Year’s night, he was unable to attend the fellowship meeting, but he made an effort to go out on New Year’s Eve, which was his last.
Shortly afterwards he took to his bed, and it was quite obvious to his friends that life was fast ebbing away. Many of the Lord’s people visited him. He was asked by one of the elders on one occasion, if he had any hopes of recovery. “I don’t know,” he replied. “You were never so sick as you are this time,” continued his friend. “Yes,” he answered, “one other time.” “Were you more willing to die then than you are now?” he was asked. “No,” he replied, “I am more willing to die now.” As soon as he uttered these words, the verse beginning with “Happy art thou O Israel,” came with such light and power to his friend that he felt convinced that his dear brother was nearing the borders of the promised land.
Although he suffered pain during the last few weeks, he was so reconciled to the will of the Lord that he was not heard to murmur. His mind was always on the things above, even when his memory failed him. It was very evident that his heart was knit to Christ and to His cause in the world. His mind was always, although in a semi-conscious condition, in the house of God, where, we believe, his soul had tasted time and again of the precious manna of the pure gospel.
His removal causes a deep blank in the congregation of Glendale, where his person, endowed with such sterling qualities as befitted his office, will be long remembered.—M. M.