REVIEW.

Evening Star, Issue 2799, 6 February 1872, Page 2

REVIEW.

“ The Law of the Sabbath Day," by IT. Downk Stewart, Esq., published in “ The Evangelist ” for January and February. It is not often that we peruse and reperuse articles appearing in our monthly contemporary. They are generally too full of theology for us. In the January and February numbers, however, two articles have appeared which advocate new laws, or the reproduction of old statutes, and with them we would deal, having derived amusement if not profit from their perusal These articles are written by W. Downie Stewart, Esq. By-the-by, it is not usual, we believe, to annex “ Esq.” to the names of writers in magazines, but as we are in the colonies, a departure from the English custom may be defended. Before dealing with the Sabbath laws that Mr Stewart would like to see enforced, it may be instructive to our readers to give them some of Stewart’s peculiar English, and also a few of the discoveries he has made in the progress of his studies on this “ important subject.” In the first sentence we are told “ moralists, jurists, and legislators, have written and spoken somewhat fully on this important subject.” We never knew before that moralists, jurists, and legislators, liad so much, time at their disposal as to write “ somewhat fully ” on the Law of the Sabbath Day ? But if we were surprised at the first sentence, the second fairly puzzled us It reads;—“lt is ore regarding the application of which much ditfere ce of opinion prevails in the colony.” Application of what ? Surgeons often apply blisters and plasters, but does any one except Mr Stewart apply “ this important subject ” for any purpose whatever. Doctors disagree, is a trit proverb, and hence we need not be surprised if “ much difference of opinion prevails in the colony. ” The fourth sentence is not only slovenly written, the articles being misused, but it may mean anything or nothing. It runs :—“ The views of moralists are available to most of our readers, but those of the jurists and the legislators arc “ somewhat difficult of access.” Why is the article placed before Jurists” snd f‘legislators ” ? Again, what views ? Dissolving views ? Put it is not only that the English is bad; it seems to us that some of the statements are also inaccurate —eg.: “ Those opinions and statutes will shew that the proper observance of the Lord’s Day is recognised by and embedded in the common and the statute laws of England.” We did not know ere this article appeared that England possessed “common laws,” but we suppose this waut of knowledge has arisen from the views of the Jurists apd the legislators ' being someuhat difficult of access to us. We shall only allude to a few more spedmens of Mr Stewart’s English : those wishing to study it had better purchase “ The Evangelist.” We read—“ Provision is also made by which no drover, horse, courser, &c., their or any of their servants, shall travel or come into his or their inn or lodging on the Lord’s Da}’, under a penalty of twenty shillings for every offence.” Fancy a “horse” being fine i at the Mayor’s Court for his servant going to the horse’s inn ! In another place we read—“ The question not unnaturally arises, In whom does the Government reside ? ” We did not know the Government ever resided in any one. Yet again—“ There are some statutes which have no special bearing on the Sabbath Day.” For which statement let us reverently return thanks 1 It is fortunate for New Zealand that every statute does not provide for the punishment of Sabbath-breakers. Mr Stewart states —“ That the Legislature will, if pecessapy, protect the Scriptures ffotu abuse.” Pity that the English language had not the like protection ! One sentence more, and we have done with Mr Stewart’s grammar—“ Turning to local legislation on this subject, we find that the Provincial Council of Otago, on the Bth day of November, 1802, pas-ed an Ordinance whose objects were to prevent transactions in business, shooting and playing respectively, on Sunday, under a penalty of L 10.” We hope all “transactions” in “shooting and playing respectively ” have been prevented by this Ordinance ! Mr Stewart’s position, so far as we are able to learn it from his articles, is this :—■ In England laws have been passed against certain kinds of work being done on the first day of the week ; therefore like laws should be passed here. By the same logic the New Zealand Parliament ought to re-enact the statute, “ De Herefico Comburendo." Mr Stewart, however, limits his general statement by the assertion that “ all human laws aro supposed to be founded on the revealed will of God and the law of nature; and such as are repugnant to either of those are not binding, and we are excused from observing them.” A somewhat dangerous assertion coming from a lawyer ! This admission, however, outs at the root of Mr Stewart’s whole argument; for if we are bound to obey only those laws which we believe are founded in the Bible (for so we understand the phrase “the revealed will of God ”) then after all Mr Stewart ought first to have proved that by the Bible we are bound to abstain from “ all worldly employment or recreation ” on the first day of the week. If a million statutes enacted its observance, “we w’ould be excused from observing them,” except the Bible also enforced its observapec.

Mr Stewart, however, is not content with this position. Xu the second article he tike* up another. Apparently we live in a St te “that possesses Christianity,” having by-the-bye a Jew for its chief Kxecntive officer —and the State being Christian, it is just to punish all tho-e who do not observe dajs thought sacred by a minority of Christians. The majority have, according to Mr Stewart, full power to coerce tbe minority, whenever they think fit. “it may,” he says, “with propriety be urged that whatever religious views the great body of the people holds, respect should be paid thereunto, at the same doing no violence, or as little, as the circumstances admit , to the opinions and feelings of the minority,” We suppose fining the unfortunate minority ten pounds each would be “as litt e as the circumstances would admit.” Mr Stewart has assumed that the majority of the people in Otago are believers in a I'uritauic Sabbath, but he may be mistaken. “ Toleration in thinking is of the highest importance, and should therefore ever be sacredly protected,” says Mr Stewart; but if you express your thoughts you will be fined perhaps tm pounds. When such opinions as Mr IStewart gives utterance to arc held, we may be thankful that even “ toleration in thinking” is given ns. Beg irding the metaphysics and the snatches of theology in the articles, we have nothing to say. They arc what might have been penned by a Presbyterian three hundred years ago. One sentence in metaphysics only, vve quote —“ Whether we are stimulated by such a sense [innate moral sense], or are in pursuit of our own happiness and that of our feliowmeu, we must zealously guard against transgressing human laws.” Mot having attended the “Moral Science ” class at our University, we are in doubt what this sentence really means. Can one who is “ stimulated ,” by an innate moral sense, not pursue bis own happiness and that of his feliowmeu ? If not, so much the worse for tbe innate moral sense. We take leave of Mr Stewart, and hope that before he again ventures to publish his thoughts, he will have studied not only his Mother tongue more, but also some work on “ toleration in acting ” We in Otago are not likely to allow what was sanctioned in Scotland about two centuries ago- deacons of churches, employed as searchers for Sabbath breakers, and Kirk Sessions punishing by fine all who disobeyed the commands of the Kirk.