The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2823, 6 March 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1872.

The Mayor’s ruling in the case of Police v. Lockwood, was bad ecclesiastically. He laid down tbe absurd doctrine that the 29th Charles Second, was to prevent the “ desecration of the « Lord’s Day, the observance of which is inculcated by the Christian religion

« which it seems to me is part of the t law of England.” Here it is assumed that the English Legislature is to decide what is and what is not “ dese- “ oration of the Sabbath.” Our business to-day is to shew that the practice of the Church and of the English Legislature as to the manner of observing the Lord’s Day, have varied in different ages, and we think even our puritanical Mayor will hardly have the hardihood to say that the Church is not quite as good an authority us himself as to what is and what is not dese- “ oration.” In the first ages of the Church, Christians went about their ordinary work on that day, aitoi having met together for worship before daybreak. No doubt many of them had no choice in the matter, as they were slaves but at any rate the Gluu ch did not condemn them. Gradually as the doctrines of Christianity gained credence, the Lord’s Day became more generally observed, and as “ early as “ t he end of the second century, ab- “ stinence from worldly business “ seems to have been, customary. We learn this from the account given of the early Christian practice by Tertullian, There was, however, this peculiarity—“ It was “ accounted a day of rejoicing, a feast, li and not a fast, and to fast upon this “ day was deemed unlawful. Upon it “ the Christians prayed standing, in- “ stead of kneeling, to intimate tire “ elevation of their hopes through their Lord’s resurrection.” It is very plain that without the help of temporal powers, the Lord’s Day was observed by the Church without any legal burdens, and it was only after the Government of different countries became what Mr Fish terms “Christian,” that any meddling took place with men s liberties. The Emperor Constantine was the first to interfere in 321. He began by forbidding the transaction ot all business except the “ manumission “of slaves,” and agricultural labor. Eusebius adds also, “ all military exer- “ cises.” A century afterwards Theodosius the Second forbid games and theatrical exhibitions. In Christian England the manner in which Sunday was observed according to law, varied wtih fluctuations of opinion. “ The “ common law,” says a legal writer, “ is “ silent as to the observance of Sunday, “ and it seems once to have been “ the practice not only to exercise “ worldly callings on that day, but “ also especially to devote some part “ of it at least to sports and pastimes, “ such as now prevail in some Conti<l nental countries, both Protestant and “ Roman Catholic.” Plays are said to have been performed on Sundays at the Court of Elizabeth, and as late as Charles the First. The first statutory restriction seems to have been passed by Henry the Sixth, by which fairs and markets were abolished on forfeiture of the goods offered for sale, excepting on four Sundays in harvest. After the Reformation, the sth and 6th Edward the Sixth assigns the regulation of holidays to the Church, but enacts that all Sundays in the year shall be kept holidays ; but it provides that in “ harvest or any other time “ when necessity shall require, any “ kind of work may be done in those “ days. No penalty is attached to the “ infringement of this Act,” Oranmer is said to have suggested its provisions. By the Ist Elizabeth, cap. 2, persons absent from church without reasonable excuse were finable each twelvepence. This was the re-cominencemcnt of legal burdens for ecclesiastical offences, and it is instructive as shewing how little of religions principle is imported into the meddling of the State with the Church. Puritanism, which had its rise about the close of the sixteenth century, some forty years afterwards, achieved political influence. An able writer of the Puritans :

They appear to have entertained a greater predilection for the history and economy of the Jews as contained in the Old Testament, than had hitherto been exhibited in the Christian world. Borrowing its phraseology, they styled and considered themselves God’s people, while they bestowed upon their enemies the title of Egyptians and Amalckites. At the same time they began to style Sunday—a term which they thought profane, as derived from Saxon idolatry—the “Sabbath,” or “The Lord’s Day,” names which were not used in the statutes previous to that period. In accordance with this mode of thinking, they seem to have been of opinion that the Christian Sunday should be observed in the same manner as the Jewish Sabbath. It was with a view to counteract such opinions, that, in 1618, James the First wrote his “Book of Sports,” in which he declares that dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May-games, Whitsixn-alos, and Morris dances, were lawful, and that no such honest mirth or relation should be forbidden to his subjects aft«r evening service. He says the prohibition. of them led to filthy tippling and druußttin ss. Before his time the practice of areflfery on holy-days had been enjoined by various Acts of Parliament; and butts were directed to be set up for the purpose, at which the parishioners vs. re to shoot after divine service.

This “ Book of Sports” was republished by Charles the First, jvho is styled in the ritual of the Church of England “ the Martyr.” It remained for his son, the most dissolute monarch that ever disgraced a throne, excepting,

perhaps, Nero or George the Fourth, to sanction, as Head of the English Church, the Act which Mr Fish now seeks to give force to in Dunedin. Tt will be seen from this slight outline of the history of opinion respecting the manner in which Sunday is to be observed, that, in proportion as it has become the subject of legislation, it has played with the liberty of the subject so as altogether to lose its significance as a religious institution. When it was in the hands of the Church, it retained its symbolical character, but J when the State began to meddle with it, it assumed first one aspect and then another —first it was a day of riot, then a day of gloom, and it will be seen, when we treat of the error of Mr Fish’s ruling in its social aspect, that the burdens imposed by that most Christian English monarch, Charles the Second, were found so unbearable that several relaxations were found necessary. It is very plain that Mr Fish cannot gather what desecration of the Sabbath is from the vacillatiug law of England, and that his view is not that of the primitive church, nor is it suited to the Christianity of to-day. It is bad ecclesiastically.