WICKED MARKS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1960, 5 June 1880, Page 2

WICKED MARKS.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sib, — Public attention having been called to this case of religious pe-secution and gross interference with the liberties of the subject, I wish, with your permission, to offer a few remarks on the subject. In the first place, it is a significant fact that it is necessary to go back to a period when the English nation were in a condition half way between savagery and the present (so-called) state of civilisation to find an act under which a prosecution can be sustained. In the interest of that civilisation, it is a great pity that the whole of these antiquated acts have not been repealed en mas.'e, and where necessary replaced by acts sni ed to the altered requirements of a couple of centuries. These old acts have done an immense amount of mischief, continually interfering with the liberties of the subject, and defeating the ends of justice ; the Timaru forgery case is an instance in point of the latter, and Marks’ case of the former. Regarding the religious aspect of the case, it is astonishing how few there are that know that the institution of the Sabbath is neither Christian, ancient, or reasonable. The law for the observance of the Sabbath is of Jewish origin, and not a single passage occurs in the scriptures authorising the tranference of the obligations of the Sabbath of the Jews to the first day of the Christians ; in fact, they who would consistently keep the fourth commandment, must keep the seventh day, and not the first. As a matter of fact, the early Christiana did not keep the Sabbath, and for more than one thousand year- the name of Sabbath, as applied to the first day of the week was unknown. In the early part of the sixteenth century, this Sabbatarian movement (then called a heresy) began to show in force ; and Erasmus, in 1516, observed with regret the tendency towards Judaism, and denounced it as a pest, the most dangerous to Christianity. Up to 1647 the Standard of the Church of Scotland was silent upon the duty of keeping holy the Sabbath day. The fathers of the reformation protested against it, Cranmer, Calvin, and Luther especially. The latter aaye, in speaking of the Ten Commandments, “ There is no necessity for its observance, and if any one insists upon it,” ho adds, “ then I order you to work upon it, to ride upon it, to feast upon it, to dance upon it, to do anything which shall reproach this encroachment upon the Christian spirit and liberty.” This is rather warm for Sabbatarians. These people remind one of the story told by Dr. Doran, of the old Scotchwoman who thought that walking on the Sabbath-day was a deadly sin, and who, on being reminded that Jesus himself bad walked in the corn fields on the Sabbath Day, replied, “ Ah, wee!, it is as ye say, but I think nane the bettor o’ him for it.” This illustration applies to all Sabbatarians. They are more Christian that the founder of Christianity himself. The spirit of religious persecution still exists ; it a curious anomaly that the class who demand the greatest amount of religious liberty for themselves are the first to practice iotoleration towards others who differ from, them. Such a etate of things is in opposition to the spirit of justice, which is that every man should do as he likes provided he does not injure anyone else by doing so. I am not aware that Mr Marks has injured anyone by opening his shop on Sundays ; at any rate, I have no doubt the intelligent portion cf the public will support him. Indeed, I believe there is a proposition to start a subscription fund for the purpose of defraying the costs of appeal should Mr Marks decide to carry the case to a higher Court. Should such a fund be started, Mr Marks may count upon my guinea. I am, &e., JUSTICE.