THE 4th
COMMANDMENT
by
Charles Hodge
1797-1878
PART 2 OF 2
CLICK TO RETURN TO » PART 1
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Exodus 20:8
How is the Sabbath to be Sanctified?
It may be said in general terms to be the opinion of the whole Jewish and
Christian Church, that the sanctification required by God, consists not
merely in cessation from worldly avocations, but also in the consecration
of the day to the offices of religion. That this is the correct view is
proved,
-
- (1.) Not only by the general consent of the people of God under
both dispensations, but also by the constant use of the words to
"hallow," to "make" or, "keep holy," and to
"sanctify." The uniform use of such expressions, shows that the
day was set apart from a common to a sacred use.
- (2.) From the command to
increase the number of sacrifices in the temple service, which proves that
the day was to be religiously observed.
- (3.) From the design of the
institution, which from the beginning was religious; the commemoration of
the work of creation, and after the advent, of the resurrection of Christ.
- (4.) In Leviticus 23., a list is given of those days on which there was to
be "a holy convocation" of the people; i.e., on which the people
were to be called together for public worship, and the Sabbath is the
first given.
- (5.) The command is constantly repeated that the people
should be faithfully instructed out of the law, which was to be read to
them on all suitable occasions. To give opportunity for such instruction
was evidently one of the principal objects of these "holy
convocations." (Deut. 6:6, 7, 17-19; Josh. 1:8.) This instruction of
the people was made the special duty of the Levites (Deut. 33:10); and of
the priests. (Lev. 10:11, comp. Mal. 2:7.) The reading of the law was
doubtless a regular part of the service on all the days on which the
people were solemnly called together for religious worship. Thus in
Deuteronomy 31:11, 12, we read, "When all Israel is come to appear
before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt
read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people
together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within
thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD
your God, and observe to do all the words of this law." Such was the
design of the convocation of the people. We know from the New Testament
that the Scriptures were read every Sabbath in the synagogues; and the
synagogues were among the earliest institutions of the chosen people.
2Kings 4:23, at least proves that at that period it was customary for the
people to resort on the Sabbath to holy men for instruction. In Psalm 74:8, it is said of the
heathen, "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land." The word
here
rendered "synagogues," means "assemblies," but burning
up "assemblies" can only mean places of assembly; as burning up
churches, in our mode of expression, can only mean the edifices where
churches or congregations are accustomed to assemble. What other places of
assembling the Psalmist could refer to, if synagogues did not then exist,
it is hard to understand. But admitting that synagogues were not common
among the Jews until after the exile, which is a very improbable
supposition, the fact that reading the Scriptures on the Sabbath was an
established part of the synagogue service, goes far to prove that it was a
sabbatical service long before the exile.
- (6.) The place of the fourth
command in the Decalogue; the stress laid upon it in the Old Testament;
the way in which it is spoken of in the prophets; and the Psalms appointed
to be used on that day, as for example the ninety-second, all show that
the day was set apart for religious duties from the beginning.
- (7.) This
may also be argued from the whole character of the old dispensation. All
its institutions were religious; they were all intended to keep alive the
knowledge of the true God, and to prepare the way for the coming of
Christ. It would be entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the Mosaic
economy to assume that its most important and solemn holy day was purely
secular in its design.10
[10 The doctrine that the Jewish Sabbath was simply a day of
relaxation from labour, was advanced among Protestants towards the close of the seventeenth
century by Selden, in his work De Legibus Hebroeorum. This opinion was adopted by
Vitringa in the fi book of his Observationes Sacroe. It is also advocated by B„hr in his
Sumb. des Mos tus. The contrary doctrine was adopted by all the Reformers, and by the
great body of Christian theologians; and is ably sustained by Hengstenberg in his treatise
Ueber den Tag des Herrn, pp. 29-41. This subject is discussed in the January number of
the Princeton Review for 1831, pp. 86-134. VOL. III. 22 ]
It is admitted that the precepts of the Decalogue bind the Church in all
ages; while the specific details contained in the books of Moses, designed
to point out the way in which the duty they enjoined was then to be
performed, are no longer in force. The fifth commandment still binds
children to obey their parents; but the Jewish law giving fathers the
power of life and death ever their children, is no longer in force. The
seventh commandment forbids adultery, but the ordeal enjoined for the
trial of a woman suspected of that crime, is a thing of the past. The same
principle applies to the interpretation of the fourth commandment. The
command itself is still in force; the Mosaic laws respecting the mode of its observance have
passed away with the economy to which they belonged. It is unjust therefore to represent the
advocates of the continued obligation of the fourth commandment, as Judaizers. They are
no more Judaizers than those who hold that the other precepts of the
Decalogue are still in force.
There are two rules by which we are to be guided in determining how the Sabbath
is to be observed, or in deciding what is, and what is not lawful on that
holy day. The first is, the design of the commandment. What is consistent
with that design is lawful; what is inconsistent with it, is unlawful. The
second rule is to be found in the precepts and example of our Lord and of
his Apostles. The design of the command is to be learned from the words in
which it is conveyed and from other parts of the word of God. From these
sources it is plain that the design of the institution, as already
remarked, was in the main twofold. First, to secure rest from all worldly
cares and avocations; to arrest for a time the current of the worldly life
of men, not only lest their minds and bodies should be overworked, but
also that opportunity should be afforded for other and higher interests to
occupy their thoughts. And secondly, that God should be properly
worshipped, his word duly studied and taught, and the soul brought under
the influence of the things unseen and eternal. Any man who makes the
design of the Sabbath as thus revealed in Scripture his rule of conduct on
that day, can hardly fail in its due observance. The day is to be kept
holy unto the Lord. In Scriptural usage to hallow or make holy is to set
apart to the service of God. Thus the tabernacle, the temple, and all its
utensils were made holy. In this sense the Sabbath is holy. It is to be
devoted to the duties of religion, and what is inconsistent with such
devotion, is contrary to the design of the institution.
It is however to be remembered that the specific object of the Christian
Sabbath is the commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead. All the exercises of the day, therefore, should have a special
reference to Him and to his redeeming work. It is the day in which He is
to be worshipped, thanked, and praised; in which men are to be called upon
to accept his offers of grace, and to rejoice in the hope of his
salvation. It is therefore a day of joy. It is utterly incongruous to make
it a day of gloom or fasting. In the early Church men were forbidden to
pray on their knees on that day. They were to stand erect, exulting in the
accomplishment of the work of God's redeeming love.
The second rule for our guidance is to be found in the precepts and example of
our Lord. In the first place, He lays down the principle, "The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." It is to be
remarked that Christ says, "the Sabbath was made for man," not
for the Jews, not for the people of any one age or nation, but for man;
for man as man, and therefore for all men. Moral duties, however, often
conflict, and then the lower must yield to the higher. The life, the
health, and the well-being of a man are higher ends in a given case, than
the punctilious observance of any external service. This is the rule laid
down by the prophet (Hosea 6:6): "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice;
and the knowledge of God more than burnt offering." This passage our
Lord quotes twice in application to the law of the Sabbath, and thus
establishes the general principle for our guidance, that it is right to do
on the Sabbath whatever mercy or a due regard to the Comfort or welfare of
ourselves or others requires to be done. Christ, therefore, says
expressly, "It is lawful to do well ({gk, }, that is, as the context
shows, to confer benefits) on the Sabbath days." (Matt. 12:12. See
also Mark 3:4.)
Again, we are told by the same authority, that "the priests in the temple
profane the Sabbath and are blameless." (Matt. 12:5.) The services of
the temple were complicated and laborious, and yet were lawful on the
Sabbath. On another occasion He said to his accusers, "If a man on
the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be
broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whir whole on
the Sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment." (John 7:23, 24.) From this we learn that
whatever is necessary for the due celebration of religious worship, or for
attendance thereon, is lawful on the Sabbath.
Again in Luke 14:1-14, we read, "And it came to pass, as he went into the
house of one of the chief Pharisees, to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that
they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before him, which
had the dropsy. And Jesus answering, spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees,
saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? And they held their
peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. ..... And he put
forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose
out the chief rooms; saying unto them," etc., etc. This was evidently
a large entertainment to which guests were "bidden." Christ,
therefore, thought right, in the prosecution of his work, to attend on such entertainments on
the Sabbath.
The frequency with which our Lord was accused of Sabbath-breaking by the
Pharisees, proves that his mode of observing that day was very different
from theirs, and the way in which He vindicated himself proves that He
regarded the Sabbath as a divine institution of perpetual obligation. It
had been easy for Him to say that the law of the Sabbath was no longer in
force; that He, as Lord of the Sabbath, erased it from the Decalogue. It
may indeed be said that as the whole of the Mosaic law was in force until
the resurrection of Christ, or until the day of Pentecost, the observance
of the Sabbath was as a matter of course then obligatory, and therefore
that Christ so regarded it. In answer to this, however, it is obvious to
remark, that Christ did not hesitate to abrogate those of the laws of
Moses which were in conflict with the spirit of the Gospel. This He did
with the laws relating to polygamy and divorce. Under the old dispensation
it was lawful for a man to have more than one wife; and also to put away a
wife by giving her a bill of divorcement. Both of these things Christ
declared should not be allowed under the Gospel. The fact that He dealt
with the Sabbath just as He did with the fifth, sixth, and seventh
precepts of the Decalogue, which the Pharisees had misinterpreted, shows
that He regarded the fourth commandment as belonging to the same category
as the others. His example affords us a safe guide as to the way in which
the day is to be observed.
The Sunday Laws.
It is very common, especially for foreign-born citizens, to object to all
laws made by the civil governments in this country to prevent the public
violation of the Lord's Day. It is urged that as there is in the United
States an entire separation of the Church and State, it is contrary to the
genius of our institutions, that the observance of any religious
institution should be enforced by civil laws. It is further objected that
as all citizens have equal rights irrespective of their religious
opinions, it is an infringement of those rights if one class of the people
are required to conform their conduct to the religious opinions of another
class. Why should Jews, Mohammedans, or infidels be required to respect
the Christian Sabbath? Why should any man, who has no faith in the Sabbath
as a divine institution, be prevented from doing on that day whatever is
lawful on other days? If the State may require the people to respect Sunday as a day of rest,
why may it not require the people to obey any, or all other precepts of the Bible?
State of the Question.
It is conceded,
- (1.) That in every free country every man has equal rights
with his fellow-citizens, and stands on the same ground in the eye of the
law.
- (2.) That in the United States no form of religion can be
established; that no religious test for the exercise of the elective
franchise or for holding of office can be imposed; and that no preference
can be given to the members of one religious denomination above those of
another.
- (3.) That no man can be forced to contribute to the support of
any church, or of any religious institution.
- (4.) That every man is at
liberty to regulate his conduct and life according to his convictions or
conscience, provided he does not violate the law of the land.
On the other hand it is no less true
- 1. That a nation is not a mere conglomeration of individuals. It is an
organized body. It has of necessity its national life, its national
organs, national principles of action, national character, and national
responsibility.
- 2. In every free country the government must, in its organization and mode of
action, be an expression of the mind and will of the people.
- 3. As men are rational creatures, the government cannot banish all sense and
reason from their action, because there may be idiots among the people.
- 4. As men are moral beings, it is impossible that the government should act
as though there were no distinction between right and wrong. It cannot
legalize theft and murder. No matter how much it might enrich itself by
rapine or by the extermination of other nations, it would deserve and
receive universal condemnation and execration, should it thus set at
nought the bonds of moral obligation. This necessity of obedience to the
moral law on the part of civil governments, does not arise from the fact
that they are instituted for the protection of the lives, rights, and
property of the people. Why have our own and other Christian nations
pronounced the slave-trade piracy and punishable with death? Not because
it interferes with the rights or liberty of their citizens but because it
is wicked. Cruelty to animals is visited with civil penalties, not on the
principle of profit and loss, but because it is a violation of the moral
law. As it is impossible for the individual man to disregard all moral obligations, it is no less
impossible on the part of civil governments.
- 5. Men moreover are religious beings. They can no more ignore that element of
their nature than their reason or their conscience. It is no matter what
they may say, or may pretend to think, the law which binds them to
allegiance to God, is just as inexorable as the law of gravitation. They
can no more emancipate themselves from the one than they can from the
other. Morality concerns their duty to their fellow-men; religion concerns
their duty to God. The latter binds the conscience as much as the former.
It attends the man everywhere. It must influence his conduct as an
individual, as the head of a family, as a man of business, as a
legislator, and as an executive officer. It is absurd to say that civil
governments have nothing to do with religion. That is not true even of a
fire company, or of a manufactory, or of a banking-house. The religion
embraced by the individuals composing these associations must influence
their corporate action, as well as their individual conduct. If a man may
not blaspheme, a publishing firm may not print and disseminate a
blasphemous book. A civil government cannot ignore religion any more than
physiology. It was not constituted to teach either the one or the other,
but it must, by a like necessity, conform its action to the laws of both.
Indeed it would be far safer for a government to pass an act violating the
laws of health, than one violating the religious convictions of its
citizens. The one would be unwise, the other would be tyrannical. Men put
up with folly, with more patience than they do with injustice. It is vain
for the potsherds of the earth to contend with their Maker. They must
submit to the laws of their nature not only as sentient, but also as moral
and religious beings. And it is time that blatant atheists, whether
communists, scientists, or philosophers, should know that they are as much
and as justly the objects of pity and contempt, as of indignation to all
right-minded men. By right-minded men, is meant men who think, feel, and
act according to the laws of their nature. Those laws are ordained,
administered, and enforced by God, and there is no escape from their
obligation, or from the penalties attached to their violation.
- 6. The people of this country being rational, moral, and religious beings,
the government must be administered on the principles of reason, morality,
and religion. By a like necessity of fight, the people being Christians
and Protestants, the government must
be administered according to the principles of Protestant Christianity. By
this is not meant that the government should teach Christianity, or make
the profession of it a condition of citizenship, or a test for office. Nor
does it mean that the government is called upon to punish every violation
of Christian principle or precept. It is not called upon to punish every
violation of the moral law. But as it cannot violate the moral law in its
own action, or require the people to violate it, so neither can it ignore
Christianity in its official action. It cannot require the people or any
of its own officers to do what Christianity forbids, nor forbid their
doing anything which Christianity enjoins. It has no more right to forbid
that the Bible should be taught in the public schools, than it has to
enjoin that the Koran should be taught in them. If Christianity requires
that one day in seven should be a day of rest from all worldly avocations,
the government of a Christian people cannot require any class of the
community or its own officers to labour on that day, except in cases of
necessity or mercy. Should it, on the ground that it had nothing to do
with religion, disregard that day, and direct that the custom-houses, the
courts of law, and the legislative halls should be open on the Lord's Day,
and public business be transacted as on other days, it would be an act of
tyranny, which would justify rebellion. It would be tantamount to enacting
that no Christian should hold any office under the government, or have any
share in making or administering the laws of the country. The nation would
be in complete subjection to a handful of imported atheists and infidels.
Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation.
The proposition that the United States of America are a Christian and
Protestant nation, is not so much the assertion of a principle as the
statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of
the people are Christians and Protestants, but that the organic life, the
institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that
action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be,
and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of Protestant
Christianity.
- 1. This is a Christian and Protestant nation in the sense stated in virtue of
a universal and necessary law. If you plant an acorn, you get an oak. If
you plant a cedar, you get a cedar. If a country be settled by Pagans or
Mohammedans, it develops into a Pagan or Mohammedan community. By the same
law, if a country
be taken possession of and settled by Protestant Christians, the nation
which they come to constitute must be Protestant and Christian. This
country was settled by Protestants. For the first hundred years of our
history they constituted almost the only element of our population. As a
matter of coarse they were governed by their religion as individuals, in
their families, and in all their associations for business, and for
municipal, state, and national government. This was just as much a matter
of necessity as that they should act morally in all these different
relations.
- 2. It is a historical fact that Protestant Christianity is the law of the
land, and has been from the beginning. As the great majority of the early
settlers of the country were from Great Britain, they declared that the
common law of England should be the law here. But Christianity is the
basis of the common law of England, and is therefore of the law of this
country; and so oar courts have repeatedly decided. It is so not merely
because of such decisions. Courts cannot reverse facts. Protestant
Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever
Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere,
i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act)
forbids. Christianity forbids polygamy and arbitrary divorce, so does the
civil law. Romanism forbids divorce even on the ground of adultery;
Protestantism admits it on that ground. The laws of all the states conform
in this matter to the Protestant rule. Christianity forbids all
unnecessary labour, or the transaction of worldly business, on the Lord's
Day; that day accordingly is a dies non, throughout the land. No
contract is binding, made on that day. No debt can be collected on the
Christian Sabbath. If a man hires himself for any service by the month or
year, he cannot be required to labour on that day. All public offices are
closed, and all official business is suspended. From Maine to Georgia,
from ocean to ocean, one day in the week, by the law of God and by the law
of the land, the people rest.
This controlling Influence of Christianity is Reasonable and Right.
It is in accordance with analogy. If a man goes to China, he expects to find
the government administered according to the religion of the country. If
he goes to Turkey, he expects to find the Koran supreme and regulating all
public action. If he goes to a Protestant country, he has no right to
complain, should he find the Bible in the ascendancy and exerting its
benign influence not only on the people, but also on the government.
>br>
The principle that the religion of a people rightfully controls the action of
the government, has of coarse its limitation. If the religion itself be
evil and require what is morally wrong, then as men cannot have the right
to act wickedly, it is plain that it would be wrong for the government to
conform to its requirements. If a religion should enjoin infanticide, or
the murder of the aged or infirm, neither the people nor the government
should conform their conduct to its laws. But where the religion of a
people requires nothing unjust or cruel or in any way immoral, then those
who come to live where it prevails are bound to submit quietly to its
controlling the laws and institutions of the country.
The principle contended for is recognized in all other departments of life. If
a number of Christian men associate themselves as a manufacturing or
banking company, it would be competent for them to admit unbelievers in
Christianity into their association, and to allow them their full share in
its management and control. But it would be utterly unreasonable for such
unbelievers to set up a cry of religious persecution, or of infringement
of their fights and liberty, because all the business of the company was
suspended upon the Lord's Day. These new members knew the character and
principles of those with whom they sought to be associated. They knew that
Christians would assert their right to act as Christians. To require them
to renounce their religion would be simply preposterous.
When Protestant Christians came to this country they possessed and subdued the
land. They worshipped God, and his Son Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the
world, and acknowledged the Scriptures to be the rule of their faith and
practice. They introduced their religion into their families, their
schools, and their colleges. They abstained from all ordinary business on
the Lord's Day, and devoted it to religion. They built churches, erected
school-houses, and taught their children to read the Bible and to receive
and obey it as the word of God. They formed themselves as Christians into
municipal and state organizations. They acknowledged God in their
legislative assemblies. They prescribed oaths to be taken in his name.
They closed their courts, their places of business, their legislatures,
and all places under the public control, on the Lord's Day. They declared
Christianity to be part of the common law of the land. In the process of
time thousands have come among us, who are neither Protestants nor
Christians. Some are papists, some Jews, some infidels, and some atheists.
All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal fights and privileges. All are allowed
to acquire property, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all
offices, and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are
allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see
fit. No man is molested for his religion or for his want of religion. No
man is required to profess any form of faith, or to join any religious
association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however,
is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted
on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it
should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the
positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient
answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done.
The Demands of Infidels are Unjust.
The demands of those who require that religion, and especially Christianity,
should be ignored in our national, state, and municipal laws, are not only
unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical. It
is a condition of service in connection with any railroad which is
operated on Sundays, that the employee be not a Christian. If Christianity
is not to control the action of our municipal, state, and general
governments, then if elections be ordered to be held on the Lord's Day,
Christians cannot vote. If all the business of the country is to go on, on
that as on other days, no Christian can hold office. We should thus have
not a religious, but an anti-religious test-act. Such is the
free-thinker's idea of liberty.11 But still further, if Christianity is
not to control the laws of the country, then as monogamy is a purely
Christian institution, we can have no laws against polygamy, arbitrary
divorce, or "free love." All this must be yielded to the
anti-Christian party; and consistency will demand that we yield to the
atheists, the oath and the Decalogue; and all the rights of citizenship
must be confined to blasphemers. Since the fall of Lucifer, no such tyrant
has been made known to men as August Comte, the atheist. If, therefore,
any man wishes to antedate perdition, he has nothing to do but to become a
free-thinker and join in the shout, "Civil government has nothing to
do with religion; and religion has nothing to do with civil
government."
[11A free-thinker is a man whose understanding is emancipated
from
his conscience. It is therefore natural for him to wish to see civil government emancipated from
religion.]
Conclusion.
We are bound, therefore, to insist upon the maintenance and faithful
execution of the laws enacted for the protection of the Christian Sabbath.
Christianity does not teach that men can be made religious by law; nor
does it demand that men should be required by the civil authority to
profess any particular form of religious doctrine, or to attend upon
religious services; but it does enjoin that men should abstain from all
unnecessary worldly avocations on the Lord's Day. This civil Sabbath, this
cessation from worldly business, is what the civil government in Christian
countries is called upon to enforce.
- (1.) Because it is the right of
Christians to be allowed to rest on that day, which they cannot do,
without forfeiting their citizenship, unless all public business be
arrested on that day.
- (2.) Because such rest is the command of God; and
this command binds the conscience as much as any other command in the
Decalogue. So far as the point in hand is concerned, it matters not
whether such be the command of God or not; so long as the people believe
it, it binds their conscience; and this conscientious belief the
government is bound to respect, and must act accordingly.
- (3.) Because the
civil Sabbath is necessary for the preservation of our free institutions,
and of the good order of society. The indispensable condition of social
order is either despotic power in the magistrate, or good morals among the
people. Morality without religion is impossible; religion cannot exist
without knowledge; knowledge cannot be disseminated among the people,
unless there be a class of teachers, and time allotted for their
instruction. Christ has made all his ministers, teachers; He has commanded
them to teach all nations; He has appointed one day in seven to be set
apart for such instruction. It is a historical fact that since the
introduction of Christianity, nine tenths of the people have derived the
greater part of their religious knowledge from the services of the
sanctuary. If the Sabbath, therefore, be abolished, the fountain of life
for the people will be sealed.12
[12The Sabbath and Free Institutions. A paper read before
the National Sabbath Convention, Saratoga, August 13, 1863, by the Rev. Mark Hopkins, D. D.,
President of Williams College, Mass. See also an able article from the pen of the Rev. Joshua H.
McIlvaine, D. D., entitled, "A Nation's Right to Worship God," in the Princeton
Review for October, 1859; also the article on "Sunday Laws," in the same
number of that journal.]
Hengstenberg, after referring to the authority of the Church and other grounds, for the
observance of the Lord's Day, closes
his discussion of the subject with these words: "Thank God these are only
the outworks; the real fortress is the command that sounded out from
Sinai, with the other divine commands therewith connected, as preparatory,
confirmatory, or explanatory. The institution was far too important, and
the temptations too powerful, that the solid ground of Scriptural command
could be dispensed with.
It is as plain as day that the obligation of the Old Testament command
instead of being lessened is increased. This follows of course from the
fact that the redemption through Christ is infinitely more glorious than
the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt, which in the preface to
the Ten Commandments is referred to as a special motive obedience. No
ingratitude is blacker than refusing to obey Him who for our sakes gave up
his only begotten Son.''13 He had said before that the Sabbath "rests
on the unalterable necessities of our nature, inasmuch as men inevitably
become godless if the cares and labours of their earthly life be not
regularly interrupted."14
[13Ueber den Tag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 92-
94.]
[14 Ibid. p. 40.]
END OF PART 2 OF 2
CLICK TO RETURN TO » PART 1
|
