disregarded, we shall be free to receive the views of so great a writer as Milton, and to follow the precedent of so enlightened a land as Germany.
Moreover, it has been well argued, and surely no serious person will refuse to consider the argument, that every plea which has been alleged for setting aside the Levitical degrees in this instance, is at least equally applicable to the case of the weekly day of rest. Religious persons who would tolerate the one change, as not contrary to the law of God, ought in consistency, so far, to be prepared to admit the other[1].
- ↑ See the “Guardian,” Jan, 3, 1849. Supplement, p. 14. “All the points which the Committee are desirous to establish might be urged with far greater force against the observance of the Lord's Day.
“First, (and above all,) That it is violated in so many instances as to require legislative sanction.
“Secondly, That it is very doubtful whether it is expressly enjoined by the letter of Holy Scripture.
“Thirdly, That the Jews do not observe this day, and that their scruples ought to be considered.
“Fourthly, Many witnesses might be produced to testify to the great pecuniary advantages which would accrue to them from the abrogation of this observance.
“Fifthly, Others might declare that they have long violated it without suffering in the eyes of society.
