and which I may venture to describe as evangelical in distinction from legal-the principle that the best Sabbath-keeping is that which is most conducive to the welfare of the individual, of the family, and of society-may be applied to illustrate some particulars both of privilege and of duty.

Under this principle the strictest of Christian Sabbath-keepers make large allowance for "works of necessity and mercy." Legalism said to the hungry disciples rubbing the ears of wheat in their hands to separate the kernels from the chaff, "You are breaking the Sabbath by work; for the plucking of those heads of wheat as you passed through the field was equivalent with reaping, and the rubbing is only another way of threshing." Legalism said, "It is not lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day, for healing is work." The evangelical answer was, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day." A law for the tribes of Israel in their own country prohibited the kindling of a fire, even for domestic use, on the day of rest—a regulation not inappropriate under the sky of Palestine, but superseded by the higher law of necessity and mercy. That higher law can not be so formulated as to leave no room and no demand for the exercise of individual discretion. Love is that higher law, and "love worketh no ill to his neighbor." The law of the Sabbath is rest from labor; but the Sabbath is for man, who is greater than the Sabbath, and the paramount law of love does not permit that the hungry should faint or the sick languish untended, lest the Sabbath be broken.

Inasmuch as the Sabbath is essentially a day of rest, and inasmuch as the rest is for all, every man's share in it should be respected and carefully guarded. Every man's rights are limited by his neighbor's rights. Every man must so use his own liberty as not to infringe his neighbor's liberty. I have a right to the day of rest, but, inasmuch as every other man in the community has the same right, I must take care that in my use of that day I do not hinder others from making the right use of it. On this principle it is that society acknowledges and protects the day of rest, and in so doing has no occasion to decide any religious question. The Constitution of the United States recognizes Sunday as dies non for the President. The governments of the several States and of the Union recognize the right of all their functionaries to the Sunday rest, limited only by what each government judges to be "necessity and mercy." The legislation of every State acknowledges, in one way or another, the civil and secular value of the sabbatic institution, and more or less

carefully guards every man's privilege of rest by requiring that all shall rest.

There is a close relation between rest and quiet. A day of dissipation and riotous living is not a day of rest. The Sunday which is followed by "blue Monday" is not a Sabbath; nor does it yield to the individual or to society, to the laborer or to the employer of labor, the benefits which come from the Sabbath. What is it that 'capitalists are doing when they conspire to abolish the day of rest by turning it into a day of revelry? The managers of railroad corporations, whose Sunday-excursion trains defy the law and the public sense that makes the law, know that they rob the hard-working men in their service, whom they compel to forego the workingman's sacred privilege of weekly rest; nor is it beyond the reach of their discernment that they cheat the heedless customers whom they persuade to turn the day of rest into a day of frolic which is not rest. As the proprietor of a drinking-saloon knows that the dimes which he gathers into his till are the price paid by his customers for personal degradation, for disease in body and mind, for wretchedness at home, and for an unlamented death-as he knows that brawls and fights, with now and then a murder, are the inevitable incidents of his "dreadful trade"; so the proprietors of a Sunday-excursion steamboat know what they are doing. They know that their greed is robbing their servants by compelling them to work on the day of rest. They know that the gain they get from the Sunday excursion is "filthy lucre" at the best, polluted with the "evil communications" that infect the sweltering throng of passengers. They know that by the promise of fresh air and a good time they persuade their customers to substitute a day of dissipation for the quiet rest which would have refreshed them for their six days' work. They know that dissipation is not rest; but what is that to them if their dividends are the greater for other people's dissipation ?

In proportion as Sunday becomes a day of dissipation, it ceases to be a day of rest, and in that proportion society loses the benefit of a true Sabbath. The State, therefore, in the interest of productive industry and of the industrial classes, and especially in the interest of the millions whose industry is manual labor, must take care that Sunday shall be for all a quiet day. Without invading the rights of conscience by attempting to enforce a religious observance, it may and must prohibit those uses of the day which are not rest but dissipation, or which impose hard work on one portion of society that another portion may have a frolic. It must put a

strong barrier of law between workingmen's privilege of rest and the power of capital, especially of associated capital, proverbially soulless and heartless.

In its religious and spiritual aspect, the question of Sabbath observance is one over which civil government has no rightful authority-certainly not if the American doctrine of religious liberty and of the relations between church and state is true. While I insist that civil government may recognize the weekly rest as beneficial to the commonwealth, and may therefore provide by law, and by the enforcement of law, that every man shall have the privilege of that rest, I deny that the jurisdiction of the state extends to the religious question. While I maintain the right of the state to prohibit the perversion of the Sabbath to debasing and destructive uses, I deny its right to require that any man shall keep the day otherwise than by abstinence from work. With the great body of the people the Christian Sabbath is a day for public worship. The state may therefore recognize that fact, and may provide that assemblies for worship on the day of rest shall be undisturbed. But the state must not attempt to enforce a religious observance of the day. It can only protect such observance. To me the weekly rest is more than an immemorial tradition, more than an institution beneficial to the commonwealth. To me it is a divine provision for one great need of human nature; a monument more ancient and more enduring than the pyramids; a memorial of the world's Creator and the world's Redeemer; a symbol and foretaste of a better rest hereafter. In my own home and household I may keep the Sabbath holy according to this religious view of its sanctity. But, if I would bring my neighbor thus to keep it, I must remember that I can not compel him by any other compulsion than that of example and persuasion. I may associate with others like minded in a church which celebrates the holy day with public prayer and praise, and with religious inculcation of duty. As a church, united in a spiritual fellowship, we may have our own theory of the Sabbath, and may determine under our responsibility, not to the state but to him whom we acknowledge as our Lord, what observance of the Lord's day is necessary to the religious life, either as a manifestation of it or as a help to its growth. All such things belong not to Cæsar but to God, to the conscience and intelligence of the individual, and to associated intelligence and conscience in the church.

To the individual, then, conscious of his religious nature and of

his relations to God, the question of Sabbath observance presents itself in its religious and spiritual aspect. In this aspect of the question, as in the other, the first thing to be remembered is that word of the Great Teacher, "The Sabbath was made for man." You are human. Inseparable from your nature is that need for which the day of rest was instituted. The Sabbath is for you be-, cause you need it. Accept it as a gift from God, not reluctantly, as if it were a penance, but thankfully. Then remember that the Sabbath is essentially rest from work. Let your own six days' work stand still; and bring not the worry of the week into the day of rest. Let your household affairs be so arranged that the holy day shall brighten your home with quiet enjoyment, and even the little ones shall welcome the Sabbath as a happy day. But to you the day of rest, whatever it may be to others, is more than simple rest. It has its employments as well as its repose-employments that are themselves repose. To others it may be a day of lazy pleasure; to you it is a day for serious thought and therefore for worship-the holy day-the Lord's day. Let it bring you and yours into the worshiping assembly, not only for the help you may get there, but also for the help you may bring to those who wor ship with you. In your own home let there be household prayer, redolent alike of tender memories and immortal hope, with lessons of wisdom from above, and with Sabbath music-" psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," hearts and voices making melody to God. Such Sabbath-keeping consecrates the home, and brings into it, in all experience of change, a light from heaven.

The readers of this journal know that what I have described as the proper observance of the Christian Sabbath from the religious point of view is a reality. It was so in the old days of Puritanism. Even then the holy day, though sanctified with more than Jewish rigor, cheered and blessed the home. The same reality exists today in thousands of Christian homes, bridging as it were the distance between earth and heaven.

LEONARD BACON.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1862.

"Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona."

AN able article in the April number, by an author whose reputation is deservedly national, has for its subject "McClellan's Last Service to the Republic," the key-note of which is found in one of its statements, that he was "the General who saved the capital." As this article is written for the purposes and benefit of history, and as the writer is one whose name adds, and with justice adds, weight to anything he may say, history will doubtless be gratified to know that this contribution to its pages can stand examination as to its assertions of fact.

If it indeed be true that, in the campaign of 1862, McClellan was "the General who saved the capital," there are many people of ordinary intelligence who are not as yet sufficiently aware of the fact, and there is much of history upon that subject which is in a state of unparalleled confusion. In truth, such is the want of definite information in the premises, and such the contradictory state of evidence, that there have been those heard to say that, if the "Young Napoleon" left undone anything to insure what the April article terms "the defeat and disorderly retreat of Pope," it has not been hitherto revealed.

It may be that McClellan is the great warrior that admiring friends have claimed him to be. We certainly have no disposition to detract from his just fame; but, in considering whether he is really worthy of being entitled the Great Captain of the age, there are many things in his career to be taken into account.

The glory of the Peninsular campaign will doubtless continue to be entirely his own, and probably no one will dispute his title, or envy the enjoyment which its glory affords. His most vigorous efforts, during that historic period, appear to have been divided