Transcribed from the [1850?] James Nisbet and Co. edition byDavid Price
BY
JAMES ROBERT PEARS, M.A.,
MASTER OFTHE BATH GRAMMAR SCHOOL, AND LATE FELLOW OF
MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD.
LONDON:
JAMES NISBET AND CO.
BATH: BINNS AND GOODWIN.
Price Sixpence.
p. 2BATH: PRINTEDBY BINNS AND GOODWIN.
Rev. Sir,
Three years ago the Hon. Grantley F.Berkeley published a letter to the Postmaster-General inopposition “to the attempt (as he wrote) which was makingin Bath and its vicinity to prevent the delivery of letters on aSunday.” And we were taught by this publication thatthere were men, and perhaps many men, among our legislators, whowere uninformed as to the origin, nature, and moral effects ofthat precious ordinance of a day of rest. Such men neededto be instructed with kindness, and patience, and compassion.
We must, indeed, be fearfully devoid of the best gift of Godto man, if we do not feel compassion for men who, in a land ofopen bibles, and professed obedience to the Gospel, have beendeprived, by a vicious education, a life of excitement, and thecold indifference of p.4those about them, of the vast enjoyment realized by thespirit of man when it rests in communion with the Almighty.
But when I undertook the easy and pleasant task of replying tothat opponent, I certainly thought that the sentiments of thatgentleman were confined to men whose education had been sounhappily restricted.
It would have been to me utterly incredible, if I had beentold that his views would find sympathy and support in a maneducated in the most liberal course, and trained to the fullexercise of intellectual energy, accepted as a popular instructorof the rising Aristocracy, and even accounted an able preacher ofthe Gospel of Him, who gave the day ofrest and blessed it. And here you must accept the assuranceof my unfeigned regret if the following remarks necessarilyassume somewhat of a personal character. My own feelingswould lead me to limit myself entirely to the discussion offacts, principles, causes, and results: but that period in thediscussion is past. The nature, obligation, privilege, andblessing of the Lord’s day has been the subject of deepinterest and enquiry to every temper of mind, with an infinitevariety of views, among all classes of men from the palace to theworkshop.
Nothing remains for us but to apply to individuals principlesalready admitted, and arguments no longer disputed. Nor isany exception to be made in favour of a disputant, who hascontrived to escape from all perception of the various stages ofthe enquiry, and with feminine pertinacity repeats at the end thequestion which opened the discussion.
The debate has come to a close, and the question is p. 5now put to thevote. The multitude catch at every leading voice whichauthorizes their self-indulgence, and neglect of duty, and ouronly effort is to make such lead