of affecting public opinion upon the religious inlawfulness of running street cars on the first day c he week, and as no one seemed disposed to reply to it, he writer, whose convictions were the result of much deliberation, and, as he trusts, of candid and unbiassed investigation, determined to do so.

There is evidently but one alternative with the author of "Sabbatismos" and those who hold similar sentiments, which is, that you shall accept their doctrine without questioning it, or expect to be charged with skepticism. Is not the Sabbath a good institution, say they; would you wish to see it abolished, as was done during the Reign of Terror? would not such a result be fraught with disaster to the morals of the community and the good of society? or, in the words of our author, would you "force" people "to rush away from the holy sanctuaries into haunts of dissipation; the wayside traps in the country, whence they return fatigued, wearied, and worn down with recreation, if not battered, bruised, and bloody, the most natural and not uncommon result of worshipping at the shrine of Bacchus" (p. 204). To this unfair method of exciting the prejudices of one portion of the community against another, we object, and reply that the wish of those who favor the removal of the restriction is not to abolish the Sabbath. It is not to induce the people to leave the "holy sanctuaries," and who, according to our author, need but the means of escape to return, sad to say, "battered, bruised, and bloody." It is not to undermine the morals of society. It is not to bring ruin upon the state.

The wish, however, is to abolish a legal restriction which exists, but which is based upon a religious restriction which has ceased to exist.

As a temporal and political institution, the observance of a stated day of physical rest for man and the animal creation may be, under limitations, a wise provision, but we claim the largest liberty consistent with the general good. It may be a difficult undertaking to adjust the exact boundary between liberty and license. But this is a problem which has puzzled political philosophers from the infancy of society to our own day. When he is born who shall solve this secret, honors will be lavished on him while living; and dead, his memory will be held in veneration by his grateful country, for he will have discovered the perfection of all government; and if the people be virtuous, they will have reached the height of human freedom.

The opponents of running the cars base their objections mainly upon the supposition that the people are immoral; that they are not to be trusted with their own liberties; that so corrupt is the heart that the privilege of unrestrained locomotion which one who is able may indulge, without sin, upon a weekday, becomes with him who is unable a sin, should he indulge in it upon Sunday; that the removal of this legal restraint will result in a standing temptation to a breach of the peace and an occasion for the wildest license; that a kind Providence looks with benignant approval upon the conduct of a provident parent who, for the sake of his children, may seek the country upon a secular day, while it frowns in anger upon another who, with no ability to leave his home upon a weekday, shall, from the same motives, do so upon a Sunday. The line between a sinless and a sinful act has a broader and a darker margin than this. The freedom which Boston, in this respect, enjoys, has not, that we have ever heard, injured the morals of that

city, nor is there, in consequence, any wish to abolish the Sabbath; nor are worldly avocations pursued to any greater degree than before; nor do those who leave the city, for the purer air of the country, appear to return in the sad condition which our author describes, namely, battered, bruised, and bloody." The advocates of restriction who thus endeavor to arouse passions and alarm prejudices cannot be sincere, or they would not by their own example violate the law as it now stands or countenance its violation in others. Their own conduct shows their insincerity, for they are not willing to accord, the liberty which they claim for themselves. The whole question is resolved into this: Is the fourth commandment now morally binding? If it is, there is an end of the discussion; and so far from the law of the State being too strict, it is not strict enough, and should be enforced by heavier penalties. Instead of leaving attendance upon worship optional, it should then be made. compulsory. If, on the other hand, the fourth commandment is not obligatory, and of no Divine authority for the binding observance of Sunday, then it is as unlawful to restrict the public liberty by preventing the running of cars, as it would be to compel the attendance of every one upon a place of public worship. For it is as wise to assert that the morals will be infallibly corrupted by the one, as to assert that they will be infallibly improved by the other.

It is our choice to attend a place of worship on Sunday, and we would concede the same liberty of action, we claim for ourselves, to him who sought the country by public conveyance. Nor are we willing to admit that, when in church, our nerves are any more disturbed

by the running of cars over an iron rail, than by the rattling of a carriage over the public pavement.

The result of our inquiries, and for which no special originality is claimed, will be found in the following pages. The arguments advanced by the author of "Sabbatismos" are the same adduced by every writer upon this subject, and which from time to time have been promptly met and refuted, to be again, in due time, proffered, and, like false coin, again rejected.

There is not a reason urged, nor a quotation given, of which an examination and verification is not earnestly desired. And let the candid reader note, that every religious newspaper that may condescend to comment upon this "Reply," will begin and end with the charge of infidelity, notwithstanding that every position may be sustained by the testimony of some one or other of the` lights of the church, whom they dare not individually thus assail.

The writer cannot hope to escape the treatment which all have undergone who have been so bold as to question the truth of any long-cherished religious opinion.

Bigotry cannot trust itself in the light; it becomes dazzled and confused; the glare of truth disarms it. Rarely, therefore, does it meet argument with argument; but prefers the reckless assertion, the disingenuous insinuation, the unscrupulous charge of skepticism, feeling assured that such a note of alarm will at once arouse the timid, who seldom reflect, and have, perhaps, neither the courage nor the industry to investigate. If there ever was a tyranny, cruel, defiant, exacting, and unmerciful, and with which it must be instant, unquestioning assent, or else malignant persecution, it is that of religious intolerance. Following its victim into pri

vate as into public life, and knowing no commiseration or relentings, it would snatch the very crust from the lips of the famished child, because of the alleged offences of the parent. It is as much in contrast with the spirit of the Gospel, and with the holy teachings of our Saviour, as light is with darkness; as all that is good with all that is bad. A tyranny as fierce now as in the dark ages, and which is, in our midst, as harsh, and unscrupulous, and wicked as ever, and the cause of more doubt and infidelity than all the writings of all the skeptics who have ever lived.