The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1857-03-05

Is IL Morally Right TO Stgas.t
SABBAJlsW


dard. When wrote a article for the Standard,
should have men IGs fact, but overlooked
it.
Now, a, the ssFcd to the 18th of
Jan, ] did not terd ohurt any per
sons or any bro Aings, but simply to dis
cuss ths subject as * abstract question, as to the
morality, or moral right of the prsctcO Of marrying
on the Sabbath.
| Permit me here TO make few remarks on the re-
view of my short article by W. D. Higgins Esq, in
order to set the matter in its proper light
The first remark is in reference to the term Sun. |
DAY: Whilst admitted that this term is in very
general in society, yet the fact Of its being al
most universally employed, by no means, makes it
morally right Mr. H. refers to Mr.. Mury for
proof in favor Of using the term Sunday, saying,
that Words arc articulate sounds used by common
consent, rs signs Of our IDEAS
Now, if Jehovah, had not, in his sovereignty, m
infinite wisdom, gven by the Spirit of inspiration,
names to the different animals, fowls, fishes man,
Sabbath &C., then the language, perhaps, of Murry
, Kirkham or some other English Grammaran, might
have answered for q reason in favor of the term
SUNDAY. But where the Holy Spirit by inspira-
tion gives instructions, directions, names, on
any one point it is dshonoring to God TO refer to
mere for proof of any position, although 1t may
be universally approved by men. To illustrate
this:
Suppose, drinking strong drink, and drinking it
to excess, even to intoxicaton, becomes an almost
. universal practice, would that fact viz the uni
versal practice of drinking even to drunkenness,
justify the matter in a moral point of view? Sure
ly not. Well then, if what every body does, does
not justify the practice, unless it is sanctioned by
Divine authority; surely, what every body says,
a (even in calling Sabbath, Sunday is not morally
right, unless it is sanctioned by the Great LAwgv-
/. er of the moral universe. Again, God has been
n pleased to give to our fallen race, the name MAN.
4 Suppose, Grammarians, Teachers, photographers,
Preachers and every body else almost, get by COM
. mon consent, to call man by some other name, say
by the name horse, cow, sheep or devil, would it be
r morally right to change the term man, the name
that the Holy Spirit has given to him, for some 9TH
IS er name2 Surely not Why then change the
ID name SABBATH for the heather name SUNDAY2-
But Mr.. II. says, "Now when we use the word SUN
Is DAY. do VIC convey tho idea Of some heathens wor
te Shipping the Sum- do we convey the idea Of tht
Christian Sabbath" We cannot tell what idea Il
conveyed by the term SUNDAY, but one thing il
absolutely certain, if wish to convey, or mean tt
convey the idea of the Christian Sabbath should
employ the term SABBATH.
e. But Mr. II. says again, at is still q question
u. whether God can be worshiped more acceptabl.
ne with long face, and sad cOuntenance. than will
;. joy and gladness." | reply, who of auySeasebo
le possession of moral and religious scntinloh ami
fear of God in his SOUL will pretend to says that th
T. scenes and circumstances and conversation Connec
m ted generally with q marriage, are of religion
ed charactcr that the persons engaged in connes
"a ton with the marriage are worshiping God?
=, Now, as Mr.. H., in the closing sentence Of hi
10 review, appears to ye open to conviction on tn
i subject Of the moral right he has to marry on tn
Sabbath, I now propose to examine that pOinta lit
tie:
10 Is it MORALLY RIGHT to marry on the Sabbath
rs | soy No. Now, the question properly and strictl
Gu refers to the Moral law as the only Rule of duty
Mr. H. admits that the law of God Is the Rult
e. whore he says, 81 would not knowingly set the eA
TO ample of violating Gods laws, but am not yet fu
he y convinced, &c" Here ho very modestly invite
in the discussion Of tho subject for more light, b.
a. cause ho is not yet fully convinced. II is dicu
,le to know what Mr.. II. means by the following "FC
those who look upon marriage rs a civil contraC
merely, II Is no doubt sin to marry on the Sal
l., bath day; but if we look upon marriage as q dvr
> Institution, appointed by God himself, &C."
, Does he mean that civil government is not of d
nc vine appointment that 1t Of human arrangement
~ and Of human authority? and then that marrial
u" may be looked upon aS Of human authority If s
'o' Nv, II. and would dIFoF widely on that point,
ne Civil government Is Of Divine authority, or Of
isl vine appointment as really as any religious Inst
tuition.
nd But docs Mr.. IT. deny tho moral and pcrpOtu
les obligation of the Sabbath Docs he believe the
he Is no difference between W N Ql sa.psdlnary nj
ture, and works Of mercy or nScs4 lEyf But Il mn
an close for the presehE;3 e----4- .xs y.
~ To be continued. = k.se
So The LAST CAST The Evening Pc
has telegraph Dispatch from WashinI
led ton TO the effect that Mr.. j. Clancy Jon,
having declined the Office of Postmast,
The General, il has been offered to Mr.. Wi
NV. liam G. Alexander, Of New Jersey, wi
go has accepted the compliment, The ne
Ut. Cabinet will then be composed as follow
Secretary of Saie--Lewis Cass
La Michigan.
Secretary Of the Treasury-tlowt
Cobb, os Georgia.
Secretary OF War-John B. Floyd.
age Virginia.
,ap. Secretary oIthe Navy-Aaron V Brow
.rv\ of Tenn.
a. Secretary oflhe. .lnterior-Jacob Thorn
nd. son. Of Miss.
,an. Postmaster General-Wm, O. Ale
!. at ander, OF New Jersey.
lew Attorney Gen-lssac Toucey, Of Con
ION. Such is the construction OF Mr.. Buc
nd anan's ministery according to the late
en-. report. which we take it is not far iro
law the truth. We think however, il will
be found that Mr., Bright is to be Secrela
,sre OF the Interior. not Mr., Thompson.
49, -.sWs+---
hee THE CAMELs AT WoRK.-The San A
tonia (Texas) Times says:
l..