, 1859-08-09

THE SABBATH QUESTION.

Whatever diversity Of opinion this question
nay elicit there can be no diversity Of intefests
on*the subject. Truth, whefsres found, Il not
| the foe, ba. the friend of man. Disputants of
oPposite rie*s should understand this maxim,
and learn to regard each other II mutual assist
ants in united aea1 Gu alter truth. This would
edectua'ly neutratize the acrinony Of debate,
and remove The taise impression Tint the par.
tiea hare conflicting interests 10 defend.
The question before us il pre-emineutly of
this character. 1t il no more to the interest of
! one party than the ether to hare il correctly
settled. The Sabbath was made for man y
for the whole human fa1nily--and the siu,p1s
question TO be decided il, how to use 1t, so as
best to secure its beneficeot end. If human
welfare, social, individual and eternal, is best
promoted by discarding its sancsity. and using
it as q day Of recreation, hila1ity and pleasure
seeking then for humanity = sake, and the owe Of
God, let US all so understand it, and shun; as
moral poison, the error that opposes such use
Of it. What will best promote the weIl-being
Of man, present and future. il the single object
of mv hearts desire and prayer to God in rels-
lien to this question. If this is not promoted
by observing the day u the Prophet directs,
mot doing thine own ways. nor tuding their
If French intdelity has Improved upon Gods
method, and found out d more excellent way"
to make the institution subserye human happi.
ness, would fain learn that why.
II, on the other band, it is found that our
great father above, who 1oyes his human fami-
ijy aud adspfs bis institutions With cousummate
wisdom to their permanent wcl1-being. has re-
qutred US 70 keep the Sabbath holy as day of
sacred rest from secular cares and pleasures, to
be spent in exercises OF devotion and laboss of
lore, md has made the obligation perpetual if
il is found also TINT the godiiness cultivated by
such IN observance Of the day is smioently
profitable for man, having promise Of the life
il.at now is, and Of that which is to come'-
That the loss o[ the Sabbath, rs day conse-
Grated to relig gious worship, would deprive the
Savior OF the opportunity which it affords for
publishing bis bIood-bought gospel to tue world
with its saying inauences-that the 1aw Of tue
Sabbath, 30 far from being mere Jewish ritual,
is placed by its author in the category of moral
obligations, coeyal with the birth Of man for
whom it was made," which no change Of dis
pensatiou can norogate, any more than it can
abrogate prohibition of rnnrder OF theft-&hat
the Institution is q necessity Of our moral, no
less than our physical being, which time can
never obylate until time shall be no more -
and that the removal Of its necessary restrain.
ing influence on human peryerseness, would
open the dood-g -gates Of crime and violence, aud
leaTe godless world united for the worship
aud bliss Of heaEen then surely the communi-
ty should be forewarned Of the evil, and shun
the pash that lends toit-patriotism, to humanity,
the lore Of God, all urge this.
-HQH AuIs Al C0uHlOu VIII Tue TElIE10U3
community, {the 4sectasian' community ii sou
pIeasc.) ,hat a1i the propositions embraced in
this latter suPposition, are capable Of The
most convincing proof--psoof that should
satisfy every candid, intelligent mind; and
hope that some ab1er and more erudita pen, Of
the evangelical school, will undertake. the i'm
portant service, if your columns continue open
TO the discussion. The question, as it appears
to me, involves rights and interests, moral,
social, and civil, Of too much importance to be
hastily dismissed, provided tic disputants will
Keep themselves within the range Of courteous
definite. And if may here drop q friendly
hint to your correspondents. would remind
barrass rather than facilitate the investigation
OF truth. Let the discussion go on, and the
public will hare an opportunity to learn that the
cuuse Of civil liberty md social happiness has
no trucr friends than the malignant advocates
Of holy Sabbath.
shall be happy to exchange views with Jour
correspondent :. D." il be will consent to join
ing or pertinency. Of his structures on my former
article, l am unable to comprehend. He says:
"The Constitution Of the United States prphib-
its the establishment Of u religion rs a govern
ing power" The issue which offer, is: Whnt
does the Bible. the Constitution Of Gods gov.
eminent, require OF HIS sub hjects! Does *'D."
mean to say that St the Constitution of the Uni
ted States prohibits" the Almighty from "es-
tablishing religion as governing power" III
His Kingdom. or His moral subjects from obey
ing such powcr1 The issue .ffer recognizes
the divine authority Of the Bible, Is was an
nounced in MY furmer article. Does "the Con-
atitution Of the United States prohibit" dis
cussion OF the question on that basis!
"Construe II as you may like, this Sunday
question" says D., .s a{question bf religious toll
eration, and nothing else :" Is the law Of God
foe to religious toleration =" construc it as you
may like?" trust our friend will reconsider
his position. Can be see nothing but religious
intolerance in divine requirement! Can he
lion and legal aversion? What Gods law Re-
quircs is one thing; what q free government is
competent to require. is quite another question.
The former is the preliminary QUESTION in this
discussion; the litter :nny properl Jcome up in
its order: E.
4 Warkfnszmunsa TIaSH Of tho SuudaY