, 1866-02-17
SUNDAY PAPER QUESTION.
Another Letter from DR., Junk.,.

Edifoss Chicago Tribune:
When I gave to one Of your nnntA- tbs
@anoscf,pt Of my h1at letter, I had from him
G sue - phclt assurance that, If the discussion
.snl o. NO personalities ahould bs used. ]
regret to zee slight departure from this m.
'oe1standan9 IN Your leader of thl, fFrIdsy,
mosnng. ION Intimate that nv remarks In
tnas meeting were made "In the course, NJ !,
controversy with Dr.. Hatfield, 30 he.ted that
DON gentlemen politely apolor,zed to es.b
otnes before leaving the room,n # th;s had
been true, 1t is little departure from onr mn.
aezstaoding for you to print It, Rn. II :, not
true to the extent Of tho inprnssion vbIcb
your words make. Dr. q. and rnvselc .ro :,
the habit Of speaking earnestly, In nnh,,c 7;s.
cuseion butt did not think Ne was ts bss,sa,, al
IN the sense Of angry, and I am snra rr.s
not. There Waa an explanation of onr r..
spectise meanings. but no apology fo, he,t =.
there Has no undne heat felt, Wo11a t. ~ ~
oe possible Tor IA so to conduc, the fiI.cnss;nn
OF this important subject as to do good. Win viii.
oul making personal al1usions, which in INN.
y with turthering the cause Of trnthS Yat
us tly: IN regard to the dd homintr, arm.
ment IN your leader OF Friday, addressed to
/. follow Calvin no further than n ny ~, oou
Stnced That he follows Christ. HeEas rreat
ana eood, put Jaut6le man ; and althouri, the
pToloundest Thinker and most polisbrd w,ftar
o. bis generation, be WAS likely to err. md
think That In bis earlier writings lie was
some1mes, n his zeal against Rome, carried
things about the Sabbath which nanv ~ so'Ls h;s
admifefs dissent from And yet, when yot.
are done quoting him. shall nerhans5 ~ ~
able to show that be Is OF less service III vnnr
side Of the question than you suppose. ''t
:. olr appeal in. this CONTROVERSY Il not ID
Mst,aan z, bnt TO Lsu'"e outho1ity: and whilst He
uslen Wltn delerence to the opinions Of emf.
judgment.n
a"After all, Il appeara by your last that
there is very little difference between M ~
regard to our belief, although there nav he
some practically: II you shaye made no ar
gument against the Observance Of the Lords
oay esv sunday a 49, religious Institution, mo.
trary hold II to be such an Institution" !" then
I have no dispute With you on ana noinf7
and rejoice thai 1t Is So. and IT. whet, Won
expressed the belief that ''Chrfst had aboI-
ished the Jewish Sabbath" you only meant
That he had modified the Jewish CONSTRUCTION
probation Of the Law, then asain 1--WE We
have no dispute, and / am g.ad Of it.
But the word abolIshed.tt being too
strong for your real meaning, led me to
suppose that you really were Of opinion the
law had been aholished. am truly reIoiced
to know that had misapprehcnded your po-
Taylor only to show that the law Of the SAT-
bath was freed by Christ from the false rlosses
Of the Jews, and that Saturday ia no lonreT 10
be kept, It will not be necessary for me- TO a.
ray authorities against you. for on this poIut
also agree With yon: We probably dIiisr
upon the question, t'How Il the Sabbath II
be sanctifed ~ and, ns this was the issne f}r1
nude, may In a few days say somethlnt.
With your permission, on this point
Yours truly, D.X. Juyk1N.