Wilmington journal., 1871-08-04
For the journal,

For the Journal.
Ma. ED1roR Have you any objection
to reply to your local rem arks of th;.
morning July 27 relative to the runnipo
of the Smithville boat on Sunday II not
permit me to express the dissent which
am sure many feel.
Whether, or not, the trip to Smithyiue
is to be called an Excursi on," 1 will NOT
debate. It would be question of defipi-
lion. think it is.
But what would maintain is, that tits
d breach of the Fourth Commandment
That Commandment DEGREES Remem-
Der the Sabbath day to keep it holy In it
thou shalt not do any work" Whatever
exceptions we're made to the strict letter
OF the law for works of imminent neces-
slty, or mercy, or the work of Worship. il
meant what It said. It prohibited ordn.
ary work on the day set apart by God. az
| sacred to Himself and that upon the All
thority of no mere man legislator but
upon the decree Of the Creator and Lord
of the earth. Bot these Sunday trips do
require, at least of the hands on board the
boat, to work just the Same kind of work
they do on other days, only, 1 believe.
more Of IL.
Now, either the Fourth Commandment
is in force and of obligation upon US, or it
is not. If not, then our short and honest
way out of the difficulty is, to deny it's OBJ.
| legation. If it is in forcs, then the hands
who work for money-break the law of
God. Those who control the boat, and
send it upon its road of disobedience,
break The law /; and those who counter
ance and sustain. by their presence and
their money, the bresch of the law, are
"particeps criminis, "and do therefore them
selves help break the law. I do not refer
to those whom sudden and serious ill,
ness, or any similarly weighty cause
may call from one place to the
other. But as general rule the
case is as L have put it. Either the
Fourth Command is the law of God for uss
or it is not. Ii it is, then to work our
selves, or to cause others to work, for our
amusement or social qualification, as the
boat hands work, is simply ine1cusable.-
For it is no excuse to say that those
who go have worked hard through the
week. That does not entitle them to
break the law of their God.
! Nor is it any answer to say that "the
Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath" The same authority
which said this said also In it (the Sab
bath) thou shalt not do any work. The
Sabbath was made for man, but not sub
ject to mans will. It Was made to benefit
man by arrestiDg. amboritaicely his secu-
lar pursuits. The Maker OF the law is
himself the Judge as to ho,o it shall be
made to produce its benefits. He Bays,
thou shalt not do any work. The Smith
vile boat undertakes, pro td1ito, to set
aside the decree.
You say that 'honest, earnest Christian
men are sometimes found among those who,
having no other day as their own, think
it no sin to seek the seashore In the Wac
camaw on Sunday" I do not happen
to know who are in the habit of dong
this, but permit me to say that many
called Christian men do this may be true.
but how can any really earnest Christian,
knowing that the Fourth Command pro-
hibitS work, either work himself or allow
himself to be the means of 9th hers' work
L question the earnestness. 1 do not
really suppose that any such man con-
siders himself an earnest Christian.
| Again, let me except TO the expression
''having no other lay as their own T.
How is Sunday their own day? Who
gave it TO them Ii is the Lords day, and
not mans, and is intended for Gods wor-
ship and not for mans amusement.
L have not dwelt upon the duty of
worship on Sunday, but let me. in con-
clusion, express doubt whether any man
has right to turn his back upon tho
worship of God on that DAY and spend it.
in his own amusement, or mere relaxation
upon the seashore or anywhere else. Why
not take some of his own money maxi 0g
time for his own amusement and not the
cine which he owes to the worship of bis
greatest Benefactor. 1t is scarcely thank
| full or reverent. A.