The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1879-01-16
SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

expected criticism. A sermon on thai
subject, brought so fully before the public
which would touch no ole and condemn m
one, would be poor, weak thing. You
reply shows tina. at least one arrow ha:
found tender place, and am thankful.
There are, however, some things in youl
article which call for reply.
You, or your religious editor" are no
conversant with creeds and facts in the
Protestant, Church or you would not have
been betrayed into such ineIcusable mis-
statements.
The United Presbyterian Church, which
: you are pleased to call one of the "feeblest'
as we'll az one of the SMALLEST" branches
OF the Christian Church, does not differ on
the Sabbath question from the great body
Of the Protestant Church. Her principle
T on this subjec, are precisely, word for word
as those held by that branch Of the Presby.
terrain Church, having too strong congrega'
tions in this city, and by other branches Of
the Presbyterian family. (See Wes,min.
ster Confession of Faith, chap. 81, art. :
and s.
The other branches of the Protestant
Church, with exception possibly Of a few
small branches which are Iot counted cram
gelioai, hold the same principles on thi,
subject though not using the same comics.
sion.
Now, you, or your religious editor"
ought to have known these facts. 1t would
have saved you or him from a p-lpable
blunder. / suggest that You give your
religious editor" three months vacation
that he may post up on church creeds.
Again, you speak OF the Catholic-I pre-
fer the word Romish the word Catholic
means whole or universal, and the Romish
Church is not the whole church or the
church universal-Church a. holding diff
terent views on this question. This, 40 far
az have been able to examine her creeds
is not true. The practice Of many Of her
members does net correspond TO their pro-
fession. But where is the fault with the
creed or the practice?
| leave you and the public to Judge
| Perhaps the vacation of your religious
editor" ought to be extended somewhat.
In this connection l may say that / am
surpri. ed that you should take it upon you
to decide the question, uaat Is the Christian
cIuTcLs and that you decide that the Rom
i-h church is the Christian church de fpc'o
Possibly some of the more than 100 00O, 009
persons composing the various denomina-
| lions in the Protestant church might be M
willing to have the subject decided SO sum-
marily.
They are all POtestdats Pfo-testants, as
they have all protested once, they might
protest again. They have learned how.
Where is the "egotism ?" and who is SO ego
tistical? OF course, Mr.. Editor, allow
you to pass this over TO your religious
editor"
do not care to reply TO anything which
has only personal bearing and does not
concern public morals and SO these things
are passed. There is another judge of mans
honesty. Your Bible exegesis, however, re-
quires attention, inasmnch as it bears upon
the question of the perpetulty of the Sab
bath.
l am willing TO discuss and defend this
question, in your columns, at some future
time if you SO desire, but shall now only
glance at the two passages which are made
the supJeSt VI Siitiei sh, WHICH oAe % ioi-
lows:
"But the sersnth day is the Sabbath of the
Lord, thy God, etc"
an six days the Lord made heaven and
EARTH the sea, and all that in them is, and
rested the SeeeRth day; wherefore, the Lord
blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it"
Here it is said "the sersnh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord, thy God" 1t is not
said that IL GIUGgs skoA be. Again it is said
"the Lord-rested on the serenth day; where
fore the Lord hlessed'-not the serenh day
but the Sabbath dav and hallowed it."
Ii these were the words of man We might
suppose that these terms were used indis-
criminately, but when We remember that
God himself traced them on tables OF stone
itself sign of perpetuity, such conclu-
sion seems very lame. Weareshut up TO the
conclusion that God blessed not the day sim
ply 4. c the seventh or the first day of the
week, bu; the institution, the Sabbath. The
other passage criticised is the one in Mark
2.27 This passage | am accused of "per
verting and misquoting." Ii l am guilty
do not stand alone for the sentence begin
ming with the first Of the 9th verse is not
concluded till the close of the 2Sth verse.
1t is as follows:
And he said unto them the Sabbath was
m sde for man, and lot man for the Sab
bath: Therefore the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath"
But l submit, Mr.. Editor, that by
none of the principles Of criticism or of e1-
eseses can man be condemned for quoting
part Of a sentence, if there is nothing in its
remaining cl;uses which would give to it a
different shade Of meaning.
There is nothing of that kind here. The
sitter clause only strengthen and intensity
the meaning of the first clause. "The Sab
bath was made for man'-not for any one
race or sge but for the whole race, and the
same is rrue OF the fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth, &c, "and not for the Sabbath" not
for the fourth or for any Of the other COM
mandments.
These laws were all made for msn's well |
fare, and not the man for the welfare OF
these laws.
TIE persons addressed were the Phari-
sees, but l challenge contradiction from |
you or any one else that Christ ever found |
fault with the Pharisees or any one else for /
obeyipg the ten comnandms nts. 1t was
because they 'made the ldu OF none effect |
by their toditions" "They tithed mint |
anise and cummin, but neglected the |
ueightier matter of the lau." They soy and
do not"
The time Christ used these words is
worthy of notice. The sabbath had been
in existence more than four thousand years,
and i; is a principle in law that posi-
tive law is in force until abrogated-if it
is now to be abrogsted in two years-at the
death of Jesus, would he who spoke as
never man spoke" who knew the meaning
of words say, The Sabbath was made for
MANI" TIE only conclusion which can be
reached from this passage-either fiom the
first clause or from the whole verse-is that
while the day might be chsDged, a. from
the seventh to the first, yet the Sabbath
the institution is perpetual.
Once more the Sabbath is not now nor
ever has been day of "groans." 1t has
ever been a day Of joy to Gods people.
The Psalms, the Old Testament book of
experience" are full of the most lively ex
Of Joy. True they sometimes be
gin with low plaintive dirge, but almost
invariably clo-e with exul,ant joy. If the
seventh day Sabbath was joyful day,
much more is the first day Sabbath. 1t
the most joyful event in the
history Of Christ-his resurrection from
The tomb.
This however is not carnal but
spiritual Joy. The joy does not consist in
Tasting, riotipg and drunkenness-nor
wen in things unobjectionable it may be on
,ther days butin the highest engagements
md pleasures the soul can delight in-the
'ervice OF God.
Ii is the men who would do away with
Sabbath ret. and Sabbath laws and Sab
path institutions, who would doom the race