THE following is an extract from our tract on the "Enforcement of the Christian Sabbath." This tract has been severely denounced by some who think less of the truth than they do of their own way; but the argument stands untouched. Christian institutions are peculiar to the gospel of Christ—they are institutions erected by Christ. We have gospel precepts for certain ordinances, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are peculiar to the gospel, wherein they are plainly instituted. We might quote to a great length from the best of Protestant writers to prove their general agreement in this, that gospel duties are based only on plain and positive precepts. We cannot say, however, that they are all and always consistent with this declaration, for it is made to meet the Catholics in their argument for tradition. It does not seem to have been made strictly for home use! This principle, applied to Sunday, will rule it out, as not being a gospel institution. There is no precept for its observance; no reason was ever given why it should be observed; no instance of its having been observed. A few inferences, anything but necessary, are all that is ever adduced in its favor. But these can never institute an ordinance; nothing but an express precept will suffice for this. We have another principle to apply to it which must be decisive. While the gospel enforces morality, it does not originate it. Gospel institutions, therefore, are not moral but positive. This truth is, and must be, acknowledged by all. We do not mean that positive institutions are not obligatory; they are, but not in the same sense that moral duties are, because we are differently related to them. And this distinction is not merely one in theory; it is universally recognized in practice. This we will show. Christian ordinances are for the household of faith; not for infidels or disbelievers; while moral duties are of universal application. By a simple statement of facts, of ordinary occurrence, this may be made clear to every mind. Two persons—a young gentleman and a young lady—call upon a minister and ask to have the rite of marriage solemnized. As a matter of professional duty the minister may inquire if they are, or intend to become, followers of Christ. But this is not a requisite to marriage. He will marry them if they are unbelievers, because he recognizes the truth that marriage is not a Christian institution. Marriage was instituted before the fall of man; it was given to the race, and does not belong to any class or nation. It was never restricted to a class. If it were a religious institution there would be no legitimate children except those born in the church. But the Bible will not justify such a position. Doubtless the minister does right in marrying them, though they are not Christians. And for this reason it is proper for legislators to enact laws for the protection of the marriage rite and tie; it is in no sense religious legislation, or legislation for the church. It is for all classes—for the people at large. But suppose that the same couple return to the same minister and ask to be baptized. Now the question of their belief in Christ is relevant—it is a necessity. Suppose they both declare their entire disregard of Christ and his gospel—will he baptize them? Of course he will not. And why not? Because baptism is a Christian institution, and they are not competent to receive it. But if they cannot be baptized, may they not at least partake of the Lord's supper? Again they are refused. This too, is a Christian ordinance, and they who reject Christ have no right to observe the institutions of Christ.6This being an accepted fact, we never find the pastors and their flocks asking the legislature to enact laws compelling all classes—believers and unbelievers—to be baptized and to partake of the Lord's supper. So far are they from this, they would reject as a monstrous innovation any legislation to that end by the civil government. As ordinances of Christ—Christian institutions—they may not be the subjects of civil enactments. No church would for a moment accept a law of the State which required infidels to observe these ordinances of Christ. No minister would comply with the terms of such a law if it were enacted. We repeat it: this distinction is clearly defined, easily recognized, and universally accepted in practice. And now we inquire, In this classification of institutions, where does the Sabbath belong? We have denied and repeatedly asked the clergy of the Protestant churches to make good their position, that the Sabbath is a Christian institution. But we have never succeeded in getting one to argue the position. We declare that there is no such thing as "the Christian Sabbath." It has no existence. We point to the chapter and verse where baptism was commanded; we can show the act of instituting the Lord's Supper; but who will show us when, and by whom, a "Christian Sabbath" was instituted? What are the terms in which it was enacted? It has no foundation in the Scriptures. And our Sunday-Sabbath friends virtually acknowledge their weakness on this point by acting inconsistently with their own position. They affirm that their Sabbath is a Christian institution, and then, in contravention of every principle which governs their actions in regard to Christian institutions, they ask the legislature to make and enforce a law to compel infidels and atheists to observe it! To be perfectly consistent they should unite in asking for "a police regulation" in behalf of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and thus place all Christian institutions on an equal footing!