SUNDAY MAIL by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 11, 1856

SUNDAY MAIL.

By Editor

[THERE seems to be an increasing opposition on the part of the professed christian denominations of the day, to that toleration now exercised by this government, in permitting the running of rail-road trains and the transportation of the mail upon the first day of the week—the so-called Christian Sabbath. This is what we might expect; we expect also that it will increase and make itself felt throughout the nation. It is the principal agent to bring about events brought to view in the last of Rev. xiii. All our readers will therefore feel interested in its development. The following from the Religious Telescope is an expression of the feeling which is beginning to exist and manifest itself upon this question. We notice also an article on the same subject in the Northwestern Christian Advocate, which, readers, we will soon lay before you.—ED. REVIEW.]

The United States mail is carried on the Christian Sabbath in this Christian land and nation. But it is said to be "constitutional." What sort of a constitution have you? One that dethrones the King of the Universe? It may be according to the "constitution" of the carnal mind, but I deny that the constitution of the United States requires any such thing. But the first amendment to the constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Is it establishing any system of religion to refuse to hire men to break the law of High Heaven? Is it a part of the religion of some men to carry the news on Sunday? If so take away the hire, and let them go on their pilgrimage of love. Let them have the "free exercise" of their religion, but pray, sirs, do not make us partakers of their guilt. But I question whether I would feel compelled to surrender my purse because one of my neighbors feels in duty bound to carry it fifty miles on Wednesday. I doubt too, whether our Congress is bound to deliver up the United States Mail, because, forsooth, some men must travel with it fifty miles on Sunday "for conscience' sake."

To desecrate the Christian Sabbath is practical atheism. Are we under constitutional obligation to hire men to be practical atheists? Is this "religious liberty"?

To recognize the Sabbath, in a law, would, perhaps, be regarded by some as unconstitutional. Sunday, as a day of rest, is recognized in the constitution of the United States, by requiring the president to return any bill passed by Congress, "within ten days, (Sundays excepted,) after it shall have been presented," if he wish to veto it. See Art. 1, Sec. 7th. Is the constitution itself unconstitutional?

The government being in the hands of the people, they are responsible for its acts. Is it right to make Christians responsible for hiring men to break the Sabbath? Is this religious liberty?

Remember, the issue made by the advocates of the Sunday mail is false. They assume that to refuse to hire men to break the Sabbath, is to compel them to observe that day. No such thing. Mail carriers could still travel all day if they desired, and carry a sack of corn if they needed ballast, but our government would not be responsible.

Now I appeal to every christian citizen of our land, are you not responsible for the transportation of the Sunday mail? Who makes the laws which regulate the post-boys, and the post-masters? The representatives of the people. Did you vote for that representative who can look with indifference on national Sabbath-breaking? Do you labor by word and vote to have that atheistic law repealed? When you kneel in the congregation on the Lord's day, and thank God for Sabbath and Sanctuary privileges, does the thought ever occur to you mind that you are hiring your fellow-men to forego all those blessed privileges, and set at defiance the decree of High Heaven? Will you thus buy souls?

Sabbath-breaking comes along our highways, full of years, and having the seal of a christian (?) government stamped on his brazen forehead. "Religious liberty" beats time to his tread. He is a "national" fellow, with a good "constitution." What will you do? Let him pass? For one I protest.