DECISION ON THE SABBATH.
By Editor
A few leaves of a publication, entitled the "Sabbath Miscellany," have lately fallen into our hands, on which we find the following concerning a decision by a Judge of Cincinnati, on the subject of the Sabbath. If we mistake not it will be the same spirit that runs through this article, that will finally produce more stringent laws concerning this institution. The argument is at first sight specious. The Jew is permitted to vend his wares upon the first day of the week because he keeps the seventh day, while the Protestant who may have no more regard for the first day in a religious point of view, than the Jew, is prohibited the pursuit of his business. Why? Simply because the laws of the land forbid it. Then here is manifest legislation in favor of what is generally considered the prejudices and customs of the Jew. But suppose some Brahmins should locate on our soil, like the Buddhists in California, and in the exercise of their religious ceremonies, proceed to offer up their human sacrifices. Would it be allowed? No, for the laws of the land would not permit it. Then why should partiality be shown to the Jew any more than to any other foreign citizens, in matters contrary to the law of the land. Especially would Sunday-keepers be sensitive on the observance of that day, since it has nothing but the law of the land to sustain it. We have said that the argument was at first sight specious; so it is; but its fallacy is at once apparent, when we remember that it is to the laws of God alone that mankind are amenable independent of human legislation. These laws are made known in his revealed will, and are paramount to all human codes. But we will not detain the reader longer with our remarks. He may judge for himself of the spirit of the article and the intent of its reasoning. "A short time since, we read the following in the Cincinnati Daily Gazette: " 'Judge S. yesterday morning decided that confectioners, who were not Jews, were amenable to the laws if they kept their stores open on Sunday, for the purpose of selling.' "From this decision it appears that the Jews are not amenable to the laws of a Christian country, when the peculiarity of the Jewish laws and customs is opposed thereto. Now, it appears to us that this decision brings before the public a question of great importance to all the lovers of good order and consistency. It is this: Why should the Jews be allowed to break the laws of a Christian country in preference to others, or in one case more than another? We want light on the subject, and hope the Judge will give it. "As a people, we profess to allow all men to worship, when and where they please. Nevertheless, we have adopted laws, rules, and regulations for the common benefit of society. These laws, in many cases, demand individual sacrifice. But still, for the good of the whole, we agree to enforce them. Nor do we commonly stop to ask the stranger whence he came, nor what are the laws of his own country, before we ask or compel his submission to our laws. The institution of the Christian Sabbath, however, seems to be an exception to all others among us. It can be but partially defended by the powers that be. The confectioner may be taken up and fined for a breach of it. But his Jewish neighbor is not amenable to the laws that should guard the Christian Sabbath. So decides Judge S. Here, then, the Jew may trample upon the laws, yea, the rights and privileges of Christians with impunity: and that too, in a Christian country! He may open his store on our Sabbath, and call in our profligate children to purchase his goods. He may, by his example, tempt the confectioner, the shoemaker, the tailor, and the rumseller to open their doors for business on the Christian Sabbath, and then proceed to have them taken up for the breach of a Sabbath, the sacredness of which perhaps one half of them believe no more in than he does himself. "How, we ask, can it be possible to keep Sabbath-breakers within due bounds, with such a manifest want of uniformity, in the administration of our laws? "We are aware that the Jew is excused because he keeps his own Sabbath. Well, so far, so good. But how does that atone for the mischief he does on the Christian Sabbath? We have agreed to keep the day, and teach our children to respect it. He opposes it; and, by his opposition, can he not, and does he not do as much to break down the institution of the Christian Sabbath as the confectioner, or any one else? And if the day is worth anything to Christians, why, we ask again, should a Jew be allowed to use efforts calculated to break it down, in preference to others? The excuse cannot certainly be that his people have long been persecuted. If the whole community, without distinction, were made amenable to the law for Sabbath breaking, we have no fears that the Jews would feel the restraint any more severely than any and every other individual who might be compelled to suspend his regular money-making business for a few hours, because the good of society demands it. Every opposer of the Sabbath will, no doubt, be impatient of restraint. But who can tell why the law or its administrators should clear one and condemn others, when their work is all the same, and its effects the same?"