I. Introductory.

In your issue of September 9th, you give a pretty full and clear account of a sermon preached the day before by the Rev. D. Sidey in the Presbyterian Church, Napier, on "Sabbath Observance." I trust, therefore, you will allow me the like courtesy of giving publicity to a few of my thoughts (or matured convictions) on this subject in your columns. I wish to make them public for several reasons. Before, however, that I briefly give those reasons, I would say,—that I have greatly desired to make known what I believe on this head in a series of lectures in Napier, admission free; where I should have more scope, and where what I should state could be taken down (by Mr Harding or some other equally competent writer), and, if approved of by my audience, printed: and did I belong to any one Public Denomination among us, I think I should have done so. Now my reasons for making known my convictions on this subject, are, (1) I believe, that whatever knowledge any man has gained,—whether by enquiry, experiment, travel, good luck, study, deep research, or experience, in whatever branch of science or knowledge,—that he Bhould not keep it locked-up in his own breast, but should seek to make it known to his fellow-men: (2) especially if he reasonably believes such to be for their future welfare: (3) more particularly so, if (as in my own case) he should be nearing the allotted "three score years and ten" of man: To such a person and at such a time, the wise saying of the ancients is most appropriate and should act as a spur,—"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (4) Further, I utterly disbelieve that unreasonable remark, which we so often hear, viz, that things of great—or of momentous—interest to mankind,—things popularly believed as more pertaining to the soul and to a future state of being, (generally lumped together as "religious matters,") should not be entered on in the columns of a news-paper! Why not? Can this be reasonably answered? For my own part I verily believe, that it would be far better for us all, if more of truth of science of reason and of true religion were taken up in all our papers in a proper spirit,—especially in those which are looked upon as family Papers. And so with theatres and theatrical performances; these should be sought to be raised from their present low standard (especially here in Napier), by the reasonable and intelligent and by the religious portions of the community uniting and endeavoring to do so. For do what we may, man will have amusements as well as instruction,—such are natural to him and cannot be abolished. Let such, however, who oppose this view (and, no doubt, there are some who do so, as they believe, conscientiously, religiously,) let such just quietly ask themselves the question,—Where did Jesus, and, after him, his disciples, teach and make known their views and opinions? Was it not in the streets and highways, in the desert and on the mountain, in the houses of the Pharisees and in the courts of the temple, in the village of Mary and Martha page 3 and at the grave of Lazarus, by the pool of Siloam and the sea of Galilee, on land or on the water, on Mar's hill at Athens or in the school of Tyrannus at Ephesus,—wherever "a multitude" was found to listen, among whom were, sometimes, a few followers, but always plenty of enemies and scoffers. As then, so now. Principles have not altered, these are permanent; outward things, such as rules and methods, have, these are changing. Can it be reasonably supposed, that if the art—the great Science—of Printing, with all its advantages and blessings, was then known,—and if Jesus and his disciples knew how to write for the Press, that they would not have done so? Sure I am, that he,—one of the greatest of Reformers and a true Protestant,—would have done so gladly, if he could have found any Jewish Editor of a Paper willing to print his articles. Neither Jesus nor his followers would have entertained such a thought for a moment, as that his teachings—even the holiest and highest—could be lowered or contaminated by being published to the world in the columns of a newspaper. Such a notion was the very antagonistic opposite of all his and their teaching. And why? Because Great is truth and must prevail. Indeed he had early said to his followers "What ye hear in the ear" (from me, when we are alone, or it may be travelling together,) "proclaim upon the housetops,"—as an Oriental Muezzin or public crier;—or, in other and modern words,—Make known through the Daily Press.—

And therefore it is, as I have said before, that I wish to make known what little I have gained on this head—of the Sabbath.

And if any one among us should still be inclined to ask, (1) How should I particularly know such a subject? my answer must be, Because I have for many years painfully and closely studied it, in all its bearings, and with the help of every aid. And if the further question should arise,—(2) Do you think you understand it better and know it more than the Rev. D. Sidey, or the Rev. Mr Irvine, or the Rev. Messrs Oliver and Lock wood, or Archdeacon Williams, or even Bishop Stuart? My quiet answer must be (if I am to speak what I believe to be the truth)—Yes: (1) Because I have, as I have already said, made it my particular study,—having had ample means, in desire, time, books, and opportunity, which all those persons have not so largely possessed: (2) Because I am older: and (3) Because I am, (thank God!) set free from all Denominational and Ecclesiastical bias and prejudice,—rules, or "blinkers." Did I not thus firmly believe I were an ass to undertake to write upon this subject.

And, lest any one should deem me to be boasting (a thing I hate), let me add,—Just look at our English Surgeons, or Physicians; they are all alike "Doctors"; yet one has paid extra attention to diseases of the ear,—and is, therefore, an acknowledged Aurist; another to those of the eye,—and is, therefore, an Oculist; another to Midwifery,—and is, therefore, looked-up to in all such matters; now all these are alike "Doctors," yet each possesses his own peculiar skill and knowledge in that which he made his particular branch of study. While, to the churchman, in addition, I would also say,—Bear in mind the words of the Poet (not page 4 David) in the 119 Psalm (w. 99, 100),—"I am wiser than my enemies; I have more understanding than all my teachers." On which verses Canon Perowne, in his new translation of the Psalms (2nd Edition), strikingly remarks,—"The teachers whom he has outstript may have been those whose disciple he once was;—or he may refer to authorized teachers, to whom he listened because they sat in Moses' seat, though he felt that they had really nothing to teach him." (Verb. sap.)

I cannot close this first, or Introductory part of my subject better, than in the glowing words of a true man and a great modern writer—Emerson: whose name, I am happy in knowing, will be perpetuated here in Napier. He says,—"There is a persuasion in the soul of man that he is here for cause, that he was put down in this place by the Creator to do the work for which He inspires him, that thus he is an overmatch for all antagonists that could combine against him.———Napoleon said well, "My hand is immediately connected with my head but the sacred courage is connected with the heart. The head is a half, a fraction, until it is enlarged and inspired by the moral sentiment. For it is not the means on which we draw, as health or wealth, practical skill or dexterous talent, or multitudes of followers, that count, but the aims only. The aim reacts back on the means. A great aim aggrandises the means. The meal and water that are the commissariat of the forlorn hope that stake their lives to defend the pass are sacred as the Holy Grail, or as if one had eyes to see in chemistry the fuel that is rushing to feed the Sun."