Of course, you do not deny that a day of rest was once enjoined upon God's chosen people. It is only under the gospel that you suppose all distinction of days to be annihilated. If, then, it is _expedient_ that a day of rest should be observed, it follows irresistibly, that the annihilation of all distinction in days, by the gospel, was very INEXPEDIENT! And thus, whatever blessings the gospel dispensation brings to the human race, a strict following out of its principles would be INEXPEDIENT! And, farther, that the _law_, which enjoined a day of rest, had more of an eye to expediency than the _gospel_ has! Consequently, that the gospel, though declared to be _faultless_, and capable of _perfecting_ those who believe, must nevertheless, FOR EXPEDIENCY'S SAKE, borrow a little help from the abrogated rites of the law! In other words, God, in setting aside a day of rest, committed an oversight, and left his work for man to mend! Brethren, we see not how it is possible for you to escape such monstrous conclusions. They are the legitimate result of your principles--principles which you must have adopted without considering where they would land you. For we are not disposed to believe you so completely destitute of piety, as willingly to abide by the result of them. We entreat you to reconsider them, and adopt such as are more in accordance with the spirit of our holy religion. When you advocate the observance of a day of rest on the ground of _expediency_, we are persuaded that you do so in view of the bearing you perceive it to have upon the well being of mankind. But still the question will arise, Has the gospel less regard to the well being of mankind than the law had? Look at the humanity of the sabbatic institution. How necessary that both man and beast should rest one day in seven. How evident that they cannot endure uninterrupted toil. How perfectly well established, that, if doomed to constant labor, they sink under the premature exhaustion of their powers. So well is this established, that we cannot put such a low estimate upon your judgment as to suppose it necessary to enter upon any proof of it. But the question returns, Does the gospel breathe less humanity than the law? Or, consider the bearing of the institution upon the interests of religion. It affords opportunity for men to be instructed in the great things which pertain to their salvation; and if there were no Sabbath to call them away from their labors, it would be impossible to bring religious instruction into contact with their minds. Does the gospel afford less advantage in this respect than the law did? Did the law provide a season for instructing the people in religion as it _then_ stood? and does the gospel provide no season for instructing them in religion as it _now_ stands? Must they be instructed in _types_, but not in the _substance_?--in _prophecy_, but not in the _fulfillment_ of prophecy? No one will be responsible for the affirmative of these questions.