A Flimsy Argument

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 19, 1882

A Flimsy Argument.

An argument that is very freely used by ministers and others in favor of the Sunday Law is that without it there can be no day of rest for the workingman. Rev. Robert Mackenzie, of San Francisco, said in a sermon not long since: "What ignorance it is, what crime it is, to say that the issue turns upon the observance of the Sabbath, when every workingman knows it turns on the existence of the Sabbath. It is not, then, a question, In what way shall we spend the Sabbath? but, Shall we have a Sabbath to spend in any way? This statement is quoted approvingly by the Christian Statesman. We have heard the case stated even more strongly than this. connection with the Bible.

Now let us see how much truth there is in this so-called argument. One of the reasons given by the National Reform Association, a party whose object is to so amend the Constitution of the United States that Sunday may be enforced upon all classes as a day of rest, is that this is a Christian country, and that they want this fact to be recognized in the "fundamental law of the land." Now if it is true that this is a Christian country, then the statement that the workingman can have no day of rest without a law to that effect, is false; for at least a majority of the citizens must be professing Christians before the country can be called Christian. Of course all Christians will rest on the Sabbath, or on the day which they suppose to be the Sabbath, whether there is any civil law enforcing rest or not. Therefore the workingman will have rest, unless we suppose that only the employees are Christians, while the employers are non-professors.

But we can judge of the truth of the statement by actual facts. For more than two hundred years the Seventh-day Baptists have had an organization in this country. The Seventh-day Adventists have had a denominational existence of more than thirty years. In both these bodies there are men of means, but the larger portion of the people are those who depend on their daily labor for their support. In all this time there has been no law in favor of the Seventh day, nothing forbidding the employer to exact full labor on that day, but rather to the contrary, and yet these people have lived and thrived. There is not more than the average amount of poverty among them. We know of no instance where a man has been compelled to break the Sabbath in order to gain a living. It is true that a few have thought it necessary, but the result has shown that they have not been gainers by such a step. Sabbath-keepers have never thought of asking for a law in their favor; they do not desire one. If Sabbath-keepers can live without a civil law for the Sabbath, why may not Sunday-keepers do as well? The truth is, that so-called argument in favor of the Sunday Law is only a pretense.

There is, however, a difference which we will mention, and it is in favor of those who keep the seventh day. They have the commandment of God as authority for their day of rest, while Sunday is only a human ordinance. Of course those who observe human laws must look to man for help; while those who obey God have the promise of his assistance. See Matt. 6:31-33; Ps. 37:3; 34:10. Those who keep God's commandments can trust him; they do not need to place their dependence wholly in man. Those who have no divine law to uphold them will naturally seek to get the best support that they can.

It is pitiful to see ministers of the gospel raising the question of convenience. They want a Sunday Law so that it will be convenient for men to keep Sunday. When religion becomes a matter of convenience, then piety departs from the church. He who really desires to serve God will not ask, Will it pay? but, Is it right?

"The entrance of Thy word giveth light."