A Noteworthy Memorial by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 20, 1908

“A Noteworthy Memorial”

By C. M. S.

The above heading is the title of an editorial in the New York Times of February 3, which we quote entire:—

A memorial to Congress of the Seventh-day Adventists, printed in the Congressional Record of January 29, is a document of interesting literary, religious, and political significance. It is an adroit argument against the passage of certain bills providing for a stricter observance of Sunday in the District of Columbia. It is rich in its citations of historical precedent, clear and strong in its argument against the union of church and state, and apt in its quotations of authorities from Neander to Bancroft.

Of course, the sole purpose of the memorial is to discredit the observance of Sunday as a day set apart for worship and prayer. The Seventh-day Adventists remember the Sabbath and keep it holy on Saturday. But if we are to permit ourselves to look for a motive, and judge of it, we must bear in mind that the sole purpose of the framers of the bills objected to was to forbid all work and recreation on Sunday in defiance of the desire of many millions of their fellow citizens.

Of the one hundred thousand Adventists in this country nearly two thirds belong to the seventh-day branch. They are reputed to be strong in their faith. Perhaps if their numbers in this country equaled the 11,000,000 of one denomination, or the 7,000,000 of another, they would be less fearful of the union of church and state. Their present position is interesting, and their memorial is a noteworthy document.

While we are glad to know that this memorial has received such favorable consideration, we can not refrain from pointing out the two grave misapprehensions contained in the second paragraph of the quotation. The writer of the above has not discovered the motive either of those who drew up the memorial or of those who have caused the Sunday bills to be introduced. It is not “the sole purpose of the memorial” to “discredit the observance of Sunday as a day set apart for worship and prayer.” Neither is it the sole purpose of the framers of the Sunday bills simply to cause the cessation of labor on Sunday. The memorial speaks for itself and tells exactly what its purpose is. The heading

of at least one of the Sunday bills printed on page 21 of our last issue, shows what their purpose is, and the campaign carried on in the District in behalf of those bills, and the language used in many of the speeches made, leave no question as to the motive of the framers. The purpose of the memorial is to safeguard freedom of conscience in this country, and enable the people to see the terrible consequences of the threatened union of church and state. The purpose of those who have caused the Sunday bills to be introduced is to protect, promulgate, and enforce a religious ordinance by the power of the civil law, thus uniting religion and the state. The accomplishment of their purpose would put an end to liberty of conscience in America, and spell disaster for both church and state. Against such a calamity to both these organizations the memorialists do and ever will protest.

In the Washington Post of February 11 favorable editorial mention is made of the same memorial. The editorial reads:—

In the interest of religious liberty, in respect for an alert conscience, Congress ought to grant the petition of the Christian sect known as the Seventh-day Adventists, asking that those of that faith may be legally authorized to keep Saturday as their Sabbath day in the District of Columbia. Nobody but the most churlish bigot can object. The Christian religion is much a matter of faith, and it is the belief of the Adventists that Saturday is the true Sabbath.

While this paper is a Christian in walk and talk, it is not a sectarian, but we are free to say that there is much in the creed, if it be a creed, of the Adventist that appeals to the mind and heart.

It is commanded that we keep the Sabbath day. There is a difference of opinion as to which day of the week is the Sabbath. Nearly all Christians accept Sunday as the Sabbath; but great numbers of our citizens, notably the Jews, believe that Saturday is the proper day, and among them the Adventists.

It is an act of despotism, a flat defiance of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution, and a truckling to fanaticism, to prescribe any particular day that the citizen shall keep as the Sabbath. It is the legitimate offspring of the demoniac zealot that sets up the torture chamber to vindicate the Lamb of God and hasten his reign on earth of peace and good will to men.

In at least one of the States the largest liberty is left to the citizen as to the day he may choose for his Sabbath. It may be any one of the seven; but if he “works on Sunday,” he has committed a misdemeanor, unless he can show to the authorities that he has observed as the Sabbath some other day of the week.

As for the Adventists—no other sect can show a better citizenship. They are industrious, frugal, and peaceable. If all other men were no more prone to evil than they, the grand jury would have little to do, and courts, civil as well as criminal, could take a vacation of at least six days in the week, and have little to do the seventh.

Their petition is reasonable, and we do not see how any one can object to it.

We are glad to know that the Post looks thus favorably upon this memorial, and we express here our thanks for its public and kindly expression of opinion with reference to our position as outlined in the document in question. The position defined in this memorial, however, and by that we mean the position taken by this people, is broader than has been recognized by either of the above-named journals. The memorial asks for more than the recognition of the rights of Seventh-day Adventists or Jews to keep the Sabbath of Jehovah and labor upon the other six days of the week. It asks for freedom of conscience for every man; it asks that in this country the separation of church and state be a fact as well as a theory; that the state refuse to pass any laws dealing with the enforcement of religious ordinances; that the proper sphere of the church be not entered by the civil government, and that the proper sphere of the civil government be not interfered with by the church. It shows how ruin both to the state and to the church has always followed in the wake of the union of these two organizations; and while it pleads for the present and the future, it also warns by the lessons of the past. In this age it is difficult for men to recognize an unselfish motive; but we believe that this memorial was inspired by such a motive. Not for Adventists do we plead, but for men, for the rights of mankind, for the rights of our enemies as well as our own rights, and not for these alone or chiefly; but rather that religion may not be sullied by an unholy alliance with the state, and that the government may not be debased by the political aspirations of a power-loving church. C. M. S.