Sound Speech | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 9, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 37.

Sound Speech.

At the Missouri State Sunday Convention last May, when the constitution was presented for adoption, the first article of which reads as follows, “The object of this association shall be to preserve the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day, as a day of rest and worship,” Elder R. C. Porter made the following speech. It is a good speech. It is not often that such speeches are made in Sunday-law Conventions:—

As a member of the convention adopting this constitution, I would like to say a word with reference to the principles that I would like to see incorporated in the constitution to be adopted. I cannot quite agree with the sentiments expressed in the first article of the constitution which has been submitted, which says that “the object of this association shall be to preserve the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day, as a day of rest and worship.” Now, in a certain sense I can quite agree with that. I am in favor of individuals who believe in the first day of the week being the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, using all the influence they can from the persuasive standpoint to accomplish that object; and in that sense I can agree with it; but inasmuch as I can see that it reaches beyond that, and the object will be to enforce by law the observance of the day as a Sabbath expressed in this first article of the constitution, I could not agree with that. In the first place, one reason why I could not agree with it is from the fact that the principle underlying the object to be accomplished is not the right principle. As it is stated here in this article, it is said to be the Lord’s day.

Yesterday I made a statement that we should render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s, according to the declaration of the Saviour. If it is the Lord’s day, as this article of the constitution declares, we ought not to have the State to cause us to render that to Cæsar. But each individual should be made to feel that it was his obligation to render it to God by persuasion, and not by force. Therefore the principle upon which we stand with reference to this subject is the principle of education and persuasion, and not to accomplish this object by force of law. I would heartily agree with the principle to persuade men, as far as in us lies, to respect God’s Sabbath. There is a division among us as to which day is the Lord’s day. The Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists have been referred to as standing aloof from the object of this movement. We heartily agree with the idea of each

individual doing all he can to advance the work of Sabbath reform, so that the public conscience shall be educated. Yet we do not believe in the doctrine of force and compulsory means to accomplish this object. It was stated by a gentleman, yesterday, in reply to a remark that I made, that the Sabbath was made for man, and therefore he would bring it in the province of the State to enforce its observance by the civil law. I want to say that the principle upon which I stand is this: That while the Lord said the Sabbath was made for man, he still claims it as his holy day; he gave it to man as a day of rest to be promotive of man’s highest good. At the same time, he never gave to man that right to enforce its observance upon others civilly. Now, let me cite a parallel: Paul says the woman was made for man. That is true; but will any of us say that because woman was made for man, therefore it is the province of civil government to say that every man must have a wife whether he wants one or not? Every one of us would say that it was uncivil to ask a man to allow us to force him to take a wife, whether he wants to or not, because the woman was made for man. And so, it is equally true of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, to be promotive of his highest good. But while that is true, it is equally true that it would be uncivil in us to ask a man to allow us to enforce upon him by law the observance of it whether he wanted it or not.

Therefore, I say that the principle of equality of rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is the true principle of civil government. Every man has an equal right to worship on any day he pleases, or not to worship, just as he pleases as far as civil government has to do with him. Still God has his claims upon him, and by and by will call him to account for his failure to render obedience to him. And yet when we undertake to say that we will help God defend by law the things that belong to God, then we make ourselves guardians of God. In Judges 6:25–32 we have an instance recorded where the people began thus to defend the things belonging to their idol god. And Joash said, “If he be a god let him plead for himself.” Thus teaching the people that God was able to take care of himself. Now, it seems to me that it would be just the same way with reference to the Sabbath-day. In viewing it from this standpoint, believing, as an American citizen, I have an equal right with any other American citizen, and that no man has a right to say with reference to our obligations to God, what I or anybody else shall do; then I say we have no right to gain the object of the article set forth in this first article of the proposed constitution. I want to make this simple statement, that the rights of the minority are as sacred as those of the majority, and should be equally respected.

The only true principle of civil and religious liberty is my assertion of other people’s rights, when I am in the majority as well as when I am in the minority. Thus every man has equality of rights, as is said in the Declaration of Independence, in speaking with reference to this very question, all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—untransferable rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, I have a right to my conscientious belief; and if I should sanction the principle of this first article in this proposed constitution, understanding that it is to be enforced by law, then I would be sanctioning the principle involved in it, which, if carried out to its logical conclusion deprives some of my fellow-citizens of equality of rights. If a man gives up his right to believe, he gives up his right to eternal life. The question is like this: If the majority have a right to decide with reference to which day is the Sabbath, then, of course, the minority must submit to the decision of the majority. But this involves a matter of conscience. Would any of my brethren here think, if the Seventh-day Adventists or Seventh-day Baptists were in the majority that they had a right to enact a law compelling all those who conscientiously believe that the first day of the week is the Sabbath to close their shops on Saturday, as Mr. Crafts said last night, the seventh-day people should be compelled to close their shops on Sunday? But an exemption clause is proposed. What is an exemption clause? It is a toleration clause. We have no right to give toleration clauses in the United States. That is an acknowledgment, if individuals are asking for it, that they have not equality of rights. We believe that we have equal rights with any citizens of the United States, as a people. We believe an infidel has equality of rights with us, and that he has the right to keep the Sabbath, or not to keep the Sabbath, so far as the State is concerned, equally with any other citizen. And so we believe we have the right to keep whichever day we want to keep, and then a right to go about our business quietly on Sunday as others have a right to do upon Saturday. Would you not think it a strange thing if Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists were trying to get a law to compel everybody to make Saturday a day of rest, lest others should disturb them in their worship?

It is claimed that these workingmen cannot have a day of rest unless there is a law to secure it to them. I am in favor of educating these men’s conscience so they can have this day of rest without this law. Is it a fact that it is impossible for workingmen to have a day of rest if they want it, unless secured to them by law? I say it is not. Thousands of Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists, who are laboring men, have a day of rest every week without any law to secure it for them. And so can anyone else who sufficiently desires to. But this can be rightly accomplished only by properly educating the conscience of the laboring men. As I view it, this is the only true principle of gospel reform.

And then with reference to the statement made last night by Mr. Crafts, he spoke of Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists being associated with anarchists, infidels, and rum-sellers in opposition to the movement to secure a Sunday-Rest law, and this fact ought to convince them that they are in the wrong! Is there any weight to such an argument? We go back eighteen hundred years, and Paul, in I Corinthians 4, says that “we are counted the offscouring of all things.” Then ought not Paul to have learned that he was wrong? But he did not. Our Saviour was denounced as a blasphemer and classed with thieves. Ought he not to have learned by that that he was wrong. If Mr. Crafts’ argument be true he certainly should. But he did not. I want to say that when I come to look the field over, I find that the only true principle of civil government is the principle of equal rights to all citizens. And let the gospel presented be a persuasive gospel; let it be a gospel of education, of persuasion, and of entreaty. A gospel of peace, but not a gospel of force. I want to say, my beloved fellow citizens, I believe in these principles. I want to say that I believe that the rights of conscience of the minority are as sacred as those of the majority and should be equally respected. And I believe that the statement made by our Saviour in the Golden Rule is the true teaching of the gospel with reference to our relations in civil government. This leaves out the gospel of force. Our Saviour left it out, and we should leave it out.