“All Must Rest, or None Can.”
The statement is made in various ways by the advocates of Sunday legislation that the possibility of rest for any is contingent upon compulsory resting on the part of all. If this be true, no one has ever had a day of rest, and no one has such a day at the present time. Those who advocate stricter Sunday legislation urge, as a prominent reason, that hundreds of thousands of people are now engaged in business on Sunday; this being the fact, and the logic of the claim which stands at the head of this article being correct, the most devout, who give Sunday wholly to worship and deeds of love, do not yet have a day of rest, neither can they have until the whole are compelled to rest, for their sakes. Putting the facts alongside this claim is sufficient answer to the claim. They show it to be false. Several other facts show the same thing. Devout Jews in all lands, and through all the centuries, though often persecuted and bitterly opposed, have conscientiously and successfully rested from their labors and business, not only upon the Sabbath, but upon many other religious festivals. If there were no other facts in history bearing on this point, other than those in connection with the Hebrew nation, the foregoing claim would be absolutely condemned. For more than two centuries in the United States, the Seventh-day Baptists, and in later years the Seventh-day Adventists as well, have observed the Sabbath strictly, finding no trouble in securing a day of rest and worship, though in “the insignificant minority”—as the friends of Sunday legislation describe them—and in the midst of the world’s busiest day. What is needed to secure a day of rest and worship, or, better still, “keep the Sabbath according to the commandment,” is a conscience toward God, and a determination to obey him. All else is valueless, and the strictest legislation does no more than create a legal holiday. The arguments upon which men attempt to base statements like that which heads this article, are futile, illogical, and deceptive. Facts deny the statement, and the attempted argument based upon the statement is destructive of regard for God and of conscience toward him. Not the outward compulsion of civil law, but the inward choice of the heart, settles the question, and regard for any day as a Sabbath will be destroyed in proportion as men induce themselves to believe that such regard must depend upon similar regard on the part of others, or upon the fact that others do or do not cease from their labors. It would be as logical to ask civil legislation to forbid all profanity, upon the claim that the ability to refrain from taking the name of the Lord in vain on the part of one depended upon compelling all thus to refrain. He who respects God as he ought will not take his name in vain, though he dwell in the midst of blasphemy. He who regards the Sabbath as he ought will observe it as God requires, though he dwell in the midst of those who forget God, and trample upon his law. —Sabbath Recorder.