Untitled article | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · July 31, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 30

“Quite Cautious,” Indeed.

THE following ringing article is from the Signs of the Times, a Seventh-day Adventist paper, published in Oakland, California:—

In the Christian Statesman of May 15, “N. R. J.,” writing from this city, gives the object of the “not very positive but quite cautious,” Sunday-law plank in the California Prohibition Party’s platform. We quote from his letter as follows:—

It will be noticed that the wording of the resolution is not very positive but quite cautious. It was evidently framed with the intention and expectation of securing the approbation and votes of the Seventh-day Adventists, who are not only a temperate people, but quite numerous in the State.

If that was the object of the plank, it will certainly fail of its purpose in the main. Seventh-day Adventists are an ultra-temperance body, but they know too well the history of religious legislation in the past, and the “sure word of prophecy” regarding its future, to become in any sense, or to any degree, a party to open the door for its devastating work in this country. When this certain blot upon our civil and religious liberty does come, it must come at the bidding of those who are too blind to see, and too credulous to suspect, the poison sting that lies secreted by its “civil” smile.

He further says, by way of emphasizing the cautious character of the resolution, that “it ignores the Sabbath as a divine institution.” Why, we ask, should it not be ignored as a divine institution, if a “civil” Sabbath is all that is to be asked, as heretofore represented by “N. R. J.” himself, and his co-agitators?

Again, he complains that “it ignores the duty of the State to forbid work because the divine law forbids it.” We ask, What has the divine law to do with a “civil sabbath”? The divine law does not recognize any such institution as a “civil sabbath.” That law provides for a religious Sabbath, the keeping of a day holy, and designates what day,—the seventh day,—the day before the first day of the week. See Ex. 20: 8–11; Mark 16: 1, 2; Luke 23:56 and 24:1. Why, then, should the State forbid work on a “civil sabbath” on the authority of the divine law?

Another complaint is, “it gives no preference to the Christian Sabbath, or, indeed, any day, but favors only one day in seven as a rest-day.” Why should they give preference to the “Christian Sabbath,” if only a “civil sabbath” is desired? What difference does it make what day is set apart for “civil” purposes? But “N. R. J.” seems to be afraid that the “civil sabbath,” for which he has so earnestly pleaded in Oakland and other places, will be all his party will get, if anything; and there is cause for suspicion that some ulterior design lurks behind this specious plea of a “civil sabbath” for the physical necessities of the tired workingman,—that “the saloonist would have an opportunity to go to church, or to the picnic, or to rest at home.” Yet he says “for a political party convention this is better than nothing.”

With all the deceptive caution, however, designed to catch the Seventh-day Adventist vote, “N. R. J.” is doubtful, and properly so, that the game will win. He rather despairingly admits that “they are not likely to vote with any party that favors civil legislation in favor of even a ‘civil sabbath’ if this be the first day of the week.” He knows very well that Seventh-day Adventists would not vote for civil legislation in favor of any kind of a Sabbath, civil or religious. But why did he add that last clause, “if this be the first day of the week”? The insinuation is that for some other day they would favor it; that they are actuated solely by a wicked disregard of Sunday. And this is in harmony with the endeavor of the national Sunday-law advocates, who strive to create the impression that only seventh-day keepers would be affected by the law.

Seventh-day Adventists are not only opposed to civil legislation in favor of any kind of a Sabbath, but they are opposed to civil legislation for a Sabbath on any day of the week. To enforce by civil law a so-called “civil sabbath,” or that other imaginary absurdity, an American Sabbath, is subversive of the liberties guaranteed by the Federal Constitution; and it is unwarranted by the word of God. And to presume to add civil law to the commandment

of God for the enforcement of his Sabbath, is presuming to add wisdom and strength to the decree of the Almighty. “Who hath required this at your hand?”

Not all the Sunday-law preachers, nor all the political conventions in Christendom, can frame a Sunday-law resolution so cautiously that Seventh-day Adventists cannot see through to the end of the scheme. Human Sabbath laws are evil, and only evil, no matter upon what pretext they are framed.