Untitled article by A. Mallett

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 16, 1893

Does It Teach Apostolic Doctrines?

By A. Mallett

THE Apostolic Guide, that journal which advocates church unity, and at the same time persecution of those who refuse to keep Sunday, has this, under the heading, “Fighting the Sects:”

It is never in order to fight other churches. It is our duty to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The evangelist must have love for truth and love for men in equal proportion. He must endeavor to persuade men of the truth of the gospel.

If the Guide, and all others who are clamoring for Sunday laws, would follow this principle, there would be many more Christians than there are, for this is the plan which Jesus and his disciples followed, and which they left for all other believers to follow. It is the Christian’s duty to “persuade men of the truth of the gospel,” and not compel them. Christ taught this, and, if we are Christians, we shall do the same, for we shall be Christlike. Men would turn to the Lord if we went to them in this spirit, but it is impossible to make Christians by compulsion. They will pretend to be good, but the heart will be just as evil as ever. Is this the kind of Christians God requires? “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” It is heart-service that the Lord requires; the State would not make this kind of Christians, but only hypocrites.

But one would think to read the foregoing quotation from the Guide that it endeavored to make Christians in the way Christ taught, that is, by persuasion. Does it? Let us see:—

The State has the right to whatever is essential to existence. Moral teaching is essential to its existence. Hence, it has the right to moral teaching. No moral teaching can be secured without the observance of the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day. Hence, the State has the right to enact and to enforce laws suspending all unnecessary work upon that day. Certainly no legislation can compel people to be pious. But by proper and wise legislation the State can make it easy for people to do right. It can remove the hindering causes that at present keep an army of men at work upon railways, in post-offices, in express offices and in divers kinds of work which can be postponed without serious injury to any one. No power save that which originates from the weekly observance of the Lord’s day in Sunday-schools, in preaching and other religious training can pluck out immoral tendencies and supply the people with moral strength to resist temptation and equip themselves for the moral battles of life. The abolition of the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, will abolish moral instruction. The abolition of moral instruction will ruin the State. The issue, therefore, resolves itself into the balancing of the injury inflicted upon a few men who hold to the observance of the Sabbath against that inflicted upon the whole State. It is better for a few Adventists to suffer than for the whole State to break to pieces by the complete desecration of the day.

Is not the Guide somewhat inconsistent? It first says that Christians should do this by means of the Sunday-school, the pulpit, the observance of the Sabbath, and other religious training, and then argues that to make men religious the State has the right “to enact and enforce laws suspending all unnecessary work upon Sunday.” It then says, “Certainly no legislation can compel people to be pious.” What are Sunday laws for if they are not to make men religious? If they are not for this purpose, why does the Church interfere in such matters? What has it to do with civil affairs? Its business is to preach the gospel, and not to enforce civil law.

The Guide is trying to bring about church unity, but it can not do this until it is more consistent in its teachings; until it stops “fighting the sects.” There can never be church union while one body of Christians is fighting another. It tends to destroy Christianity, and not to upbuild it. What has brought about the disunion that we see to-day? Nothing but a union of Church and State. There can never be church union while the State interferes with religious matters; because persecution of some of “the sects” is the inevitable result of a union of Church and State.

The Guide professes to be Christian and to teach apostolic doctrines. Is it Christian? Does it teach these doctrines? It owns that this persecution is wicked in these words:—

To “fight the sects” in a pugilistic spirit, with a pugnacious air . . . in the year 1892, is not only a manifestation of the “old Adam,” but a lamentable anachronism of ignorance.

And yet it believes that for the good of the State those who believe and act contrary to its teachings should be punished. Is this consistent? This “fighting the sects” does not end with imprisonment, but death has been the penalty for keeping God’s commandments, and is to be, if this persecution is allowed to go on. It was so in the Dark Ages, and always is the case when the State has the interpretation of the law of God.

It is not true that the State has a right to enforce moral teaching because it can not exist without it. It can exist without it, because religion and the State are entirely separate things. Irreligion does not necessarily harm men civilly, only morally, therefore the State has no right to interfere with it. The State can punish a man for getting drunk, because he is liable to harm his fellow-man; but if he is irreligious, he does his fellow-man no civil harm by being so. If a man has the love of God in his heart he will do good, no matter how much immorality he sees around him.

The Guide argues that if men do not keep Sunday, or keep some other day than Sunday, it is a degradation to society. This alone shows that there is no sacredness in Sunday, because if it were a sacred day those who observe it would keep it from love, and would not turn from it because others do. The non-observance of the Sabbath by others would have no effect upon them.

The Guide says: “It is undoubtedly true that the Adventist has the right to live.” How long would they have this right if the State continued to interfere with their religion. Or, in other words, if religious bigots had their way, how long would it be before the Adventist would be shut from society altogether? How long before he would be told to stop preaching his heretical doctrine? Human

nature has not changed since the apostolic age, not even the Apostolic Guide. There is that same jealous spirit; that same wrong idea that the majority must rule in matters of religion; that same wrong idea that the State should enforce religion.

If the Guide is Christian, it ought to be able to see that these are erroneous ideas. Governments are instituted to protect the minority in their rights, but there would be no protection for them if the government were ruled by a majority of religionists. They would be compelled to believe as the majority believed, whether that belief was right or wrong, or else suffer the penalty.

Why is it we see so much infidelity in the world to-day? It is only because there is not Church unity; because Christians are not consistent; because one sect persecutes another. How can Christians be the means of converting an infidel when they do not follow the teachings of the Bible; when they say that the first day of the week is the Sabbath and the Bible teaches that the seventh day is; when they teach that the State should enforce religion, and the Bible teaches that it should not, but on the contrary, that they should be entirely separate. When Christians will live and teach consistently with the teachings of the Bible, then men will see that there is a power in the gospel; that Jesus Christ is able to save from sin. This alone will bring Church union.

But the Guide does not see this. The Bible and God are nothing; the State is everything, and from thence it seeks its power, and not from God. It does not care how a few good, honest, God-fearing men suffer so long as Sunday is exalted, for it says:—

The legislator must decide between the abolition of the Sunday law and the consequent injury inflicted upon public morals, and the enactment and enforcement of Sunday law and the consequent injury inflicted upon a few Adventists. The good of the State is to be weighed against the good of a few men whose religion is a greater anachronism than the Blue Laws.

The legislator must decide who are Christians and who are not. The legislator must decide what is sin; not God. The Government must punish these “few Adventists” for this fearful sin of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath when by the law of the land the first day is made the Sabbath. Which is right, to obey the State, or God, in matters of religion? Let the Bible answer: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

A. MALLETT.