Some Remarkable Questions and Answers
IN the October number of The Defender, a magazine published by the New England Sabbath Protective League, we find a series of fourteen “questions and answers about Sunday for the young.” We quote the following:— 1. What reason have we for keeping Sunday?
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 2. What further reason for keeping the day?
Our Lord’s command to keep the law, and his example in keeping the day holy. 3. Why was Sunday changed from the seventh to the first day of the week?
In remembrance of Christ’s resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week. 9. Can people do as much work by resting one day in seven?
It has been proved that they can do more and better work by resting on Sunday. 13. What have our greatest statesmen said about Sunday?
That the safety of our republic depends on our keeping it a holy day. It is not often that so much false teaching is found in so few words. Such utter perversion of the truth is actually startling. In its effort to defend the observance of Sunday, The Defender seems to overlook the ordinary principles of fairness and honesty. And yet these men doubtless really think that they are doing God service. But let us note some of the conclusions which inevitably follow from such teaching. They are of importance as showing the sort of campaign of education which is being conducted upon the Sunday question, and its meaning to the advocates of the Sabbath of the Lord. Although the word “Sunday” is never used in the Bible, and both the term itself and the custom of celebrating the day are of purely pagan origin, yet The Defender assumes as the foundation of its remarkable assertions that “Sunday” as now used is synonymous with “Sabbath” in the Scriptures. Having thus begged the whole question, it calmly applies the Scriptural authority for the observance of the “Sabbath” to the observance of “Sunday.” It accordingly cites the first part of the fourth commandment (the remainder of it would not fit its assumption) and Christ’s example in keeping the Sabbath as reasons for keeping Sunday. It then explains the change of Sunday “from the seventh to the first day of the week,” although it must know that the seventh day of the week was never known as Sunday, and gives as a basis of this imaginary change a reason which is not found in the Bible. It thus uses that part of the fourth commandment which says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” as authority for the observance of a day different from that mentioned in the commandment, and substitutes the tradition of men for the plain statement of the commandment, as its excuse for doing this. We do not recall a more flagrant case of playing fast and loose with the Word of God. Of course the purpose of all this is to accustom the people to the idea that “Sunday” has always been observed according to the commandment, and that to keep Sunday now is to obey the fourth commandment. Such jugglery in the use of language by professed religious teachers is well calculated to deceive those who do not study this Sabbath question for themselves. Furthermore we call attention to the linguistic sleight of hand by which The Defender changes “one day in seven” into “Sunday.” It asks whether people can “do as much work by resting one day in seven,” and in its reply deftly substitutes “Sunday” for “one day in seven” by declaring that experience has proved that they “can do more and better work by resting on Sunday” (Italics ours). Of course the argument for rest “one day in seven” would apply with equal force to any day of the week, but in order to make it serve as a Sunday argument The Defender assumes that “one day in seven” must be Sunday. This is another illustration of the kind of reasoning which argues that it does not make any difference which day of the week you observe as the Sabbath provided that day is Sunday. But it must not escape our attention that The Defender is laying the foundation for the claim which will doubtless be made later on that the disregard of Sunday is equivalent to treason against the republic. Mark these words: “Our greatest statesmen” have said that “the safety of our republic depends on our keeping it [Sunday] a holy day.” The legitimate conclusion from this teaching is plain enough. Those who speak against Sunday speak against the safety of the republic, and those who refuse to keep Sunday as a holy day are the enemies of the republic. Of course it follows that the republic must make the necessary provision for its own safety, and therefore Sunday laws should be enacted and enforced. It is astonishing that intelligent men do not see that this kind of logic fully justifies all the persecutions of the Christians in the days of the Roman republic when paganism was the religion of the state. Professed Christians of to-day are using the arguments of the pagans of Rome in behalf of the pagan Sunday! Many years ago these words were written: “At the commencement of the time of trouble, we were filled with the Holy Ghost as we went forth and proclaimed the Sabbath more fully. This enraged the churches and nominal Adventists, as they could not refute the Sabbath truth. And at this time God’s chosen all saw clearly that we had the truth, and they came out and endured the persecution with us. I saw the sword, famine, pestilence, and great confusion in the land. The wicked thought that we had brought the judgments upon them, and they rose up and took counsel to rid the earth of us, thinking that then the evil would be stayed.” It is clear that these experiences are near at hand, and we need a special preparation for them. Those who “proclaimed the Sabbath5more fully” were “filled with the Holy Ghost.” The demand of to-day is for a Spirit-filled company of believers in God’s message for to-day.