SUNDAY-KEEPING CONFIRMS MEN IN INFIDELITY.
By A. H. Lewis
The Radical for January, 1869, has another article in which the inconsistencies of Sunday-keeping and infant baptism are most clearly and pointedly set forth. Whatever aim the Radical may have in thus holding up the weaknesses of “orthodoxy,” its criticisms are just, and we repeat them, that those who are thus professing one thing and doing another may be led to see how untruthful and harmful their position is, and be led to accept the whole truth. There can be no doubt but that such glaring inconsistencies are provocative of infidelity, and stand in the way of true reform. The Radical says: “In theory, the organs of orthodoxy deny the validity of tradition as an authoritative rule, and insist that Scripture is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, for the guidance of life, and that all Scripture is alike inspired. What we have now to inquire is, Does the practice of these professors correspond with their theory? Do they always obey the teaching of inspiration? Do they never follow tradition in preference? I ask, then, Are the creeds and customs of the orthodox church taken wholly from the Bible? Do they fairly represent that book, and represent it without addition, or diminution, or variation?” . . . . “The Bible, in commanding the observance of a weekly Sabbath, expressly specifies the seventh day of the week, Saturday, as the time for that observance, and rest from all labor as the manner of it.” . . . . “Our orthodox people lay great stress on the keeping of a Sabbath, but they choose a different day for it from that which their inspired Bible commands. On Saturday, the only day specified in that book for a weekly Sabbath, they follow, without scruple, their accustomed labor and business, not ‘remembering that day for the appointed duty of rest,’ not hallowing it, not regarding it at all. The tradition of their church (an authority which they vehemently deprecate in the Romish church) has taken the liberty to substitute another day (Sunday) for the commanded one, and they take the liberty to observe this substitute in a manner materially different from that scripturally enjoined in the ‘fourth commandment.’” . . . . “Take another instance: If any scriptural direction respecting water baptism is plain, it is that believers, and only believers, are the proper subjects of it. But our orthodox ministers and people insist upon applying this rite to infants, regardless of the fact that they do not believe, and that they are incapable of belief. They thus disregard one of the express stipulations of their infallibly inspired Scriptures.” Such deviations from plain scriptural teachings are worthy of severe criticism, even though made by good men. Indeed, the evil is greater in proportion to the positions occupied by the transgressors. It is true, that many of the people who practice these things are thoroughly honest, and follow their leaders with implicit confidence. But the leaders are not, or ought not to be, ignorant as to what is truth. That they are not ignorant, is shown by the ingenious sophistries and untiring efforts which they put forth in trying to evade the truth, and sustain their cherished positions. Self-interest, in many ways, urges them to hold on to the popular practices and theories; this they do, and drown the warnings of truth in new efforts to uphold error; or, which is perhaps more common, seek to compromise the case with God by doing something else. Thus they trample on his law one day, and then eloquently plead with sinners to obey it the next. Many times these same leaders see and feel the force of their inconsistencies, and shut out all light, “lest their deeds be reproved.” Few of the orthodox churches will allow any one to present the claims of the Bible Sabbath in their houses of worship. They fear the effect of the agitation. The leaders are afraid, if the light comes to the people. I suppose such leaders mean to be good men. They are good men in many respects, and so are the “New England Infidels” and “German Rationalists,” whose no-Sabbathism, orthodox men so loudly decry. The truth is, no-Sabbathism is the fruitage of the popular theories. Rome planted it, and modern orthodoxy, led by Puritanism, sought to uphold the evil by the false theory of a change of the day. This theory is threadbare, and shows the old warp of evil; and now the church is appealing to the civil arm to take away its dire effects, while they still cling to the fabric. It is like a frightened boy running from his own shadow, which leaps when he leaps, and stares at him when he stops. Sunday-keepers are frightened at their own child, nevertheless, it will not leave their door. Brethren, we pray you accept God’s law in its plain statements, and get upon the rock of truth—“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” There can be no true Sabbath reform on any other platform. The Anglo-American Sabbath is an ecclesiastico-civil institution, man-made, and almost powerless for good. It grows weaker every day. It must fail, if there be any truth in the logic of events, or the warnings of history. Brethren, give it up before it sinks you, and the best interests of the church. The truth will triumph, but not upon false pleas, nor by the power of legislators and rulers. Victory comes at last to the right, not to the many.—A. H. LEWIS, in Sabbath Recorder.