Sabbath Agitation

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 18, 1871

Sabbath Agitation.

We saw a remark from some one in an eastern paper a few years since, “We shall never have done with this Sabbath question.” We felt at that time to respond, and now feel to reiterate, a hearty Amen; that is, so let it be. Let the agitation never cease, so long as men trample the sacred institution under their feet, and draw excuses for their conduct from the dictionary of folly. “First pure, then peaceable,” says the apostle. If there was no error in the world, truth would not need to battle for its rights; the opinions of men would not need to be disturbed; the sword which the Lord came to send on earth, would not need to be unsheathed. But so long as error, hydra-headed, is striving to thrust its hideous form into every nook and corner of the land, truth must repel its advances, though men of pewter and putty everywhere lift up their hands in holy horror at the agitation, or give up the field. No peace, unless the soldiers of the cross are recreant to duty, while there is impurity in life, and corruption in doctrine.

“We shall never have done with this Sabbath question.” Amen, again. In no better cause can a man engage than in vindicating an institution of our Father in Heaven, which has fallen into the spoiler’s hands. Cease to agitate? Never. Cease to urge the claims of God’s holy law? Not while men disobey it. Let this great reform stop or go backward? We have not so learned duty. Be less zealous in the work? We shall be more so. Contract the limits of our operations? We shall enlarge them. Let the agitation die away? We shall increase it. A truth of unparalleled clearness is given us. God has a controversy with the nations in this respect. He has set his hand to vindicate the claims of his law, against the corruption and presumption of the Man of Sin. A counterfeit Sabbath soon to be made a civil test in the law of the land, as the true one is now a moral test in the law of God, the people must be enlightened on the subject. And they will be—so enlightened, that when they decide against the right, it will be in obedience to the claims of self-interest, in opposition to clear convictions of duty.