Questions of the Christian Advocate.
By Editor
According to promise we proceed to answer the questions asked by the Christian Advocate. "1. When does an Adventist Sabbath begin, Friday at 6 P. M., or Friday night at 12 P. M.? When does it end?" We cannot tell. We have heard of "the American Sabbath," and several other kinds of Sabbaths, but never of "an Adventist Sabbath." We never heard of the institution of such a Sabbath, nor have we seen any law for its observance. If such a Sabbath exists, it must be as destitute of divine authority as the so-called "Christian Sabbath." The Bible is silent in regard to both. But of "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"—the seventh day—we can give definite information. As it is found in the Bible some might imagine that a "Doctor of Divinity" did not need to be enlightened in regard to it. But that is hardly a safe rule by which to judge; or if it is, the editor of the Advocate is an exception. Each day consists of an evening and a morning; the evening coming first, as darkness was upon the earth before light. See Gen. 1. And the Lord always recognized this order of the day, as in Lev. 23:32: "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." The believing Jews would not bring their sick to the Saviour upon the Sabbath, but "at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased." Mark 1:21-32. If the Doctor will take a Concordance he will find other texts which teach the same thing. When he finds something in the Bible to indicate that the day begins at midnight, we hope he will inform us. "2. If a Seventh-day Adventist and an ordinary Baptist should go into partnership, and the Adventist keep Saturday and work Sunday, and the Baptist work Saturday and keep Sunday, their business would run continually, and would that be right?" No; it would not be right, were the Baptist ordinary or extraordinary. The Adventist would not keep the Sabbath under such circumstances, because his action would be contrary to the divine law. We suppose, however, that the "ordinary Baptist" would "keep Sunday" well enough, because there is no divine law governing such an observance. "3. Is it not best and most in accordance with the divine command, that all who love God's law in any country should agree to keep holy a certain day as the Sabbath?" We answer: Yes, provided they agree to keep the day which the divine commandment enjoins. But if they choose another day and substitute that for the Sabbath of the Lord God, we answer, No. And in that case it would make no difference how universal the agreement might be, for numbers cannot make it right to set aside the divine requirement. "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." If the Sabbath is a question of agreement, to be settled by the majority, we invite the Doctor to point out the Bible provision for the election! "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." The Doctor ought to know enough about the principles of law to know that if its provisions and obligations and terms are to be settled by the agreement of the subjects, then it is no law—its authority has ceased. And this is just what these theories of "agreement," or "any day," or "the seventh part of time," are doing; they are breaking down the authority of the fourth commandment. "4. Is it wise or pious for Adventists to unite with infidels and saloon-keepers in breaking down all legal barriers to a day of rest and worship?" It is not right for Adventists or any others to join with infidels and saloon-keepers to aid them in anything contrary to divine law and morality. But it is right to do what we know to be right, no matter who else does the same. Principles are above men. We would rather do right with an infidel than to do wrong with the editor of the Christian Advocate. In 1880 we voted for James A. Garfield, and we knew all the time that infidels and saloon-keepers were voting for him also. In 1882 our rights, both civil and religious, were being assailed, and we resisted the assault without caring who was with us or who was against us. Our opponents talk as if we ought to willingly submit to any injustice because it is done in the interests of their religion. But we do not suppose that imprisonment in dark dungeons was any sweeter, or that the fire of torture burned any less fiercely, because inflicted by "the church," and professedly "for the glory of God." We ask the editor of the Advocate if the issue of the last election in California was one of saloon keeping, or of a day of rest and worship? Notice the following points: 1. The columns of the Advocate informed us that the subject of temperance was not broached in the Sacramento Convention. That Convention did exactly what the League of Freedom asked it to do, both in the framing of its platform and the nomination of its candidates. This we know, for we heard the request, and we saw the result. And Mr. Shaeffer, who said he represented the liquor interest, promised for himself and his associates to support the Sunday Law if they would ignore the temperance question. This the editor of the Advocate knows full well, and therefore his insinuations proceed from prejudice and ill-will, not at all from any principle involved. And he and his ministerial associates did all in their power to break up the Prohibition Party, and to elect the candidate chosen by the League of Freedom; the candidate of the Convention which ignored the temperance question, just as the "liquor interest" requested it to do. 2. The Supreme Court decided that the Sunday Law was not a law for or against any religion, but purely a civil matter. As such only, and as "a police regulation," it was advocated by the "Home Protection Association." If it was a question of "worship;" if anybody's religion was involved, then the campaign for Sunday was carried on in the most hypocritical manner. If the Advocate is right, then the law was clearly unconstitutional, and has wisely been expunged from our statute books, for it "discriminated" in favor of somebody's "worship" and against somebody else's. If the law contained any "legal barriers" for "a day of worship," it was to the detriment of the worship of those who observed the day "as originally given" by the Creator. Then the minority of the Supreme Court was right, and the majority erred in their decision. We can extend this answer, but shall let the subject rest unless the unjust insinuation which the question contains is repeated. We have enjoyed a "day of rest and worship" for the last thirty years without the aid of any "legal barriers" of human devising. We had the sanction of the law of God, and with this we were satisfied. The laws of man barely tolerated our rest and worship, and sometimes not even that, taking the whole commandment into account. Yet we found "the Sabbath a delight," see Isa. 58:13, 14; and our delight in it—our joy of Christian devotion—could not have been increased by any act of the legislature! We pity those "Christians" who cannot enjoy their worship unless it is sustained and enforced by the statutes of the State. We are thankful that our religion is not of that kind. We recommend to them the reading of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and the "History of the Reformation." "5. If the Lord should come and find the Signs of the Times working with the enemies of his religion to rob the poor man of his day of rest, and to give liquor-sellers unrestrained liberty to make his day a great curse instead of a blessing, what would our neighbor do about it?" "If" all that should come to pass we suppose we should do just what our neighbor of the Advocate will "do," if he is found in that day breaking the Sabbath of the Lord and teaching men so. But we are making, and hope to continue to make, most strenuous efforts not to be found working with the enemies of the Lord and of his holy day. So far as "the poor man's day of rest" is concerned, if he chooses to rest on Sunday, the State has made provision for his benefit by making it a legal holiday. That is as far as "police regulations" or "sanitary measures" can extend. If men had not conspired against the Lord's Sabbath and elevated the "day of the sun" above it, the sanctions of the divine law would be efficient to protect all rights. But the modern Scribes and Pharisees, having made void the commandment of God through their tradition, are wondrously solicitous that the State shall unite with the Church to enforce their tradition. As far as we had any party preferences in the late campaign, we sympathized with those who sought to restrain the sale of liquors every day, and to remove the curse from the whole week. But these the Advocate opposed right heartily. And now it tries to cover up the inconsistency of its course by casting slurs on those who stood true to their religious principles. Concerning our paraphrase of its remarks on the two men traveling round the world, it says:— "The two Methodists going in opposite directions around the world, or toward either pole, would have piety and sense enough, we hope, to conform to the customs of the people they met, and to worship gladly and cheerfully with God's people in any latitude," &c. Exactly; we think they would so "conform," especially if the editor of the Advocate were their counselor. With the Mohammedans they would keep Friday, which, according to the Advocate, is just as acceptable as Saturday or Sunday. Thus far has Methodism descended. But we are glad to express our opinion that Seventh-day Adventists might prove to be "Non-conformists." They would turn away from every "custom of the people they met" which was not in conformity with the Bible and the law of God, however "pious" its intent, or however "religious" its adherents. These are our answers. We are glad the Advocate asked the questions, thus giving us a suitable opportunity to define our position on these several points. We feel very friendly toward its editor, and are well satisfied with the result of our article on the "Same Identical Time." It has accomplished just what we desired. Now we have only one desire unsatisfied in regard to the Advocate. The Methodist publishing houses issued a book written by a Mr. Armstrong, introduced and indorsed by a Dr. Huntington, against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the seventh day, in which he professed to give an exposition of the original of Ex. 16. This exposition we sharply criticized, as we thought it justly deserved, claiming that it not only erred in its position on the grammar of the Hebrew, but it misrepresented the original text. We called upon the editor of the Advocate, believing him to be a scholar, to point out the error, if any existed, in our criticism of their work. Of this he has taken no notice. If Mr. Armstrong's work cannot be defended, it stands as a willful misrepresentation of the sacred text, and an abuse of its English readers who could not detect the deception practiced. We regret that such a denomination as the Methodist should make itself responsible for such a work. The Sabbath cause needs to resort to no such subterfuges. In this we rejoice. It is so strongly and so plainly taught in the Scriptures that we rest upon it with the "full assurance of faith." Thank God for the clear light of his holy commandments.