Opposition to the Sabbath.
The California Christian Advocate, of December 24, in pleading for a “moral” Sunday law, speaks thus of the opposition: “Strange to relate, and yet strongly true, the opposition to a Sunday law comes from a sect professing to be Christian—the Seventh-day Adventists. They are unwise from their own standpoint. The claim they set up that a civil sabbath is essentially wrong is in effect to cut the ground from all contention for a sabbath on any day of the week. It is pretty hard to say, but it is very easy to believe, that our Seventh-day Adventists, just now in tremendous activity, are not sincere in their opposition to the passage of a Sunday-rest law. Christian men can not sincerely and conscientiously unite with the evil contingency in every community in the state to oppose the enactment of a law proposed by the majority of the Christian people of the state. The opposition to the proposed Sunday-rest law is insincere and unscrupulous. They claim that they would oppose the enactment of a Saturday-rest law. Such a statement reverses the principle underlying their propagandism. They are either insincere in advocating the Saturday-Sabbath or they know perfectly well that a Saturday-Sabbath can not be enacted, and they therefore affect not to want legislation favoring such a Saturday-Sabbath in order to appear consistent in opposing a Sunday-Sabbath. In either case they are insincere. They are openly and flagrantly unscrupulous in joining with all the evil contingency of the state, the gamblers, the saloon-keepers, the liquor dealers, the race-track promoters, in trying to defeat the proposed Sunday-rest law. “The hope of the Seventh-day Adventists is not to make out a case before the public, but to afford an excuse for inaction by giving out the impression that even the Christian people are not united as to which is the Sabbath day. It is a political game. If they stood up squarely and contended straightforwardly that Sunday is not Sabbath and that Saturday was the true Sabbath, we could respect their contention. So long as they conceal their real purpose behind an insincere contention that the liberties of the citizens are being imperiled in order to form a plausible excuse for inaction, we can only look upon their miserable fiasco with pitiable contempt.” We note some points in this quotation: 1. The title to the article is “Opposition to the Sabbath.” Let the Advocate know once and forever that opposition to a Sunday law and opposition to the Sabbath are two things decidedly different. The one is opposition to religious legislation, a basis of tyranny and a feeder of hypocrisy. The other is opposition to a command of God and a blessing to the race. To the first, Seventh-day Adventists, and many other good and eminent citizens, among whom we are constrained to believe are not a few Methodists, plead guilty; the latter they emphatically deny. In no way are they opposed to the Sabbath of the Lord. Nor are they opposed to any soul’s keeping whatsoever day he will. 2. In the third sentence quoted above, the Advocate virtually confesses that the chief ground it has for a Sabbath is civil law. Does the Advocate believe that a law to enforce baptism or the Lord’s Supper would be right? It surely would reply, No. It would think such laws “essentially wrong.” But to set up a claim that a civil baptism or Lord’s Supper were essentially wrong, “is in effect to cut the ground from all contention” for baptism or Lord’s Supper at any time, or in any manner! The logic is as good in one case as in another. Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Sabbath is of God; that His law is all-sufficient; that if men will not observe the day from loyal, loving obedience to God, no enforcement of human law can compel such obedience. Coercion may make men slaves or hypocrites; it can never convert hearts or make men pleasing to God. 3. Seventh-day Adventists are opposed to all religious legislation whatsoever. If others join them in that opposition, that is their right. They do not by that indorse the morals or principles of others who may oppose such legislation any more than the editor of the Advocate would indorse the principles and life of the gambler who voted with him the Republican ticket. Seventh-day Adventists oppose Sunday legislation on the broad grounds of Christianity, because they are Christians, and as opposed to the principles embodied in the charters of our government. They have never modified or compromised these principles to gain favor or support. 4. They would oppose the enactment of a Seventh-day Sabbath law. They believe that God can and will care for His own without Peter’s sword. The “all power” of Christ’s commission is sufficient. Knowing that, they would be false to Him if they should even ask for legislation in behalf of the Seventh-day Sabbath. That day is of God; it was instituted of Him; it is hedged about by His law; it was hallowed by Jesus Christ their Lord and Saviour; and they find His grace and promises sufficient to enable them to observe that day and live notwithstanding all the greed of men. If an employer demands work upon that day on the penalty of dismissal, better the dismissal of man than the disloyalty to God. If in God’s providence they are thus deprived of work, He has some better place for their services. If the editor of the Advocate knew the principles of true Christian liberty, he would not, could not, make the argument he does. Holding the principles they do, Seventh-day Adventists could not ask for Sabbath legislation if they were sure it could be secured. This we have many times stated. Of course, it is not pleasant to be told in effect that all our statements are false, that we “are openly and flagrantly unscrupulous,” that we “are not sincere,” etc., but all this we are willing to leave with God. The manner of the Advocate seems to have become a fixed habit. Two years ago it made equally bold and false statements concerning, not doctrines or motives, but persons, acts, and places, and would not even correct its misstatements when they were pointed out. Two years ago the Seventh-day Adventists argued before the legislative committee against the Sunday law. Their representatives stood alone. After the hearing was over, representative labor men, whom the editor of the Advocate and his associates claimed to represent, assured us that they stood with us. In the great final issue, every disreputable element will stand with the Advocate. The Seventh-day Adventists have many times “made out their case before the public,” in the halls of Congress, in many state legislatures, and throughout the world among the people. They have stood up squarely, and still do stand, and say, on the authority of God’s word and all authentic history, confirmed by numerous first-day theologians, that Sunday is not the Sabbath, but that the seventh day is, and the Advocate knows this to be the fact. But the question of the particular day is not a matter for legislation. It is not the business of any civil tribunal to decide and enforce any day as the Sabbath. Just as soon as that step is taken, that civil body assumes the place of God and the lord of the conscience. It makes itself a party to religious controversies. It favors by legislation one class, and wrongs another. Even so began the Dark Ages. It is not the business of Seventh-day Adventists to say that the Advocate editor shall observe the seventh day or no day. They9may persuade him if they can; they may coerce him never. They believe in the Golden Rule, and that forever prohibits religious legislation. In pleading for the absolute separation of church and state, in their opposition to a Sunday law, Seventh-day Adventists are pleading for the liberty of the editor of the Advocate. He may be persuaded some day to observe the Mohammedan Friday, or he may become an Orthodox Jew. We do not wish to have a law passed now even by his consent which will work hardship upon him then. True religious liberty is liberty for the other man.