p. 8 | RATHER INCONGRUOUS by W. N. Glenn

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jan 21, 1897

RATHER INCONGRUOUS.

By W. N. Glenn

At the W. C. T. U. convention held in St. Louis last autumn, some seemingly incongruous resolutions were adopted which need explanation. For instance, the following:—

Resolved, That we reaffirm our belief in the fourth commandment as of divine authority, binding upon all men at all times; that the perpetuity of our government depends upon the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship, and that we will continue to petition Congress to enact a Sunday rest law which shall release government employees from unnecessary labor on Sabbath and give them opportunity to engage in public worship, and which shall thus give the sanction of government to Sabbath observance.

If they really believe in the fourth commandment, as “binding upon all men at all times,” why ask Congress to add another rest day? Is not one rest day in the week enough, and is not “divine authority” sufficient authority? But “divine authority” says the “seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,” and if that is “binding upon all men at all times,” why do professed believers in that commandment ask Congress to ignore it and supplement another? Is not the asking of Congress to “enact a Sunday rest law” a tacit admission that there is no “divine authority” for such a law? Is it not an admission on the part of those who ask for such a law that they do not believe in the fourth commandment, as given by “divine authority” for “all men at all times”?

But the foregoing resolution was followed by another, in which there is also a most illogical attempt to identify Sunday as the Sabbath. It is especially illogical in the light of a professed belief in the fourth commandment. Here it is:—

Resolved, That we look upon the Sunday newspaper as doing more to secularize the Sabbath than any other agency, and that we will not countenance it in any way, and will do all in our power to lessen its circulation.

How, we ask, can a Sunday newspaper “secularize” the Sabbath which “divine authority” has made holy—the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which says that the “seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord”? No influence can “secularize” that which never has been sanctified; and no act performed on one day could affect the character of another day. Furthermore, no act of man can undo what the Lord has done. Even if the Almighty had sanctified Sunday, no power on earth could “secularize” it.

Here is another resolution which is eminently proper in its expression, but from the standpoint of the utterance first quoted we are forced to the conclusion that it is not intended to mean what it says:—

WHEREAS, The bicycle, which should relieve both man and beast from much necessary Sabbath labor, has been made an instrument of great Sabbath desecration; therefore

Resolved, That we will discourage its use for pleasure on the Lord’s day.

Inasmuch as the “Sabbath desecration” complained of is sought to be abated by a “Sunday rest law,” the inference is that the use of the bicycle for pleasure is to be discouraged on Sunday. But the Lord never has called Sunday his day. The only day that he ever has specifically denominated his day is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which always has been specifically designated as the “seventh day.” This day he has denominated “my holy day,” and pronounced a blessing for its observance. See Isa. 58: 13, 14. It was made for man (Mark 2: 27, 28), in the beginning (Gen. 2: 2, 3), for “all men at all times.”

W. N. GLENN.