Conscience and the Sabbath.
By M. C. W.
The utterances of two religious papers on the Tennessee Sunday-law persecutions have come to our notice. One, from the Christian Work, we noticed last week. The other is from the Advance (Congregationalist), of Chicago, of August 8, and is as follows:— The question of religious persecution is agitating the people of several of the southern states, particularly in Tennessee. In the latter state Elder Colcord, the president of the Seventh-day Adventist academy at Grayville, with seven other persons, was arrested and thrown into the jail of Rhea County, for working and encouraging others to work on Sunday. The academy has been broken up, and the community is said to have been greatly agitated, even “disorganized.” It appears that the work was done on the academy grounds, and in such a way as not wantonly to defy the civil authorities or to disturb others in worship or other religious uses of the day. We have here one of those complicated cases the settlement of which in any way involves a logical contradiction. If these Sabbatarians work on Sunday, they violate the civil law, a law that must be admitted to be wholesome in view of the interests of the vast majority of the people. If they work on Saturday, they violate what they call their conscience. If they refrain from work on both days, they violate the law of proper industry and sound economy. What shall be done in the complicated case? It reminds one of Mr. Powell’s bewildered colored gentleman who decided to “take to the woods.” We venture to advise the civil authorities to be patient with these good people, since their errors lean to virtue’s side, and to construe the law in their case liberally. And we advise the Adventists to study with diligence, if haply they may find a larger and safer view than that embraced in their literature, a view held by a preponderating majority of the wise and good people of the Christian world, and one in which their thought is satisfied and their hearts are content. Above all, and until their conscience shall be further enlightened, we advise them to live as far as may be “without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation.” It may be worth while to call the attention of our readers to some of the expressions in the above which we have italicized. 1. Can a law be wholesome which results in the oppression of a single soul, or in depriving him of rights which he holds in common with all men? Every man in the state of Tennessee may keep Sunday as strictly as he will without a law. No human law can make any man keep the Sunday holy. At the best it can only compel a seeming observance, or force men to be hypocritical in action and3false and hateful at heart. Not only this, but the execution of the law against a class conceded to be honest, virtuous, upright, good neighbors, and helpful citizens, will harden the hearts of the people against all true sense of equity and right, to say nothing of mercy. In fact, the law itself is unconstitutional. Moreover, there are thousands—nominal observers of Sunday, or who observe no day—in Tennessee who work on Sunday who are not disturbed. The persecutions have been so pointedly and exclusively aimed at Sabbath keepers that the secular press has been compelled to denounce it as religious persecution, and the presiding judge has said as much. Is such a law “wholesome” in its educative influence to the vast majority? Is it wholesome in its oppression of a class of concededly upright people whom it makes criminals? 2. “What they call their conscience,” says the Advance. But who is to judge of a man’s conscience, outside of himself, save God? It was because the Congregationalists would not violate what they called their conscience that they are not in the Episcopal Church to-day; nay, that they are not Roman Catholics. Does that man believe in freedom of conscience who denies the rights of conscience in other men according to the consciences of these other men? Shall the majority decide what is conscience? If so, the conscience of this world is assuredly not Christian. Perhaps the Advance does not mean all this, but what does it mean? 3. Yes, to refrain from work on Sunday after observing the Sabbath is not only violating the law of proper industry and sound economy, but it is violating a God-given law; and to prohibit such work by law is to deprive those who observe the seventh day of a God-given right. It is more than this. It is saying that after you have shown your conscientious regard for what you believe to be the true Sabbath, you shall likewise show honor and respect for what you believe to be a rival institution. Thus were the three Hebrews required to do. See Daniel 3. 4. The Advance advises the Adventists “to study with diligence if haply they may find a larger and safer view” which is held by a “preponderating majority of the wise and good people of the Christian world,” with satisfied thought and contented heart. By this, of course, the Advance refers to the view that Sunday is the Sabbath. But it is a serious question whether the thought of the Christian majority is satisfied and their hearts content. Passing this, however, we wish to ask in all candor if Seventh-day Adventists or any one else can find a safer view than that commanded of God, sustained by his word, held by the good of patriarchal, prophetic, and apostolic times, and by our Lord Jesus Christ? There may be broader views and broader ways from a worldly standpoint; for of such our Lord speaks (Matt. 7:13, 14), but is there a safer view or a safer way? Is it not safe to follow Christ? And what is larger than God’s law, embracing his whole character? On the other hand, which view of Sunday shall Adventists hold with satisfied thought and contented heart? Shall they hold that a seventh part of time is all that is necessary? that the day was changed in honor of Christ’s resurrection? that the church had power to change the day? that there is now no Scripture command for any Sabbath? All these views are held by theologians in this “preponderating majority.” Sometimes one man presents all these views, but it could hardly be said with satisfied thought. 5. The closing advice is good. But is the “preponderating majority” synonymous with “the crooked and perverse nation”? And how shall the Adventist conscience be enlightened? By what other means save the Spirit and word of God can it be enlightened? Are the Adventists in error, missing the mark, sinning, in not keeping Sunday? “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20. “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law.” Chapter 7:7. But how can the law enlighten their conscience with respect to Sunday? These are candid and worthy questions. The Advance said some time ago (August 2, 1894):— The Sabbath serves the same purpose to-day as did the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. A prohibition is laid upon it, that men may not use it for their own pleasure. That man is an anarchist at heart who deliberately flaunts at the sacredness of the Sabbath, or sneers at any other distinct revelation of the law of God. But according to that law of God which enjoins the Sabbath, as interpreted by the teaching and life of Jesus Christ, what day is the Sabbath? What day will a conscience enlightened by the revelation of the law keep? The Sabbath is a test; the Advance speaks truly; but which Sabbath? whose Sabbath? What is the standard of determination?