"LOOK ON THIS PICTURE, AND ON THIS."
By Alonzo T. Jones
THE California Christian Advocate of March 20 has the following choice editorial item:— "The Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and the Personal Liberty League party unite to prevent any effective Sabbath law—that is, these supposed Christians, the worst class of infidels, and the saloon keepers are perfectly agreed in breaking down the Sabbath-day." Now, neighbor, be honest. Did you mean just what you said? Did you design to convey to your readers just what your words imply? You say these "supposed Christians;" can you give any reason why Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists are not just as much real Christians as are Methodists or Roman Catholics? They believe the Bible, they believe that by nature all men are sinners, that the only hope of mankind is faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as a personal Saviour, which comprehends forgiveness of sin, regeneration, a new life patterned after the divine Example. They hold, with Methodists, that "no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments that are called moral;" and they hold that it applies to the day of the fourth commandment, which is especially named, as well as to the proportion of time, which is only implied. But for the observation of the fourth commandment they take no glory to themselves any more than for the keeping of the sixth. To God be all the glory for the power of his gospel through our Lord Jesus Christ, which enables them so to do. They believe it a duty, as followers of Christ, to cry aloud and spare not (Isa. 58:1, 13), and to lead men back to the keeping of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12. They dare not neglect this work at the peril of their souls. Loyalty to Christ demands that they bear his revelation to the world. They are a most thorough temperance and temperate people, and wherever they can support legal prohibition separate from other issues of a wrong character, they always do so. But they do not believe in compulsory religion. They not only cheerfully accord to Methodists, and to all, the privilege of observing Sunday, or any other day, but they strenuously demand it as a right which belongs to Methodists, a duty which lies between Methodists and God, fully believing that God can vindicate his own law. They also demand that equal rights should be accorded to themselves. They demand that Methodists and all should have the right of working whatever days they will in every legitimate business. They demand the same rights for themselves. Are not these the principles of the golden rule, neighbor? Seventh-day Adventists, and we believe Seventh-day Baptists, never united with the Personal Liberty League, nor with saloonists, "in breaking down the Sabbath-day." They are doing all they can to build up the Sabbath of the Lord, and they find sufficient means for this in the armory of God's word, in the weapons not carnal. They have opposed Sunday laws always on their merits, and the Advocate knows this, or might know it. Some notorious infidels and saloon men opposed slavery, but that did not compromise the character of the Christians who opposed it. In all the opposition to the Blair bill before the Senate Committee, the Liberals and Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists opposed the bill on materially different grounds, each class opposing for themselves alone. The second class certainly stood on the principles of the golden rule, and the words of Christ, "Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are248God's." Will the Advocate show in what respect they did not? On the other hand, Methodists were conjoined in the support of that bill with the greatest foe of true Christianity that ever existed, namely, Roman Catholicism. They united with a system which has put to death more of the people of God, caused more suffering and infidelity, than all other systems put together,—the Papacy. Cardinal Gibbons signed the petition as an individual, and the "American Sabbath Union," which is indorsed by the Advocate, immediately multiplied that one name by 7,200,000, so anxious were these orthodox friends of Sunday to count in Roman Catholics. Not satisfied with that, they counted many more the second time among the Knights of Labor. But many, it is probably safe to say one-half, of the saloon keepers and whisky dealers are Roman Catholics, while many more who are connected with the nefarious traffic are members of other churches. Granted that some of these signed petitions opposed to the Blair bill, petitions signed by Seventh-day Adventists, which is worse, neighbor, to obtain the actual signatures of these individuals, or to count them as signing a petition when they had never seen that petition and did not believe in its sentiments? The American Sunday Union counted as signing petitions favoring the Blair bill 7,200,000 Roman Catholics when only one of the 7,200,000 had given his name. Many of this same faith, not a few of which are priests, have signed with their own hand the opposing petition, and this is also true of other churches. The petition circulated by the American Sunday Union was to favor a certain class, while the opposing petition was for equal justice to all. For, while it was against all Sunday laws, it does not interfere with anyone who desires to keep Sunday. All have that privilege. Now, neighbor Advocate, "look on this picture, and on this," and say whether your remarks quoted above were just, not to say Christian. Is it not better, neighbor, to meet our arguments with arguments than to meet them with mean insinuations and reflections? In the words of our Master, If we have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou? Now, neighbor, do you not think as a "Christian" Advocate that you ought to apologize for the above, or give your reasons therefor? We wait for reply. M. C. W.