THE CIVIL SABBATH by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 9, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 35.

THE CIVIL SABBATH.

By Editor

SAYS the editor of the Herald of Truth:—

"Give us rest. We mean now a civil rest-day, a civil Sabbath if you prefer it. We all need it, both man and beast, together with preachers and editors! There seems to be the profoundest philosophy as well as the 'law and the gospel' in calling for such a day. It does not mean religious legislation. It is no infringement on the rights of any beyond what is both natural and necessary in any government. It does not mean that any man's conscience is to be touched. This must never be on American soil covered by the freedom of Christian civilization. In the minds of our people, much in connection with this whole question is confused, but this point should be clearly grasped to begin with, that the present movement all over the country is not in the interest of anything like a religious establishment or the union, in the least, of Church and State."

Well, then, why don't you rest? Who is hindering you, or anyone else who so desires, from resting on Sunday? Is a law needed to give you rest? Is conscience and conviction so weak that nothing less than law will enable you to rest? But he wants a "civil Sabbath." A civil Sabbath is as much a misnomer as a civil immersion or a civil Lord's supper. By what right has the government to take from any man one day each week just as long as he does not injure his neighbor in life, character, property, or reputation? No man's conscience must be touched, but he must be compelled to keep an institution utterly repugnant to him! On the same ground, the decree of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3) was only a civil law, in harmony with the majority, for the good of the people, and necessary to maintain the government. How confused was Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in this matter. According to the Herald of Truth they need not have been cast into the fiery furnace. All that Nebuchadnezzar required was obedience to a civil law. He did not say that they should not worship their God.

A legal Sabbath involves, in a country where there are classes which disagree, a decision as to what day is the Sabbath. In so doing it discriminates against religious classes one side or the other. It involves, unless Sunday-keepers will compromise on some other day of the week, the adoption of a religious institution held by more or less as sacred. It therefore places a religious dogma in the statute law, and therefore unites religion with the State. It elevates that branch of the Christian church which keep Sunday, by establishing a religious tenet held by them, and it brings hardship upon those who disagree with them.

Thus it would be with seventh day keepers if Sunday was established. And this hardship would not come to the Jew by virtue of his relation as a citizen, but by virtue of his religion, which comes not in conflict with the rights of his fellow-citizens, but in conflict with a religious dogma enforced by civil law. No sophistry can evade the point. Sunday legislation means religious legislation, religious tyranny, religious persecution. But in the meantime, till the Sunday-rest law is obtained, no government will prevent the editor of the Herald from resting all he wishes. Yes and he can make that rest as civil as he pleases. We do not know where more confusion exists on this subject than in the minds of Baptists, beginning with the Herald of Truth. The "profoundest philosophy" is profoundest confusion.