ON WHICH SIDE WILL "CHRISTIANS" STAND?
IN the Christian Standard of August 13, 1893, an organ of the denomination called "Christians," is an article from one of their own denomination, which presents some facts which are worthy of consideration by that people. It is entitled "Our Great Danger," and is as follows:— Our plea for apostolic Christianity, our plea for Christian union, our work and labors throughout the whole restorative movement for Christianity pure and unalloyed, our fights upon all things that bear the marks of Romanism, are marred by our action in the Sunday question, that has been under agitation, and will be agitated for a few years yet to be. It seems now that we list to the misapplied Sabbath day—misapplied by the "infallible pope," and received as righteousness by the sectarian world. We excuse this action by differential statement, designating it the "civil sabbath." What has constructed or made a "civil sabbath"?—Law. Who makes law?—Man. Who made the Sabbath?—God. For whom did he make it?—For man. Can man make it for himself?—No. Then we bow before the force which takes the affairs of God into its own hand. Who is "above all that is called God"?—The Papacy. To whom and to what do we bow in this question of the "civil sabbath"?—To the pope and to Romanism. There can be no doubt but that this legislation upon the Sunday (sabbath) question is a "mark of the beast." As a people who have vied in the creation and enforcement of this sabbath law, we have received upon our foreheads and upon our hands the "mark of the beast." We have not too much evidence that the first day of the week is the Lord's day, while we have conclusive evidence that the first day of the week is not the Sabbath day. If, as we infer, the first day be the Lord's day, then what authority have we to enforce the Lord's day upon the world, or expect its recognition by legal force. Or by what authority do we assume to exact from other brethren by legal force the rights of honest, conscientious worship on the only day embodied in the divine law? Church and State should not be combined. Our glorious brotherhood must not assist in combining them. If we engraft (it has been engrafted) in law the first-day sabbath, then, indeed, as all law it must be enforced. Besides injustice to very good and honorable people, we should know we have no right to enforce God's law upon the people that dwell in the earth, presuming it to be the Sabbath day, which we all know quite well it is not. As well might we expect a law to compel all men to be baptized, or fix in law what may constitute a Christian, or by law create Christians. A person out of Christ is no better by respecting, or being compelled to respect, a day of worship, for he is not spiritually or otherwise in the realm of worship, and, therefore, beyond the reach of God and the church; still this carnal law, when enforced (and enforced it will be, sooner or later), has gotten higher than God. What now is "higher than all that is called God"?—Why, it is papal authority, unmistakably and certain. And the "saddest of all sad things" is that the church of Christ has stultified itself in its action in this matter, and taken one step backward toward Romanism. We have brethren who thoroughly understand this question and this line of prophecy now under fulfillment, and know well these are facts we must confront. For shame! May not the General Convention further compromise our position upon these questions by indorsing our national legislation upon the subject, or giving support by resolution or otherwise to a national sabbath—the beginning of the union of Church and State in America? "Let no man therefore judge you . . . of the Sabbath day." "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Let us come down out of the crowd and watch what we are about.—Jas. A. De Moss, M.D.