THE CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE AND THE PROPOSED SUNDAY LAW.
By Editor
THE California Christian Advocate of January 10, referring to the California Special SIGNS OF THE TIMES, on the proposed Sunday-law amendment to the Constitution, has the following editorial, which we print in all its courteousness: "Our friends, the Seventh-day Adventists, are circulating a counter petition against the proposed amendment to the constitution providing for a day of rest in California. The SIGNS OF THE TIMES, the official organ of that denomination, objects to the movement because the 'measure is religious,' and proves its contention by saying, 'This is evidenced by the proposed exemption of persons who conscientiously believe that the seventh day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath, and who actually refrain from opening their places of business on that day.' It is evident that the Seventh-day Adventists do not want any civil Sabbath. That paper goes on to argue at great length that such a law would interfere with religious liberty. It contends that the Constitution of California grants life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people, that everybody 'is free and independent' to run saloons, run horses, to run rabbits, to run anything their fancy may want to run, and nobody can interfere with their personal liberty. This is a fair specimen of its entire special edition, gotten out to head off the amendment: 'Man has the right to work seven days in the week if he wishes, . . . providing he doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But the rights of others need no Sunday law to guard them.' The whole plan is to fill the air with dust and furnish an excuse to the Legislature for no action, based upon the fact that the religious elements of the State were not agreed among themselves. This has been successful in all previous attempts to procure from the Legislature a recognition of one day in seven as a day of rest. These are the same people who appeared in 1899 at Sacramento and tried to defeat the amendment providing for the exemption of church buildings and church lots from taxation. When they came before the Judiciary Committee they showed up their real weakness. The way to corner all this bluster about 'personal liberty' etc., is for the friends of this measure to get a hearing before the Judiciary Committee and let the Seventh-day Adventists state their case. The Adventists can make the most out of nothing in arousing the cranky contingency of the community, and at the same time, they make the weakest appeal to men of intelligence and judicial temperament. The hope of the Adventists in this case is that they will be able to appeal to all the evil contingency of society and turn it to their own purpose. They do not want to encourage evil, but they would rather join with the evil element in society than to seem to sacrifice the distinctive argument for the seventh day. Of course they think the first thing to do is to break down all legal supports of the Christian Sunday. So strongly is this mixed into their feelings and thinking that they can not see any moral good which ignores their contention. Their working principle is essentially fanatical. There is no chance to appeal to reason. No one can break thru the defense of fanaticism. Given that Saturday is the Lord's Sabbath, and nothing which contravenes that presumption can influence the mind possessed by it. The weakness of their contention shows up in the midst of a thoughtful and judicial atmosphere. The plea they made thru their best representative in 1899 broke down in a broad smile, and he retired in great confusion and shook the dust off his feet at the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, and was never seen afterward. There was not enough in what he said to make a farce.5It was simply a childish whimper. The friends of this measure should go carefully forward and let the Adventists do their worst." We note briefly some of the statements and observations of our contemporary, some of which are new, some of which are true, and some of which are neither new nor true. 1. The measure is religious, altho its framers have attempted to disguise the fact. The same class pushing the Sunday measure were behind the Sunday Bill in 1899. At that time they threw off all disguise, and evidently honestly presented just what they wanted. The preamble of that bill thus reads: "An Act to Prevent Sabbath Desecration, and to Secure a Weekly Rest Day.
"Whereas, 'Christianity is the common law of the land;' and as the people of the State generally regard the Christian Sabbath, or the first day of the week, as sacred to religious worship, and because the best interests of the State are conserved by Christian morality, which is inseparably connected with the proper observance of the Sabbath."
There is certainly no disguising the fact that the measure upon which the California Legislature is importuned to act is religious in intent and purpose. 2. There is no such thing as a "civil Sabbath." That is not the thing demanded. They would not consent for a moment that Wednesday or Thursday should be substituted for Sunday, or that to each man should be secured a weekly day of rest sometime during the week. The rest day must be the religious day. The Sabbath in its origin and history is wholly religious. The chief apostle of Sunday legislation (W. F. Crafts) declares: "A weekly day of rest has never been permanently secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation." But when the religious obligation is recognized, there is no need of civil legislation. If Sunday legislation is not religious legislation for a mistaken religious purpose, there never was any. It is not the non dies that is wanted; it is the positive religious legislation. And note that the Advocate does not attempt to reply to the averment that the Sunday law "would interfere with religious liberty." It knows that it would. It believes in religious liberty—for Sunday-keepers. 3. The SIGNS OF THE TIMES believes that so far as the civil law is concerned, it has no right to make criminal on one day what is not criminal six days. The law already protects men from disturbance in worship, whoever they are. This is proper. It will do it on Sunday or Wednesday or Saturday. It does not do this for the worship's sake, but for the man's sake. Some men prefer to work rather than worship, or to worship by working. They have the right seven days in the week, and the law ought to protect them in it. Some prefer to spend the day in pleasure. If that pleasure is allowable by the State six days, the State has no right to say that it shall not be allowed on the seventh day, whenever that day comes. We do not believe in saloons or horse-races or theaters. We believe it would be infinitely better for the human race if such institutions did not exist. Some of them ought not to exist at all. But if they are civilly right one day in the week, they are civilly right all days. But we have no right to demand that our opinion should become law for those who may not agree with us. Just as truly as the man Methodist has his rights, the man Catholic or Jew or Unitarian or no religionist has his rights, common and equal to all. Are Sunday-law advocates alone in the right? If they are, ought not they to be willing to defend that right by argument, reason, and persuasion, and so let right prevail in the convictions of men, rather than seek to compel men to yield feigned respect or sullen, resentful acquiescence? Granting that Sunday is divinely holy, is it Christian to compel its observance? Jesus the Christ said: "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." Has the Advocate another commission than this? The attitude of the Advocate is the same as that of all the religious persecutors of the past. 4. Who is filling the air with dust? Who is putting forward "civil Sunday laws," and laws for the poor working men, and "temperance" laws, and "health" and "hygiene" laws, when the whole category are all in the interests of a religious day? We are trying to clear the atmosphere. Let the whole matter stand on its merits for what it is. Let the nature and genesis and history of Sunday laws and all religious legislation be set before the people and the Legislature for just what they are. Let the advocates of these measures tell us just what they want, that the people may know. Then such laws would by honest, Christian, fair-minded American men be forever repudiated. 5. Our contemporary is grievously mistaken when it says: "These are the same people who appeared in 1899 at Sacramento, and tried to defeat the amendment providing for the exemption of church buildings and church lots from taxation. When they came before the Judiciary Committee they showed up their real weakness," etc., etc. Seventh-day Adventists had no representative before the Judiciary Committee in 1899, nor did they enter public protest before any committees of the Legislature to protest against the measure named. They sent no one there. They had no representative stationed there who then appeared. The Advocate says that "he was never seen afterward." We never saw him before nor afterward. There were, however, two representatives of this paper before the Committee on Education and Public Morals, in 1899, when the Sunday Bill of that year was considered. Both of them made a few remarks, and were assured by the chairman of the committee that the committee was in accord with them. The Advocate knows what became of that measure. It died in the house of its friends. So much for the Advocate's veracity or knowledge. We may remark in passing, that we should be only too glad to have a representative before the Judiciary Committee, or any other committee to which the Sunday amendment proposition may be referred. We will agree beforehand to present before that committee no other principles than those uttered, approved, and endorsed by such men as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, the Presbytery of Hanover, Va., the Baptists from time immemorial, the Congress of the United States in 1829 and 1831, U. S. Grant, the Supreme Court of California, and many others. 6. All the readers will bear us witness that we made no appeal in our Special for the seventh day; we did not discuss the day of the Sabbath at all. We would as strenuously oppose any legislation to promote, protect, or support the seventh-day Sabbath. We do not believe that God's institutions need such support. It looks to us an insult to God to offer it. It would be like the weakest cripple a lazar house ever saw offering to carry home an able-bodied, strong-limbed, perfectly sound, well man. Sunday now has no "legal support" in California. If it is of Christ, it does not need it. If its devotees believe that it is of Christ, they ought not to ask it. Why do they not seek legal support for baptism and the Lord's supper? They ought to be observed. 7. And finally, dear Advocate, why not discuss the question on its merits. How does it help the question to talk of "fanaticism" and dust-throwing and "bluster"? Is the Old Book of any worth?—Use it. Is the Decalogue superseded by tradition?—Show it. Is Christ's example and teaching worthless? Is the old Protestant doctrine of the non-interference of the civil magistrate in religious matters a dead letter? On what grounds does our contemporary stand?