The California Sunday-Law Advocate Again.
By Editor
Is it ignorance or blindness or misunderstanding? We have taken occasion at different times to notice some of the arguments or reasons of the California Christian Advocate for its advocating of a Sunday law. We have endeavored to do this courteously and Christianly. We have pointed out some of the gross errors and mistakes which that paper has made, not in theories which the editor would probably in nowise admit, but in facts. It has seemed to us that Christian courtesy, to say nothing of ordinary journalistic ethics, would have led him to say that he was probably mistaken in the statements which were made, and that the alleged facts were utterly denied; but not one word of this; in no way has he attempted to answer the arguments against a Sunday law. With colossal egotism he represents Seventh-day Adventists who have opposed the law as being "childishly stubborn." In the issue of April 18 it declared, "We can't make out these good people. We can not see how they can line up with all the saloons, the race tracks, the gamblers, the toughs, the hoodlums, and exploit all rascaldom for signatures against a day of rest and religious education and have the face to ever mention the 'Gospel of Jesus Christ.'" In the first place, all rascaldom has not been exploited "for signatures against a day of rest and religious education." Not one single thing has been done in any way against the editor or his friends and associates keeping Sunday and educating the people so far as the people will listen to them. We would not use one single grain of force to compel them to do otherwise, but we do deny their right to compel others who do not believe their way to act as tho they did. In the second place, the signatures sent by the opponents of the recently defeated Sunday amendment in the California Legislature were from all classes of citizens. They included first-day keepers almost wholly, members of churches of all kinds. Presumably there were among them Methodist ministers. There certainly were Baptist ministers. There may have been saloon-keepers' names. No special effort, however, was put forth to secure them, nor any class as a class. We do not know of any persons at all who signed the petition who were saloon men or race track habitues or gamblers. Many of this class belong to the Roman Catholic Church, however, from whom the Advocate received its Sunday, a purely pagan institution, baptized into a perverted Christianity. Thirdly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ which we preach has first of all to do with truth. He Himself was incarnate truth. He Himself observed the seventh day. He Himself taught that there was no connection between God and Cæsar, that civil government had nothing to do with religion. He Himself was charged with being the friend and associate of publicans and sinners. Judging from what He did when here upon the earth, we can easily understand that He would be placed in durance vile very quickly by some of the rigid Sunday laws as an enemy of the State if He walked the earth now as He did eighteen centuries ago. The editor of the Advocate need not worry. There will come a time when sufficient pressure is brought to bear, that will bring all the toughs and hoodlums and similar classes with him on the Sunday-law question. Men without conscience are bound to take the path of least resistance. We hope by that time the editor's conscience will lead him to follow Christ.