How Our Methodist Friends Regard Us.
By Abdiel
"THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE," the leading paper of the Methodist Episcopal denomination, edited by Rev. James Buckley, D.D., LL.D., in its issue of June 18 has an editorial headed "The Seventh-day Adventists and the Protection of Sunday." The editor refers to the position of Seventh-day Adventists respecting religious legislation as stated by Mr. A. G. Daniells, the president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; namely, that we do not believe in religious legislation, either in the protection of Sunday by law, or the protection of the seventh-day Sabbath by law; that the civil law would be detrimental to the sanctity and the observance of the seventh day, and continues: "We are pleased to have the opportunity of stating their case in the words of an authoritative representative. We differ with him and his colleagues on these grounds: "1. Sunday laws in this country do not require any person to worship God or to attend any church whatsoever. So far as the laws of the states or the federal government go, a man may freely stay away from religious services all the days of his life and never mention the name of God or think of Him. "2. It is necessary to the welfare of the people of the United States that there be a general sentiment of respect for religion. "3. For the physical and intellectual welfare of the people it is desirable that one day in SEVEN shall be a legal holiday. "4. Special protection for such days is necessary, that those who wish to use them for religious purposes can do so without disturbance, and those who would make the day a corrupting day may be held in check. "5. With due regard to laws for the purpose stated in the preceding paragraph, citizens may make the day a HOLY day or a holiday, or partly a holy day and partly a holiday, according to their consciences or tastes. "Such a law is not unconstitutional and is not dangerous. "If the ideas of the Seventh-day Adventists were fully carried out, it would not be long before Sunday would become an evil day, a day of clamor, a day of dispute, a day of rollicking and noisy amusements, a day to be feared by every mother and every conscientious father. We have sometimes sympathized with the Seventh-day Baptists because their day had no protection, while those who believe in Sunday have such protection. But having discovered by the statement of the president of the Seventh-day Adventists that they do not believe in any kind of protection, our heart-strings will no longer vibrate in sympathy with them upon this point. "Meanwhile we rejoice to see their devotion to their conscientious views and principles. In matters of this kind we would rather be wrong and unpopular, conscientiously, than to be right merely for popularity’s sake. We bow to every one who stands up for what he believes to be right, unless he attacks the rights or, unjustly, the characters and reputations of his fellow citizens. Any person of the latter class deserves contempt, and if he becomes too unbearable he should feel the full force of the law." The Advocate presents no new positions or any particularly striking, self-evident, Christian logic, and yet from the position that it occupies as the leading exponent of a great denomination, its comments are worthy of notice. Therefore we refer to the above paragraphs as they are there numbered. Infringement of Religious Rights.
1. It is true that Sunday laws at the present time do not require any person to worship God or to attend any church, but that is the ultimate object, however, of many Sunday-law advocates. Further than this, it is the religion of some individuals that God does require a man to work six days in the week and rest one. They religiously and conscientiously can not believe that it is duty to abstain from labor two days in the week. There are many, very many more, who can not afford to do this. Even if the law of God is not mandatory regarding work, it certainly is permissive; it gives the man the right to work six days as well as to rest the seventh; and it is an infringement on one’s religious liberty to demand that he shall, after observing a day according to his own conscience unto God, observe a day out of deference to the wishes of his fellow men. And it would be utterly intolerant and unjust on the part of Sunday-keepers or Sabbath-keepers to demand it. Why are not the conscientious scruples of the seventh-day man just as sacred as those of the first-day man? In matters of conscience numbers matter nothing. Error has ever been in a majority in this world. The conscience of the one is as sacred as that of the million. Moreover, a law demanding the observance of a weekly rest day is unjust. God gives to all men the full week of time; He asks that man shall voluntarily yield one seventh of that time to Him, but He has placed no man or set of men on the judgment-seat to say how that time shall be rendered to God, or when, and to say that after one has rendered that amount of time to the Lord in harmony with his conscientious scruples he should observe another day in deference to the wishes of his fellows, who may at the time be in a majority. To do that is to place a tax of sixteen and two-thirds per cent upon that individual simply and solely because of the wishes of his fellow men, who are in no wise better citizens or neighbors. It would seem as tho the justly minded Sunday-keeper would see the utter inequality and injustice of such a law. “Respect” and Legislation.
2. It is necessary to the welfare of the people of the United States and every other country that there be a general sentiment of respect for religion, but it does not follow that that respect can be obtained by legislation. The restriction of our rights does not lead to added respect for the one who restricts them. The highwayman who, by bludgeon or pistol, holds us up in the highway may command our subjection for a little time, but he does not increase our respect for him. No respect for religion was ever obtained thru enforcement of law. If there is not enough of inherent worth in the religion itself and those who profess it to command the respect of man, that respect will never be gained by endeavoring to enforce it. It will simply result in making men hypocrites. The Lord Jesus Christ and the motives that actuated Him and His disciples awakened and perpetuated more respect for religion than all the laws of His opposers who persecuted Him, but who felt that it was necessary that there be “a general sentiment of respect” for 3. It may be necessary for the physical and intellectual welfare of the people that one day in seven should be observed; but it is absurd to say that because it is thus necessary, it shall be a legal holiday. One might as well argue that for the physical and intellectual welfare of the people, it is desirable that eight hours for sleep shall be constituted a legal requirement, that the law should provide certain kinds of clothing, certain kinds of food; in other words, that the country itself shall be a great big mother for the enforcing of everything which is thought good for the welfare of the people. It would be pitiable Christian logic to contend for such a law, and it would develop even more pitiable characters. Legal Protection for Human Rights Not for Institutions.
4. Why is “special protection for such days necessary”? We have laws guarding the religious worshippers in their rights now, without any regard to the holiness of the day on which their worship may be held. It is made, so far as we know, in every state of the Union a punishable offense to disturb a religious meeting. Such laws as that are proper for the protection of human rights. The Christian Advocate proposes to turn from the only true fundamental principle of government, the protection of human rights, and place the protection upon a religious institution, thereby exalting those who may keep it resulting in class legislation, class laws, and governmental intolerance. There is nothing in this world to hinder a single soul from observing any day of the week religiously if he so chooses, and has the manhood to do his duty. There are one hundred thousand people, or more, in this country who observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. They do not feel that that day needs any other “protection” than what God has Himself invested it with. They do not find their worship disturbed by others to such an extent that they feel that it is necessary to give up that worship, and they also feel that the strongest influence that can possibly be exerted to lead men to respect that day is to lead a Christian life that is worthy of respect. 5. Man can not make a “holy day;” he can not make himself holy, and only a holy man can keep holy a holy day. By no act of his can he sanctify a day which is not6holy; only God can make holy. He has made one day holy, and only one. Sinful man can desecrate that day; he can not desecrate a day which is not sacred; he can not make a day “partly holy” and “partly a holiday.” It is an utter misconception of the Biblical Sabbath to conceive of such a thing as that. In the very spirit of the Constitution, all Sunday laws or all Sabbath laws are unconstitutional. All laws for the protection or promotion of a religious institution, tenet, or creed are unconstitutional. Just as soon as a people gets to legislating upon the thing, and for the thing instead of for the man, it departs from the fundamental principle of what a democracy ought to be. Governments are instituted to conserve the equal rights of mankind, not the supposed sacredness of some institution, or some sect or combination of sects which regard the institution. If Sunday people would observe the day as some of them feel that it ought to be observed, would live the life of the Master, would leave the world and its amusements, they would do more to make Sunday respected than any amount of laws could do. If the ideas of Seventh-day Adventists were carried out, Sunday would be a sober working-day, in which all rights of all men would be regarded. The Full Force of the Law.
From editorials of the past we have learned how deep the heart-strings of the editor of The Christian Advocate have been affected. We note also what is stated in the last sentence quoted above; we can easily see how one who teaches the Bible Sabbath, and in that very teaching shows that Sunday is not the Sabbath and has no Biblical claims upon the people, would be regarded as contentious, one who was attacking the rights of his fellow men, and would therefore be deserving of contempt, and if continued, “should feel the full force of the law.” That has always been the case; it was that cumulative evidence which the Jews piled up against our Lord which led at last to His death as a Sabbath-breaker. It is a strange thing to us that Protestant Christians should ever desire any help whatsoever from the state for the support of their tenets or creeds. Why can they not see that the strongest influence conceivable for the upholding of every Christian institution is the pious example of its members? Why can they not also see that if that example be lacking, no human law which it is possible for men to frame can ever command the respect of those who are without? If it is proper and just to secure laws for the protection of Sunday as a Christian institution, why not for every other Christian dogma or institution? These and a score of other questions ought to come home to the heart of every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. The power of Christianity lies not in the laws which it is able to obtain by influencing legislators but in the devoted lives of its followers, in the out-breathing of the spirit of Christ from within, in the benevolence and devotion of its members to the principles of the religion of Christ. These wanting, all are wanting. If these are held, it matters not what may come upon the church from without, she will grow and win souls for the Master. But religious legislation of any and every form has been a blight and a curse to the church thruout all the ages. And the lesson that we ought to read in the gruesome light of the past centuries ought to be that like causes produce like effects, and that the recrudescence of the laws of the early centuries will produce the Dark Ages now as truly as they did then.