SABBATH-BREAKING PARTNERSHIPS
By Editor
From the Sabbath Recorder. SABBATH-BREAKING PARTNERSHIPS.
Perhaps we have said enough on this subject: at least, some of our readers may think so. But if such associations are sinful "duty to God and to our guilty brethren require the oft repeated reproof." Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little. Men do not stop sinning, usually, with one admonition; and where their worldly interest is concerned, one discourse goes but a little way toward making them see their errors. In taking a stand against Sabbath-breaking partnerships, we are not conscious of being governed by any considerations of worldly policy. The glory of God and the purity of our Zion are the only motives, so far as we understand ourselves. Mistaken we may be in the views we entertain, but if we are, our mistake can be pointed out in a way that will readily commend itself to the understanding of the common people. It may be useful, in this connection, to inquire what are the views of the pious of other persuasions in reference to such things. Would a conscientious observer of Sunday, one who honestly regards it as a day holy to the Lord, to be observed according to the scope and spirit of the Fourth Commandment—there are many such among First-day people—enter into a co-partnership, the condition of which should be the opening of the establishment for business on the first day of the week? Would he consent to have buying and selling and labor and noise in a place where any part of the responsibility would be upon himself? We feel safe in saying that he would not. He feels that, wherever his responsibility in governing and managing is concerned, there must be a decent regard to the day of rest. His brethren in the church all feel it. The religious sentiment of the community in which he lives, demands it. Indeed, we believe there are churches that would bring a man to discipline, who should be guilty on this point. Now we know that our First-day brethren greatly err in attaching any sacredness to the Sunday; nevertheless, the day is to them the same as the Sabbath is to us. They view it as sacred as we do the Sabbath. They even call it the Sabbath, and feel a solemn sense of responsibility with regard to the preservation of its sanctity. But there is no reason for supposing that the strictness with which they guard its sanctity originates in their erroneous doctrine that the day of the Sabbath is changed. There is nothing in this doctrine which is calculated to originate such strictness, but rather the contrary. It evidently originates in the Fourth Commandment itself—in the working of that commandment in their hearts, tying them up in a solemn sense of accountability to Him who said, "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy." We allude to this prevailing sentiment among First-day people, because we think it ought to find its counterpart among ourselves. And does it ever fail to find its counterpart among us, except in those instances where pecuniary interests are at stake? The Fourth Commandment working in the mind untrammeled by the popular false doctrine of a change of the Sabbath, ought to originate a strictness at least equal to that of our First-day brethren; and it is to our disgrace as Christians, and to the disgrace of the sentiments we hold, that we are in so many instances far behind them. But our brethren say they are not responsible for the act of their partners in doing business on the Sabbath. In some instances, there are three, or more, of the firm, one only of them being a Sabbath-keeper, and the majority rules. Well, it is true, you are not required to govern the majority, nor to resist its decisions. But why did you place yourself in such a relation in the first place? By entering into partnership with two, three, or four persons, you all mutually came under obligation to serve one another. You became their servant, and they became yours; and you well understood that they were to serve you on the Sabbath, as well as on other days of the week. Your sin lay in making that bargain. But would not the principle insisted on lead to the repudiation of all business transactions with First-day people? If the Sabbath-keeper employs a First-day shoemaker, or tailor, to make him a pair of boots, or a coat, must he not, to be consistent, stipulate that the work shall not be done on the Sabbath? Answer: The law of the Sabbath does not require you to interfere with another man's right to govern his own premises. Over them he has full and undisputed control. It is only within the premises over which you retain control, either in whole or in part, that your responsibility is directly concerned. If you give a man time enough to make your coat without trespassing on the Sabbath, and he, nevertheless, protracts the job beyond that time, and works upon it during the sacred hours, the responsibility is with him, not with you. The shop where he works is his own, not yours: the workmen are employed by him, and his right to regulate the manner in which work shall be done on his own premises, cannot be disputed, if we would uphold any kind of order in society. It is enough if you do not require him to work on the Sabbath. If you go to him on the Sixth-day afternoon and bespeak a coat to be finished the evening after Sabbath, well knowing that the job cannot be done without trespassing on sacred time, the case is altered. Then you do require him to serve you on the Sabbath-day, and become a party in the profanation. We think a conscientious man would not do so. But as we do not design to say all that might be said on this important subject, we will here suspend our remarks for the present. In the mean time, we trust that our brethren who are involved in the practice complained of, as well as those who may be meditating any such thing, will pause, and consider whether they are making the glory of God the great aim of their lives.