The American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 18. (5/29/1889)

The American Sentinel

May 29, 1889

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 29, 1889

THE NEW YORK World says:—

“The fact that the restriction of Sunday trains on the New York Central Road to business only which will not bear delay, is to be accompanied by corresponding reduction of pay, robs the change of all attractiveness to the employés concerned. Similarly the movement to persuade the street-car companies to reduce the Sunday transportation service will prove unpopular with the men when it is known that it means a diminished opportunity to earn money. It will scarcely be contended that seven days’ pay can be regularly given for six days’ work, and this appears to be a necessary condition to bring the philanthropists and those whom they desire to benefit together on the same ground.”

That shows clearly the full extent of the workingmen’s desire for a Sunday law. If those who work on Sundays could get the same wages for six days’ work that they now do for seven, they would very naturally like to have Sunday work stopped. So they would like to have work stopped every day in the week, if they could get as much money by lying idle as they now get by working. As we have often stated, money, and not conscience, rules in this matter. If a man is conscientious in regard to Sunday observance, he will not work on Sunday, and nobody can compel him to, law or no law. If he is not conscientious as to Sunday observance, and chooses to work on that day, nobody has any right to interfere and say that he must rest. To do so would be fully as great an infringement of his liberty as it would be to compel him to work on Sunday if he didn’t want to. The Sunday-law people talk against monopolies, yet they propose to build up the greatest monopoly this country has ever seen.

Dr. Crafts at Pittsburg.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

THE event of the evening of the second day of the National Reform Convention at Pittsburg was the speech by Dr. Crafts, entitled, “Liberty and the Sabbath.” With the exception of the speech by Dr. McAllister on the “School Theory of Education,” this was the only one of the speeches, so far as we have received them, containing anything worthy of notice. That which makes this speech noteworthy is not its logic, because it has none, but the perverted ideas of liberty to which the speaker gave expression. In the beginning of his speech, he referred to the Sunday-law petition, copies of which had been placed in the seats, and which he read. It has been changed somewhat, so we will quote it as it now reads:—

“To the United States Senate.—The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, earnestly petition you to pass a bill forbidding in the Government’s mails, military service, and inter-state commerce, and in the District of Columbia, and Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, excepting works of necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week, by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.”

Concerning this, Mr. Crafts said: “It may be best to define it as a supplement to the State Sabbath law, by doing through Congress what the States cannot do,—giving protection to thousands beyond the jurisdiction of the State laws.” From this it seems that Mr. Crafts’s idea of liberty and protection is that they shall be guaranteed only to those who think as he does; and that everybody else must be deprived of liberty and protection. Mr. Crafts knows as well as we do that public worship is already protected, and that no Sunday law could afford any better protection to it than it has now. His continually harping on that string shows that he is working for a law from some other motive than that of reason and regard for religion.

While we are talking about protection to religious worship, it may not be amiss to inquire why those who religiously and regularly observe another day, are not entitled to as much protection as those who observe the first day. If Mr. Crafts says it is because those who observe another day are in the wrong, then he contradicts his statement that the Sunday law is not a religious law. To say that Saturday is not the correct day for Christians to observe, and to say that Sunday is the proper day, and ought, therefore, to be enforced by the State, is to say that the State should decide for people on questions of religious duty, or, in other words, that the State should act as Pope.

But the answer which Mr. Crafts does give is that those who observe another day are so few that they are not worth noticing. In his speech he spoke of the opposition to his movement as composed of “two little Christian sects, professedly Christian,—the Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists, who, with the Jews, make about one per cent. of the population.” Of course he knows that his wished-for law will work great disadvantage to these people, but he philosophically answers that it is better for a few to suffer in order that many may be benefited. This is what the false-hearted high priest Caiaphas said when the council were considering whether or not Jesus should be tolerated. He said that it was expedient that one man should die in order that the whole nation should not perish. So, in order to save the nation, they put the one man to death; nevertheless, the whole nation miserably perished, and for the very reason that they rejected Jesus in order to save themselves.

Now we will say this, that any law which works injustice to a single individual in a nation, is an unjust law; and the man that talks about securing liberty for the multitude by means of a law which shall deprive a few equally deserving persons of their liberty, shows that he does not understand the first principles of liberty and justice, but is at heart a tyrant. True liberty knows no favoritism. It may seem to some of the Sunday-law workers that liberty for the people can be obtained only by a law which will deprive some people of their liberty; but they will find in the end, that they are grievously mistaken, as did the Jewish people who crucified Christ in order that they might retain their nationality. Their ideas of liberty, and of gaining it, are just such ideas as were held by Napoleon, who, in order to gain his ends, which no doubt he forced himself to believe were for the good of the people, heartlessly sacrificed thousands of men. When people find that in their supposed march to liberty they are obliged to trample upon the rights of a single individual, they should halt, and take that as a sure indication that they are on the wrong road.

Referring to the observers of the seventh day

as in the front rank of opposers to the Sunday-law movement, he said that they constituted but one per cent. of the population, and added, “And yet they would have the other ninety-nine per cent. yield their convictions in this matter.” To this we have to say, first, that the observers of the seventh day do not ask anybody to yield their convictions, unless their convictions are that every one who does not observe Sunday should be deprived of their civil rights. Sunday-law advocates profess to think that the opposers of their movement want to deprive them of their rest-day. Nothing could be more untrue. The opposers of the Sunday law are perfectly willing that everybody who wishes to keep Sunday should be allowed the fullest liberty to do so, and be protected in his worship on that day to the fullest extent. We challenge Mr. Crafts, or any of his co-workers, to quote a single line from any opposer of the Sunday law, whether he be Christian, Jew, or infidel, which could possibly be construed as indicating any desire whatever to deprive any individual of the fullest liberty to rest and to worship on Sunday. The intolerance is all on the other side. It is the Sunday-law advocates who have such overweening ambition to rule, that they cannot enjoy their Sunday rest so long as any person who differs with them is granted freedom of action. The opposers of the Sunday-law movement simply ask equal and exact justice for all.

Again, by his statement that the seventh-day people, who, as he says, form one per cent. of the population, would have the other ninety-nine per cent. yield their convictions in this matter, he conveys the idea that ninety-nine per cent. of the population of the United States have decided convictions in favor of Sunday. Now if that were true, they would not be asking for a Sunday law. If ninety-nine per cent. of the population of the United States were conscientious observers of the Sunday, the day would be observed so strictly that the labor that would be done by the one per cent. would not make a ripple on the surface of society. But let us look at figures for a moment. The population of the United States is about sixty-five million, but the number of church-members in the United States, both Protestant and Catholic, is not more than thirteen million. That is, only twenty per cent. of the people of the United States are even nominally Christian. This is a good deal less than ninety-nine per cent., but not all of these church-members are desirous of a Sunday law. We have in our possession the statements of prominent religious workers to the effect that the larger part of the present disregard for Sunday is due to members of churches. It is repeatedly stated that if it were not for the patronage of church-members the Sunday newspaper could not exist. Certainly, then, the conviction that Sunday should be observed strictly cannot be overwhelmingly strong, even among the small minority of the people who are nominally Christian. Then there are many thousands of people who conscientiously observe the first day of the week, who are as strongly opposed to a Sunday law as any seventh-day person can possibly be. Mr. Crafts himself only claims ten million petitioners for the Sunday law; but the analysis of the petition presented to Congress shows that only a few hundred people actually signed the petition; and it is making a very liberal estimate to say that the entire number of people in the United States, who are zealous for a Sunday law, is less than a million. So then we may say that one per cent. of the population desire a Sunday law, and are determined to have it in spite of the opposition, and the passive indifference, of the other ninety-nine per cent.

Mr. Crafts says: “It is a very shallow objection, the attempt to charge that this is at the bottom of a Catholic conspiracy to put Catholicism in this country.” We do not know of anybody who makes this charge. We know very well that the Roman Catholics are not at the bottom of this movement. We should not think any the worse of it if they were. We know that there are many Catholics who are opposed to it. All the wickedness in the world does not result from what is called Catholicism, neither is all the goodness bound up in Protestantism. Those who are engineering this Sunday movement call themselves Protestants, but they have not the faintest conception of what Protestantism is. Protestantism derives its name from the protest of the German Princes at the Diet of Spires against religious interference with the Government and the rights of the people. A man is not necessarily a Protestant because he calls himself one. When these professed Protestants labor for the very thing against which the German Princes protested, they show that they are not Protestants, but Papists, at heart.

Mr. Crafts devoted a little time to the consideration of the objection that the Sunday law would be unconstitutional. His answer is as follows: “In cases where it has been carried up to the Supreme Court of the State the decisions have been without reserve that such laws are perfectly constitutional. It seems strange that this cry should still be raised, and the curious thing about it is that in the papers that publish these objections there is not the slightest intimation of the decisions of the courts in this matter.” A fitting answer to this is the following incident related of that eminent lawyer, Henry W. Paine, of Maine. One day Mr. Paine was riding in a horse-car, reading a sheep-skin-bound volume of law reports. An acquaintance hailed him, and said, “See here, Paine, do you have to study law still?” “This is not law,” said Paine. “It is only a collection of decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.” So it may be said of the Supreme Court decisions that Sunday laws are constitutional. They are not law. They are not justice. They cannot make wrong right. Just as Chief Justice Taney’s decision in the Dred Scott case did not make slavery any more constitutional than it was before.

Mr. Crafts claims that the clause of the first amendment of the Constitution, which says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, is infringed in this country. He says: “Certainly it is an infringement of the free exercise of religion, when the public service is so managed that hundreds and thousands of employees in the service of the Government cannot have their rightful privilege accorded them. No deeply conscientious Christian man can take an office in the whole Post-office Department. No man who has a strict conscience can either be a postmaster or a post-office clerk, and I say it is an infringement on the free exercise of religion.” What about the man who has conscience in the observance of the seventh day? He cannot occupy any position in the Post-office Department, because the post-office is regularly open continually on Saturday, when his conscientious convictions compel him to refrain from all labor. Mr. Crafts does not expect that this condition of things will ever be changed. On the contrary, he intends to make it even more uncomfortable for them than it is at present. Therefore, according to Mr. Crafts’s own statement, he and his followers intend to perpetuate that infringement of the Constitution. We have never heard a Sunday-law advocate admit more plainly that the passage of a strict Sunday law would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

But as a matter of fact, the keeping open of post-offices on Sunday does not interfere in the slightest degree with the free exercise of a man’s religion. Any man who has conscience in regard to Sunday will keep it. There is no law compelling him to accept a position under the Government. There are thousands of people who keep Sunday strictly, just as there are other thousands who keep Saturday strictly, who have never dreamed that they were being interfered with,—that their religious freedom was infringed by the mere fact that somebody else worked while they were resting.

One more point in Mr. Crafts’s speech we will notice, and then leave him for the present. He said: “We will now notice the work of the seventh-day Christian people who are doing so much in this country to disturb the objects which we seek. I have been criticised for calling this people Saturdarians. They say that I have viewed that work a little uncharitably; but we claim that they make a fetish of Saturday.” If “Saturdarians” is a proper term to apply to those who observe the seventh day, then “Sundarians” must be a proper term to apply to those who observe the first day of the week. Mr. Crafts would undoubtedly think us uncharitable if we should apply it to him.

Mr. Crafts says that the seventh-day people make a fetish of Saturday. Let us look into this matter. A fetish, according to Webster, is “a material thing, living or dead, which is made the object of brutish and superstitious worship, as among certain African tribes.” Now Mr. Crafts charges seventh-day people of making a fetish of Saturday, because they observe it strictly. Suppose we look at the other side. Mr. Crafts and his fellow-workers make a great parade of their conscientious regard for Sunday. Now if the simple fact that seventh-day people observe Saturday strictly is evidence that they make a fetish of it, then it must be that Mr. Crafts makes a fetish of Sunday. Indeed, he is a hundred fold more open to the charge of fetishism than seventh-day people are, for whereas seventh-day people are strict observers of Saturday for themselves only, Mr. Crafts not only observes Sunday strictly, but desires to compel everybody else to do so. This is one of the characteristics of fetishism; for it is well known that nothing will more quickly exasperate the ignorant devotee than to have people lightly regard his fetish. He not only holds it in superstitious reverence, but he thinks that everybody else ought to do the same; and the less worthy the object of his worship is of adoration, the more intense is his desire to have other people give homage to it, and the more intensely is he excited when it is disregarded.

Still further may we turn Mr. Crafts’s charge upon himself. A fetish, as before quoted, is the object of superstitious worship. “Superstition,” as defined by Webster, is “extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded.” Now there is nowhere in the Bible a command for the observance of Sunday. We defy any individual to produce even a semblance of such a command.

Mr. Crafts manifests extreme scruples in the observance of Sunday, and it is certain that he manifests unnecessary scruples, in that he wishes to compel others to do so against their will. Therefore his regard for it is superstition; and since a fetish is the object of superstitious worship, we have proved conclusively that Mr. Crafts makes a fetish of Sunday. The columns of the SENTINEL are open to him to clear himself from this charge if he can.

E. J. W.

Religion and Government Protection

ANY religion that seeks the protection of human government thereby admits its own weakness and lack of vitality. A religion that cannot establish itself is unworthy of alliance with government, and should not have its protection. This movement is subversive of liberty, and conducive to religious sham and parade.—Reason.

Unnecessary Sunday Trains Discontinued

THE Iron Mountain Railway, a branch of the Missouri Pacific system, has given notice that all unnecessary Sunday trains, both passenger and freight, will be discontinued on that road after May 1. It does well. Any railroad that is in the habit of running unnecessary trains on any day in the week ought to discontinue them if it wishes to make any money.

The Majority Does Not Observe Sunday

THE Pearl of Days says that “nearly nine thousand persons witnessed the Sunday base-ball game at Ridgewood, L. I., on Sunday, April 14.” And so it is everywhere. It is an undeniable fact that the majority of people in the United States do not regard Sunday religiously. Therefore the attempt of the American Sabbath Union to enforce the religious observance of the day is an attempt on the part of the minority to override the will of the majority. Such people have no right to apply the word American to themselves.

Sunday. Laws Antichristian.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

The Pearl of Days (New York Mail and Express) of February 8 contained an article entitled, “The Sabbath and the Individual,” by Rev. George S. Mott, D. D., the vice-president of the American Sabbath Union for New Jersey, from which we quote the following reasons why Sunday laws and their penalties must be made universal:—

“The person who keeps the law must not be put out and disadvantaged thereby, and this would be the case were there no penalties for breaking Sabbath laws. The merchant who closes his store might find that his neighbor who keeps open on Sunday was drawing away a trade which belongs to him. Now we must not permit the Sunday-keeping merchant to be the loser because he regards the law, and so must it be with all kinds of labor. Let public sentiment in favor of Sunday law die away, and try to popularize in this country the Sunday of France, and the American will not be protected in his day of rest. Thus he would be compelled to work on that day or lose his situation. No public conscience or statutes will be on his side.”

This is one of the most common arguments for a Sunday law, and is urged by doctors of divinity who claim to be working in the interests of the gospel and pure morality; but to our mind it is one of the strongest evidences of the antichristian character of all Sunday legislation. A Christian is a follower of Christ, that is, a follower of his example and teaching. Now let us quote a few words from his lips, that we may have his statements concerning what must be done by those who follow him:—

Matt. 5:10–12: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

Luke 6:22, 26: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the son of man’s sake.” “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”

Matt. 7:13, 14: “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Matt. 16:24, 25: “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

Luke 14:27: “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

John 15:18–20: “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.”

John 16:33: “In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

The American Sabbath Union proposes to change this order of things that Christ prophesied should exist. He said that as it was before his first advent, so it should be till the end of time: the righteous should be evil spoken of by the world, and would have greater difficulty in making a living. He expressly told his followers that they would be cast out even as he had been; that they could not plan for ease in this life, and at the same time secure the life to come. He taught them that, when there was a question of right and wrong, they should not parley, nor take anxious thought as to what they should eat or drink or wherewithal they should be clothed, if they should pursue a right course, but that they should first seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and trust him for their necessary support. He expressly stated that if a man did not take up his cross and deny himself, he could not be his disciple.

Now, suppose the American Sabbath Union succeeds in getting laws upholding the Christian religion, and making it easy for a man to profess Christianity, making it impossible for him to suffer any loss thereby, what would be the result? It would simply show that the Christianity that was thus professed was not Christianity at all, but a false profession thereof. By their claiming that they are going to have the religion of Christ respected, and to secure those who profess it from being put to disadvantage, they are doing their best to prove that Christ was a false prophet. But this cannot be done. Christ spoke truth. He did not say that the majority of men would reject truth because he wanted them to do so, but because he knew just what they would do. National Reformers may say as much as they please that, although their laws will make it easy for men to profess Christianity and to comply with the outward forms of it, they will not hinder them from being real Christians at heart, and true followers of Christ; but before they can make their claim good, they will have to prove that the Bible is untrue.

Jesus said: “Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;” and that the way to life is narrow, and that few will find it. But the American Sabbath Union proposes to make the way to life so broad that nobody can help finding it; and then if anybody has a desire to follow the Saviour, and to walk in the narrow path, it will pursue him with a goad and compel him to walk in the broad way. But “the Scripture cannot be broken.” The broad way will be till the end of time the way to destruction. And so, when the National Reformers shall have succeeded in getting their system of Christianity so protected by civil law that nobody can suffer any inconvenience in obeying its demands, they will have succeeded in changing the truth of God into a lie, and in leading people to destruction while making them believe that they are leading them to everlasting life.

Christ never authorized anybody to offer ease and comfort as an inducement for people to follow him. He had no ease while on earth, and he said that it is enough that the servant be as his Lord. When he sent Ananias to baptize Saul of Tarsus, he said, “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my sake.” The American Sabbath Union says: “We must show men how little they will have to suffer, and how prosperous they may be in business, for the Lord’s sake.” Is it not antichrist?

When a man came to Christ, saying, “Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest,” he replied: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” He was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,” and he says, “If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” But the American Sabbath Union proposes to make Christianity very popular; therefore it proposes to lead men away from Christ and pure Christianity.

The apostle Paul says, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him;” but the American Sabbath Union proposes to make it impossible for anybody to reign with Christ, by making it impossible for anybody to suffer with him. Again he says of the children of God that they are “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together.” But the American Sabbath Union says that it must not be possible for anybody to be made to suffer for Christ. Therefore we say that the American Sabbath Union is an antichristian institution, devoted to the suppression of pure Christianity, and the propagation of hypocrisy and dead formalism; and to just that extent, also, is it an enemy of mankind. Let every lover of pure Christianity and of his fellow-men work heart and soul against its iniquitous work.

E. J. W.

“All Must Rest, or None Can.”

The statement is made in various ways by the advocates of Sunday legislation that the possibility of rest for any is contingent upon compulsory resting on the part of all. If this be true, no one has ever had a day of rest, and no one has such a day at the present time. Those who advocate stricter Sunday legislation urge, as a prominent reason, that hundreds of thousands of people are now engaged in business on Sunday; this being the fact, and the logic of the claim which stands at the head of this article being correct, the most devout, who give Sunday wholly to worship and deeds of love, do not yet have a day of rest, neither can they have until the whole are compelled to rest, for their sakes. Putting the facts alongside this claim is sufficient answer to the claim. They show it to be false. Several other facts show the same thing. Devout Jews in all lands, and through all the centuries, though often persecuted and bitterly opposed, have conscientiously and successfully rested from their labors and business, not only upon the Sabbath, but upon many other religious festivals. If there were no other facts in history bearing on this point, other than those in connection with the Hebrew nation, the foregoing claim would be absolutely condemned. For more than two centuries in the United States, the Seventh-day Baptists, and in later years the Seventh-day Adventists as well, have observed the Sabbath strictly, finding no trouble in securing a day of rest and worship, though in “the insignificant minority”—as the friends of Sunday legislation describe them—and in the midst of the world’s busiest day. What is needed to secure a day of rest and worship, or, better still, “keep the Sabbath according to the commandment,” is a conscience toward God, and a determination to obey him. All else is valueless, and the strictest legislation does no more than create a legal holiday.

The arguments upon which men attempt to base statements like that which heads this article, are futile, illogical, and deceptive. Facts deny the statement, and the attempted argument based upon the statement is destructive of regard for God and of conscience toward him. Not the outward compulsion of civil law, but the inward choice of the heart, settles the question, and regard for any day as a Sabbath will be destroyed in proportion as men induce themselves to believe that such regard must depend upon similar regard on the part of others, or upon the fact that others do or do not cease from their labors. It would be as logical to ask civil legislation to forbid all profanity, upon the claim that the ability to refrain from taking the name of the Lord in vain on the part of one depended upon compelling all thus to refrain. He who respects God as he ought will not take his name in vain, though he dwell in the midst of blasphemy. He who regards the Sabbath as he ought will observe it as God requires, though he dwell in the midst of those who forget God, and trample upon his law. —Sabbath Recorder.

A Puzzled Reader.

By Editor

A FEW weeks ago we copied without comment an article from the New York Tribune, in review of a speech made by Col. E. F. Shepard, in which he claimed that God's seventh day was man's first day. The writer of that article showed so clearly the absurdity of Mr. Shepard's theology, and held him up to public ridicule so successfully, that we did not deem it necessary to add anything. But it seems that some have made the mistake of thinking that we indorsed Mr. Shepard's muddled theology, as is shown by the following letter received from an honest man in Columbus, Ohio. We quote the letter in full:—

“To-day I received the last number of the SENTINEL, dated April 24. Although I am a disbeliever in any kind of divine revelation, I read the SENTINEL with much interest, as it is a live paper. In the article headed, ‘The Seventh and First Days of the Week Are the Same,’ I struck a snag. It may be that my skepticism is at fault, and that I do not correctly understand the wording of the Bible. In the article referred to I find the following passage: ‘The first Sabbath was God's seventh and man's first day. Thus God's seventh day of rest after the creation was man's first day of existence, so that his first Sabbath of rest was his first day, although it was God's seventh day.’

“This statement is not in harmony with chapters one and two of Genesis. There we find it asserted, twenty-third verse, ‘And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.’ Twenty-sixth, ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ Twenty-seventh, ‘And God created man in his own image.’ Thirty-first, ‘And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good, and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.’ Gen. 2:2 says, ‘And on the seventh day God ended the work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work.’

“Now the day on which it is claimed that man was created, was the sixth, corresponding to our Friday; and on the day following, which we call Saturday, God rested from his work and sanctified it. In consideration of these statements, or, rather, according to these assertions, it must be wrong to say, ‘Thus, God's seventh day of rest was man's first day of existence,’ for on that first Saturday man had already existed one day; that Saturday was the second day of man's existence, according to my reckoning, which may be misguided, as I do not wear colored spectacles. My eyes must be at fault; else I cannot understand that you learned gentlemen did not point out the flaw in the argument of Col. Elliott F. Shepard. If you would deem it advisable to enlighten me on the subject, I would be under many obligations to you.”

We do not think that our good friend needs any enlightenment. He seems to be able to read the English language quite intelligently; and we do not know of anybody who could state the facts in regard to the record in the first and second chapters of Genesis any better than he has done. Mr. Shepard's statement that the first and seventh days are the same is a self-evident absurdity. All the enlightenment that our correspondent needs is to understand that the Sunday-law business is contrary to reason and revelation, and that he must not be surprised at any fraud or absurdity that he may find in connection with arguments for it. Mr. Shepard has been chosen as the head of this great (ir)religious movement; and by virtue of his position as pastor of pastors, he finds himself obliged to give instruction to the clergymen of the United States; and, like anybody else who presumes to talk about that of which he knows nothing, he naturally makes many foolish statements. Still we would not be unnecessarily harsh on Mr. Shepard, for, although he is not a theologian, he makes full as good an argument for Sunday and Sunday laws as any doctor of divinity ever did; which only goes to show that what is needed for the success of the Sunday cause is, not knowledge, but power.

Continue reading: How Mrs. Bateham Shows Up the Adventists