The Lord at one time gave Solomon a view of some of the oppression wrought in the earth to the lowly ones, and his heart was stirred. This was before the Friend of the race had come to live with us to manifest divine comfort by His personal presence as the Son of Man. The wise man writes: “So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.”
There are still oppressors in the earth oppressing those less fortunate than themselves. And, strange to say, earthly power still is on the side of those doing the oppressing. Wealth too often rises in pride and entails suffering upon the poor. The slave master's lash may not be plied, but there are other ways in which stinging blows of oppression may be administered, causing suffering perhaps equally intense.
The human race is one great brotherhood. Man upon the face of the whole earth is made of one blood. One race is no better in His sight than another. God loves the humble, honest, daily toiler, who rises early and with the strong, sturdy arm of toil provides the comforts and necessities of life for his loved ones as much as the king occupying the throne. The rich man gains no favor with his God simply because he lays claim to wealth. Neither does God love the rich man any the less because to him is entrusted the responsibilities of earthly treasure. The Bible simply passes by all this vain show, this foolish caste, and holds men responsible for the talents bestowed upon them. It may be the talent of wealth, it may be the talent of learning, it may be the talent of strength and health. Whatever it is, its use will be required of the possessor by the Giver.
It will be a fearful account the rich man will have to settle with his God, if, instead of using the means entrusted to him to relieve suffering, bringing joy and gladness into the homes and hearts of those about him in need, he selfishly withholds these blessings, or in any manner uses these designed blessings to bring oppression upon his fellows. The tears of the oppressed are all counted. The prayers and cries are faithfully recorded in books safely preserved in the heavenly courts, and one day these books will be opened.
The Comforter has now come. Jesus Christ took His stand visibly beside the oppressed. He might have come a rich and honored member of the family, but, instead, took the lowly place of the laborer, who earns his daily bread. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, tho He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.”
Yes, the oppressed now have a Comforter. And, what is still more comforting, on the side where the Lord stands there is power. It may not so appear just now, but, in fact, the power is there. It is not simply a little power, but it is all the power of both heaven and earth. Ponder the record in Eph. 1:18-22 of the greatness of the power of this Friend of the friendless, the Comforter of the oppressed. “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know; . . . what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead,6and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all.”
With such a Friend and Comforter at your side, whatever may be the nature of your trouble, dear soul, you may safely rest your case in the hands of Him beside you. Whatever you do, do not take the case out of His hands. Far better be the oppressed and believe, than be the oppressor with seeming power, honor, and ease at your command. Let Christ plead your cause. Patiently wait for Him. “Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.” He knows how to execute judgment. The Judge of all the earth will do right. He will know how to deal with all the oppressors, rich or poor, high or low. But God is the friend of the widow, the fatherless, the motherless, and he that touches such touches the apple of His eye.
T. E. BOWEN.
How They Became Convinced
[Believing it would be of interest to our readers, the editor of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES has asked Sabbath-keeping ministers and evangelical workers to tell in a few words the scripture or scriptures, the truths and principles, which constrained them to accept the unpopular truth of the seventh-day Sabbath. These testimonies must not exceed 500 words. Let us hear from all.]
XLIV.
When a child, at the request of my grandmother, a member of the Baptist Church, I committed to memory the Ten Commandments. My parents were not Christians. By precept from grandmother, and my own mother’s example of rest on Sunday, I was taught to believe that day to be the Sabbath. At the age of eighteen my teacher, a Methodist, called my attention to the fact that Sunday was the first day of the week, and not the seventh. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, the almanacs, calendars, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a Presbyterian minister, all certified to the same fact. Thinking all might be mistaken, I said, Surely Jesus Christ kept Sunday. And then, like a flash, came the thought: No, Jesus Christ kept the seventh day; He said He was Lord of the Sabbath day, and it is my duty to follow in His steps.
Thus, with the language of the Sabbath commandment, and the example of the Lord of the Sabbath, my Saviour, I decided that Sunday, the first day of the week, could not be the Sabbath of the Bible.
I was told that all Christians keep Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Christ; but on reading through the New Testament I found not the least hint that such a change was made by Christ; but, to the contrary, I found many plain texts, teaching that the apostles observed and taught the Sabbath after Christ’s resurrection.
Shortly after this I received a copy of this paper, and sent for some of the tracts on the Sabbath question which were advertised in it. These tracts and that number of this paper proved indeed a great blessing to me; for up to this time I had never heard of a Christian people who kept the Sabbath. While I was thus reaching for the truth, John 7:17 and 8:32 were most precious promises. Soon after, from a Seventh-day Adventist woman, I learned other glorious truths connected with the Sabbath, and also learned how and by whom the change was wrought in the church from Sabbath-keeping to Sunday-keeping.
I took my stand for these glorious truths some twelve years ago, under much opposition. And it has ever been a precious truth to me, and is growing brighter and more blessed as the days go by. And I purpose to ever be faithful, and at last join with the family of the redeemed, as they come up from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, to worship the Lord of the Sabbath in the earth made new. Isa. 66:23. W. L. Sims.
Redding, Cal.
XLV.
I was brought up in the Freewill Baptist faith. At the age of twenty-three I united with the Christian Church. At one of our meetings a few years later I heard a minister say, “I suppose you all think you have a command in the Bible for Sunday-keeping; but there is not a text in the whole Bible that teaches you to observe Sunday.” Going home from that meeting I decided to study the Bible, and know for myself what the Lord’s commands were. After carefully studying the following texts, Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:7, 12; 1 John 1:9; Rom. 8:16, 17; John 14:23; I was pretty thoroughly convinced I had been wrong, but had not decided to obey, until one Sunday I opened my Bible, and the first text I saw was Heb. 10:26, 27. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” I decided then and there to obey the Lord, and keep all His commandments, and have endeavored to do so ever since. And now I am in my eightieth year. Ridgeland, Miss. I. SANBORN.
JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS.
By T. S. Parmele
Not by Man's Works, but by God's Works.
A MAN is not justified by his own works of the law, but by God's works of the law; and by that only. Christ's life of obedience to the law is accepted in the place of every believer's failure to perform that law. This makes righteous that part of the believer's life that he lived before he believed; but it is only a part of man's justification by the works of God.
Nothing but good works will secure the reward of righteousness. The whole life must be filled with good works, and good works only; so a man must have good works when he believes as well as before he believed. As when he believes, he has Christ's good works which were done for him covering the part of his life that he lived before he believed; so when he believes, he has Christ's good works done in him. That is, he does right because Christ dwells in him, doing the right in him; whereas before he believed, Christ did the right for him outside of him, which doing appears in God's sight as tho done by the one who is now a believer. He has all his present righteousness as well as past righteousness simply by faith, and takes no honor to himself; but says, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” Gal. 2:20. To this agree the words of the prophet Isaiah, as it is written, “Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace for us; for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us.” Isa. 26:12. The Apostle Paul bears a similar testimony. He says, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” Rom. 8:4.
Christ dwells in the heart by faith. Man has no strength in himself, without Christ, to do the works of righteousness that must be done; so we read, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.” No man can justify himself in God's sight by attempting to do even a perfect law, for flesh can not do it; “it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Yet every person who is justified in the sight of God is justified by the works of the law; Christ's works of the law for him, and in him, “being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” Rom. 3:21. “Through the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous.” Rom. 5:19.
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” James 2:21. Whose works?—God's works.
“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” Verse 25. Whose works?—God's works.
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Verse 24. Thus God works in man.
The following text is no contradiction:—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done.” Whose works?—Man's works.
Many people seek to be justified by faith, and yet ignore good works; but God's plan is to “purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Titus 2:14. Whose zeal?—God's zeal. Whose good works?—God's good works working in us. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.”
“All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Whose works?—Evidently the works of the one who could boast, if he could be saved by them.
“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before prepared that we should walk in them.” Eph. 2:10. Whose good works?—God's good works; in which the purified people will walk. God's purity is a gift. It is given to the vilest sinner who will accept it.
Those Galatians who had fallen from grace, and then received circumcision, were trying to do something to save, or to help to save, themselves. Circumcision was not required then. It was said, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing;” but if they had tried to do something that was required for the sake of saving or helping to save themselves, their condition would have been the same.
And, at the present time, a person who thinks he can save himself or help save himself by being baptized, has fallen from grace just as certainly as those “foolish Galatians” had fallen from grace; and yet baptism is required of every believer.
Man's baptism not of faith, is not essential to righteousness. Christ's baptism, either in the man as the man of faith goes down into the water and comes up out of the water, or in Christ for the man, when Christ went down into the water and came up out of the water, is just as essential as every other act of obedience that Christ fulfils in the believer or for the believer before he believed. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”
Even the thief, who was converted on the cross, will go into heaven as a baptized believer. The Saviour was baptized for him and for all others who are saved and yet can not possibly be baptized; not for any, however, who cherish the least particle of rebellion against that or any other ordinance of the Lord.
If the thief could have been baptized when he had faith, his baptism would have been a part of Christ's righteousness, every particle of which righteousness is essential for the salvation of every person who is saved. This is why Jesus was so careful to be baptized, as well as to fulfil every other duty. When He came to John to be baptized, He said, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.”
In conclusion, in the words of the apostle, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for His good pleasure.” T. S. PARMELE.
PESSIMIST
MANY people there are (and not a few of them are people professing holiness) who seem to be possessed of a specially detective instinct that enables them to discern and advertise a pessimist at long or short range, and at quickest sight. Let any one assume to point out palpable evils inside the so-called church, or outside; let him call attention to vicious and mischievous consequences that are likely to follow the bad lives of wrong-doers; let him lift up a warning voice against dangers that threaten the social state or the spiritual life of the church; and straightway resounds the cry of “Pessimist.” Proofs of existing or coming evils may be placed in plain array before every eye; facts may be offered that no human notice can evade or human candor deny; but these incidents count for little with these sharp-scented detectives, for proof as plain as day can be easily overborne by the stigma of an offensive name, and facts tho stubborn as Gibraltar can quickly be put to rout by the man-dog cry of “Pessimist!”
But events may prove that the game is not wholly ended when evils are pointed out by honest and observant chroniclers of passing events, while their notices of evil or warning of peril are attempted to be shouted down by resonant outcries of “Pessimism!” For sure it is that things that were true before the maudlin cry of “Pessimism” was raised, are true still; and facts that are facts at the first, will continue still to be facts, however loudly or lustily may be lifted up the cry of “Pessimist!” The man at midnight who lifts up in the deserted street the cry of “Fire!” when discovering a dwelling in flames, may be berated as a “pessimist;” but the fire burns on. The fact of the midnight conflagration does not cease to be a fact because the alarmist may be called by an odious name. The man on horseback, courier of the rushing flood at Johnstown, might have been called—possibly was called—a disturber, and a “pessimist!” But the flood was a fact! Despite contemptuous speeches, the mad waters swept on, and a drowned city lay in the wake!
Wise men, sagacious men, such as are skilled in both church and statecraft, speak of coming evils in both Church and State, and of their own forebodings in relation thereto. Nor are the coming evils that have called up their forebodings unreal or imaginary. On the contrary, the evils they foresee and forebode are facts! How foolish to decry such skilled observers of the signs of the times, in either Church or State, as “pessimists!” Truth is, there is nothing either morbid or morose in seeing evils as they arise, and forewarning against them. It is a morbid habit, rather, to ignore them or to seek to fortify against them, by affecting optimism. Pessimists in a bad sense there may be; at any rate there are those who will be denounced as pessimists. Such people will be rated as pessimists, and denounced as such, because they will persist in believing, and saying, that facts are facts. But grace can fortify against such reproach. Thank God.—Church Herald.
Love Beyond Family and Country
“Much of what goes by the name of love is only selfishness. Until love extends beyond the narrow circle of relatives and friends; until it stretches beyond the shores of one's own land, it is not real love. The Christ-love is not that which nourishes and cares with greatest solicitude for one's own child, and yet turns a deaf ear to the cry of the hungry and forsaken one in the street. Pure love is in the act, and does not take note of the object.”
“THERE IS ONE THAT RESTRAINETH.”
WRITING of his own and later times the apostle Paul uttered these words: “For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is One that restraineth now, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one.”
This prophecy has been in past times by Protestants almost universally applied to the Papacy, that system which came into the church or temple of God, subverting and perverting both the law and the Gospel of God. It was held in check for a time, restrained from its full development. By what agency was this accomplished?
Man was made “upright,” in the image of his Maker. When he sinned, God purposed in His goodness again to restore in man that lost image of sonship in God. Those who believe, who accept God’s plan, are created anew “in righteousness and holiness of truth,” “renewed unto knowledge after the image of Him that created him.” Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10.
Thus is man made again by the power of God a dwelling-place for his Maker, a temple of the Holy Spirit. I Cor. 6:19. His language is: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me.” Gal. 2:20.
All such persons believing in Christ form His body, the church; “for in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free.” I Cor. 12:13. Such persons—individual temples—together constitute the one temple, the church; “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” Eph. 2:19-22.
Such was the apostolic church, begotten of God, born of the Spirit, true to His Word, resting faith upon the same foundation as apostle and prophet—Christ Jesus. Such was the Pentecostal church; such were the churches built of Paul. The apostle prayed that Christ might dwell in their hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17); and that thus they might abide, he tells them, “I commend you to God, and to the Word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified.” Acts 20:32.
In the same connection, he predicts that after his death grievous wolves should enter in and destroy the flock, and that also from among the very church-members themselves men should arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after themselves instead of after Christ. As soon as that was accomplished, of course, the false leaders would take the place of Christ in the heart and in the church. So heathen philosophy crept into the church. So the Papacy crept in, little by little, till Christ was put far away, and the pope was enthroned in His place. So the mystery of lawlessness was enthroned in the realm of the mystery of godliness; self took the place of love; and Satan controlled instead of Christ.
Now what alone could hinder the establishment of the Papacy in the church of Jesus Christ?—Manifestly, scripturally, it could only be Christ by His Spirit occupying His own living temple, reigning King supreme, filling the soul with the fulness of God. Christ therefore is the “One that restraineth” the setting up and worship of the man of sin. As long as He remained regnant in His church, no power exalting or opposing itself against God could find any place. And to-day no church, no church-member, can resist the man of sin, or withstand the Papacy, if Christ be bidden in word or deed to depart. He abides nowhere an unwelcome guest.
The great Protestant churches are crowding Him out by evolution, by higher criticism, by tradition, by politics, by unbelief. Upon none of these were these churches founded, were their victories gained, was the superiority of Protestantism over Catholicism demonstrated. Then “the Bible, and the Bible alone,” was the rule of faith. But now all this primitive loyal faith is gone and the principles of the Papacy are taking strong root. The restraining One is being taken away, and the lawless one is being manifest. O church of the living God, awake! arise! cast out every foe, and let Christ in to dwell in you forever. Only so is there salvation.
THE EXCELLENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
Liberalism Gone Mad.
A GRAND memorial chapel was recently dedicated at Palo Alto, Cal., in connection with Stanford University, built by Mrs. Stanford in memory of her husband. Protestant Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Unitarian, and Jew took part in the dedicatory exercises. Dr. Heber R. Newton, a liberal of the liberals, is the pastor, and preached the dedicatory sermon. The sentiments expressed may be found in the two excerpts which follow, as reported in the daily press:—
There is a oneness of ethical and spiritual religion in which Christian, Mohammedan, Jew, Hindu, Japanese, Chinaman, all alike stand confessedly the children of one Father. With the Persian mystic we, too, may each say: “I am at home in mosque or synagogue, in temple or in church.”
The pulpit of this church is to try to find the common denominator of our manifold forms of Christianity. It is to present those essential, ethical, and spiritual truths which are the heritage of all who bear the name of “Christian”—which we are now discerning to be the heritage of all who bear the human name, the sons and daughters of God in every race, in whom shineth the “Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
All this seems very beautiful in sentiment; and in a certain way there is a common fund of sentiment and ethical teaching in all religions. There are many things common between the counterfeit and the genuine, between the false Sabbath and the true. But the Christianity of Christ differs in one respect from all other religions whatsoever; and that is in its intrinsic uplifting power. Other religions, at their best, are but ethical forms, empty ceremonies, a round of meaningless mummeries. They give no power to live the morals they teach. Their powerlessness has been demonstrated among the peoples of the great dark lands of earth. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” But into all these forms, into all this death, comes the life of God in Christianity. It has its ethics, pure, high, divine—the royal law of the Most High. It has power to translate those principles into living characters. It has the demonstration of that power in its fullest perfection in the life and character of Jesus Christ. And He has put that life into the dead stones that the dead forms of worldly religion could never reach, and made them living temples of God. He has put His life into the lowest of men and women, and made them ministering angels. And all the betterment we see in this world to-day has been wrought by, or is the growth of, the life of God in Christianity.
To place it on a level with other religions is to take only its dead form; is to present the empty sepulchre of a living Saviour who has gone on before. Christianity, true Christianity—not its form, not its perversion—comes to the devotees of all these soulless forms, and offers them life, life, eternal life. That is its only mission in this world. It is only when men lose knowledge of its power that they make it one of a sisterhood of creeds, cults, or systems.
CUSTOM
By G.
When men undertake to uphold the principle of Sunday observance they almost invariably become entangled. An advocate of Sunday-closing in Red Bluff, Cal., supposes a discussion between A and B, evidently endorsing the argument of B.
A is made to argue for opening business on Sunday, and is made to support his side by alluding to the long-standing custom. “B is amused at the reference to custom. ‘Customs are subject to change,’ says he, ‘and the fact that a custom exists is no proof that it is a good custom.’”
Later on in the discussion B proposes a prime reason for Sunday-closing. “To close the stores,” he avers, “is becoming an almost universal custom over the State.”
We agree with his first proposition that “the fact that a custom exists is no proof that it is a good custom.” There are millions of people who observe Sunday as a rest-day just because it is the custom; and many of them know that the Word of the Lord says explicitly, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work.” And knowing and admitting this, they plead that they can not obey God because it is the prevailing custom to disobey, and to keep the “sabbath” set up by men. The last great moral question that men will be called upon to decide in this world will be whether they will obey God or follow “custom.” And the question is being asked now. G.
(1) Does the word “sleep” in the original mean death? (2) Can those who truly partake in faith of the body and blood of Christ die? B.
1. The word “sleep” in 1 Cor. 11:30 comes from koimesis, defined to mean sleep, repose, rest. It is found in two other places in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14. Koimao, its root, is defined to mean sleep, death. In Acts 12:6; Matt. 28:13; and Luke 22:45, it is used of natural sleep. Hypnos is used in the same twofold sense (Matt. 1:24; John 11:11, 13; Acts 20:9); so also is katheudo (Mark 4:27; Luke 22:46; 1 Thess. 5:6, 7, 10; Matt. 9:24; Eph. 5:14). It will be seen that all three of these words are used of both natural sleep and to sleep in death. The literal meaning of the word is sleep. It is used of death in all cases figuratively, because of similarity and similar awaking.
2. We feed upon Christ truly only by faith. And Jesus declares: “If any man eat of this bread [that is of Himself, the living Bread], he shall live forever.” John 6:51. But that He does not mean by this that the one who so eats shall not die, He continues: “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life [a present possession]; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Verse 54. See also verses 33, 40, 47, 57, 58, 63. There are those who will be translated, without tasting death, when Christ comes. Of course these will be children of faith. There will be those who are not the less children of faith who will fall asleep before He comes. God does not count His people dead; they sleep in Him, with life “hid with Christ in God.” Col. 3:3. There will be those who will sleep—not children of faith—on through to the second resurrection. There are those—not of faith—who will live to see Christ’s coming. Let not that soul who falls asleep in Jesus be discouraged; “for God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.” 1 Thess. 5:9, 10. He lives better physically who rightly lives by faith; but living by faith, feeding on Christ by faith, he may die. Ps. 116:15; Rev. 14:13.
1318.—The Great Disappointment.
Please tell us what was “the great disappointment” I have seen mentioned in Adventist literature? When was it? Who were disappointed? READER.
To answer all these questions in one—it was the disappointment of those who believed that Christ was coming in 1844. All over the world at that time there was wide-spread belief that Christ was coming, based on such prophecies as Dan. 8:14. A large number in America set the definite day, believing correctly that the 2,300 years ended there. They were mistaken concerning the nature of the event to occur at the end of those days. So at the first advent the true disciples were disappointed because Christ did not then take the throne, and fulfilled prophecy in the disappointment (Luke 19:35-40; Zech. 9:9; Luke 24:21), even as the disappointment of 1844 fulfilled prophecy (Hab. 2:1-3; Heb. 10:32-38; Rev. 10:1-10).
Sunday Closing.
By G.
A Sunday-closing movement is on foot in Red Bluff, Cal., and in Red Bank, a smaller town near-by. Quite a spirited discussion pro and con is being conducted in the local press. One advocate of the measure disavows any religious motive, and says that “religious feeling should not be lugged into the agitation;” that “the demand, so far as the writer understands, is for a corporeal rest-day.” But, like all other advocates of a civil Sunday, he gives away that plea when he adduces the argument that “Sunday has been selected as the one day of the week for rest, for the reason that it is the day observed for religious devotion by a great majority of the American people.”
A minister of the place appeals to a decision of the United States Supreme Court (March 16, 1885) as settling the matter. He quotes:—
Laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from the right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious observances, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement that comes from uninterrupted labor.
According to this discussion, and the use that is made of it, the full benefit of physical rest is only to be secured by resting on Sunday. This minister also quotes the New York Court of Appeals on the subject:—
It is the law of our nature that one day in seven must be observed as a time of relaxation; and experience proves a day of weekly rest to be of admirable service to a State considered merely as a civil institution. The stability of government, the welfare of the subjects, and the interests of society, have made it necessary that the day of rest observed by the people of a nation should be uniform, and that its observance should be to some extent compulsory, not by way of enforcing the conscience of those upon whom the law operates, but by way of protection to those who desire and are entitled to the day.
It will be observed that while this decision does not say that physical rest must needs be on Sunday, that is the way it is interpreted by those who make use of it in advocating Sunday observance on the plea of needed rest. It is also evident that such a decision would not have been made in behalf of rest on any other day. While the decision disclaims any design to enforce conscience, it does declare that the observance of the day “should be to some extent compulsory.” It is impossible for a civil law to be anything else than compulsory in some sense, and have any effect at all. That is what civil law is for, and that is why it can not be legitimately applied to matters pertaining to conscience.
When these Sunday-closing movements are inaugurated there is always the plea that there is no religious sentiment; that the welfare of the laborer, the needs of the physical system, common custom, the good of the State, etc., are the ostensible considerations. But when the ministers speak they invariably uncover the real animus of the agitation. So while some of the advocates of the movement in Red Bluff declare against any religious intention, the minister in question illustrates what has been often demonstrated, that there can be no agitation of the Sunday question without the religious aspect coming in, for the reason that Sunday as an institution different from other days of the week is religious; and any movement for the regulation of any man’s conduct on that day, to induce him to do differently from what he would do on other days, is a species of compulsion. This minister shows the kernel of all such movements, when he quotes the old Sunday-law slogan, “The liberty of rest for each demands a law of rest for all.”
Of course the movement in Red Bluff is not for a law (at present), but for an agreement among business men; but their ministerial advocate says, “It is plainly the imperative duty as well as right to enforce the observance of an institution whose fruit has ever been better citizens.” Enforcement does not always mean law, as was demonstrated in this city a few years ago. One merchant who persisted in keeping open when the others closed was beset by a rabble of clerks, and coercion attempted, and practically effected, by urging customers away from the store.
This minister further argues that unless all places of business are closed on Sunday, “competition would strongly constrain merchants to keep open” their stores. This is an old threadbare argument, and one born of jealousy. It is the argument of men who imagine that they are compelled by the action of others to compromise principle, and are therefore justified in so doing. But the fallacy of this doctrine has been demonstrated by the house that publishes this paper. For more than a quarter of a century it has been engaged in business in which there is the very closest competition. In face of the competition of two large cities, it has invariably closed its doors on a day on which all others are open—the recognized principal business day of the week. So from this long experience, we can confidently affirm that one house does not have to keep open on any particular day because others do—no, not even when all others do.
There is a deep underlying principle in this matter of making a distinction between Sunday and other days of the week, a distinction that would not have been made but for the fact that many people recognize the day as a holy day. This principle is evidently overlooked by the men who advocate such a movement from a mere business standpoint. The Sunday institution was set up as an opposition to the law of God, and any recognition of it is so much in the way of enforcing it upon the people of the world, no matter what may be the motive of those who do so.
