It is almost universally agreed, that, practically speaking, the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. What is remarkable, however, is the fact that the only Sabbath law found in the Bible is specific in its requirement of the observance of the seventh day. Strange as it may appear, also, the binding obligation of that law, as originally embodied in the ten commandments, is admitted by nearly all orthodox Christians. Again it is universally conceded that from Sinai to the cross, the uniform practice of the Hebrew people was such as to show that they distinctly understood that it was the will and purpose of God, as expressed in the fourth commandment, that the seventh and last day of the week should be separated from the others of the hebdomadal cycle as the "rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." With these facts before us it is not a little startling to find the friends of the Sunday sabbath admitting, as they are compelled to, first, that God has once sanctified the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. Secondly, that he has never expressly declared that he has removed that sanctification. Thirdly, that he has nowhere said that the first day of the week is to take the place of the seventh, or, in fact, that it differed in any way from any other day of the week. Such concessions must, it would seem, lead to the inevitable conclusion, that the supposition of the change of day must be altogether unfounded. When we consider that God never omits to do anything on account of oversight; when we remember that the Sabbath commandment reads to-day the same as it did when given on Mount Sinai, and therefore, must, if binding, enforce the same day which it then enforced, it would be insulting to the wisdom of Jehovah to conclude that he would hold his creatures responsible for not observing a day which he had never commanded, and exonerate them from keeping a day which he still enforced by a statute which is clear in statement, and one whose import was rendered certain by the practice of Christ, as well as that of the good and great before him for 1500 years.
Do you inquire then, What authority is offered for the observance of the first day by the masses who are now united in its commemoration? I answer that, while frankly admitting that they have no "Thus saith the Lord" for the change of the Sabbath, they nevertheless claim that such a change is shadowed forth in the New Testament record. Do you again inquire whether there is really any force in the argument adducted? We reply frankly that to our mind there is none. In the first place, their conclusions are far-fetched and are not warranted by the facts. In the second place, it is not God's method to enforce positive duty by doubtful example. In the third place, the examples cited not only fail to prove what is desired, but they most emphatically disprove the same. To the thoughtful mind this will become apparent at a first glance. It will be admitted that when duty is to be inculcated by example in the absence of positive precept, the example must be clear and invariable. God, who knows the end from the beginning, had he designed that the authority for the first-day Sabbath should be drawn from the practice of the early church, would have at least made that practice uniform and unmistakable. Were this not the case, how could he ever punish men with any degree of propriety for failure to observe the day? What, then, we inquire, does the record say? Does it represent the early Christians as uniformly hallowing the first day of the week, during the period covered by the books of the New Testament? Let us see.
The Gospels and the book of Acts cover the first sixty-three years of this dispensation. Now it is not claimed that the first day of the week became hallowed time till Christ's resurrection. That day, say our friends, was rendered holy by that event, and has continued so ever since. Now let it be remembered that it is not urged that there is any positive declaration for the correctness of this theory, but simply that it is taught by the uniform practice of the early church. Well, let us consider this proposition for a moment. Did Christ and the apostles hallow the day on which Christ arose? The answer must be in the negative. In the early morning two of them started on foot for Emmaus, distant from Jerusalem seven and a half miles. On their way thither Christ united himself to them in the garb of a wayfaring man. At Emmaus he made himself known to them, having previously made, however, as though he would have gone farther. Luke 24 : 13-29. Immediately upon this revelation they returned post haste to Jerusalem.
Thus it is made to appear that they traveled fifteen miles on the first Christian Sabbath so-called, and that Christ, instead of upbraiding them therefor, virtually acquiesced in what they did by journeying with himself. A strange method this, of laying the foundation, for the new Sabbath or rest day.
That which is true of Christ and the two disciples mentioned, is substantially true of the twelve. With them the first Christian Sabbath, so styled, was anything but a day of rest. From morning till night it was characterized by the most feverish excitement, and the most constant activity. Reports were everywhere flying concerning the alleged resurrection of Christ, and from day-dawn till late at night there was hurrying to and fro, and confusion reigned everywhere. All that is said in regard to a religious assembly at the close of the day, in honor of the resurrection, is the merest twaddle. By a comparison of texts it is rendered certain that the gathering was not only not one of a religious character, but that it was merely a coming together to partake of the ordinary evening meal, in an upper chamber which was the common dwelling-place of the apostles. See John 20: 10; Acts 1: 12, 13; Mark 16: 14; Luke 24: 36-43. There they met, behind closed doors for fear of the Jews, not even believing, as yet, that Christ had arisen. Mark 16: 9-13. Thus much for the first so-called Sabbath of the new dispensation. So far as the example of Christ and his associates is concerned, it would lead us, were it to be followed implicitly, to devote the day to an activity so intense as to render its increase practically impossible; since with head, and heart, and limb, they passed its wheeling hours in a manner which would suggest anything but faith in its sanctification.
Leaving the region of the Cross, and descending the stream of time until we reach the next first day, which is specifically mentioned in the historic narrative of the doings of the early church, we find them assembled in an upper room lighted by burning lamps, and located in the city of Troas. Acts 20: 7-14. Paul is preaching to them and breaking bread. With the dawn of the morning he starts on a journey of seven hundred miles to Jerusalem. Between sun and on that day he travels on foot nineteen and one-half miles, from Troas to Assos. Remembering now that the Jewish day commenced at sunset, and ended at sunset, we readily perceive that the only portion of it in which lamps could be employed would be that portion which lay next to its commencement; i. e., between the going down of the sun on Saturday night and the rising of the same on Sunday morning. But such a conclusion would render it certain that Paul spent the Sunday there mentioned in performing the journey of nineteen and one-half miles spoken of above. A strange method, we suggest again, of laying the foundation for the Christian Sabbath. He, the great apostle to the Gentiles, surely would not have desecrated the Sunday by common travel had it been his special work to enforce it, by his own example, upon the Gentiles and Jews alike, as a day sacred to rest and holy meditation. Furthermore, how manifest it now becomes that the record was not designed to teach a custom at all. Twenty-eight years intervened between the resurrection of Christ and the next well authenticated religious service on the first day of the week, brought to view in the book of Acts. That is (granting our friends all they ask), they are able to point to but two first-days, of 1456, on which it is clearly stated that the disciples were actually assembled together for any purpose whatever. In other words, were we to admit that of Christ's resurrection and the day on which the disciples were unquestionably devoted to the purposes of religious worship, still our friends would only come as near to the establishment of a custom in this matter as the number two approximates in value to the whole number 1456. That is, their inability to show positively that more than two Sundays were observed out of the 1456 which intervened between the resurrection and the meeting at Troas renders it certain that the history which is left us of that period fails to establish the custom, if such an one did really exist. But such a finding would utterly demolish the theory of our friends, as they will hardly be reckless enough to substitute the first-day Sabbath in the place of the seventh day on the ground of apostolic custom, and then go outside of the Bible to establish that custom.
Should it be suggested that in 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2 there is a direct reference to first day gatherings for the purpose of worship, on the part of the Galatian and Corinthian churches, we reply that the proof must first be put into the text before it can be drawn therefrom. In the logic employed by our friends in this connection it is manifest that "the wish was father to the thought." There was a case to be made out, and, taking certain things for granted, it was seen that that text would make out the case in question. The things taken for granted were, first, that laying by in store was equivalent to depositing in the contribution box, in the church or place of meeting. Secondly, that such a deposit regularly on the first day of the week, presumed the regular convocation of the people on that day for worship. Now the naked fact is, that there is not only an entire lack of any reference in the passage under consideration to the contribution box and convocations of any nature whatever, but also that the phraseology employed is such as to forbid the notion that the contribution box was employed at all, or that the church was the place where the laying by in store was accomplished.
Through the learned labors of J. W. Morton upon this subject, it has been demonstrated beyond controversy that the expression, "lay by him in store," as used in the original, was equivalent to "laying by him in store at home;" i. e., that the idiom of the Greek was such as to indicate that the work in question was to be done by each individual at his own house. In support of this theory, Mr. M. has introduced eight versions, all of which recognize the fact that such is the case. (See "Vindication of the True Sabbath," by J. W. Morton.) Admitting, therefore, only that which the facts compel us to admit, our friends will be compelled to yield up 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2, as insufficient to prove the custom they desire to make out. Unfortunately for their cause, however, this text cannot be disposed of so easily on their part. It is true, that if the work under consideration was to be done at home, it would not be done at the church, and if not done at the church, that does not prove the practice of assembling regularly on the first day of the week for worship; nevertheless, it is also true that the laying by in store was actually accomplished each first day at home, in obedience to the apostolic injunction. Such a concession, however, is very damaging to the theory under discussion, since the labor in question involved the performance of work hardly compatible with the idea that the day on which it was performed was holy time. The collection to which the apostle here refers, could not have been that which was to be taken up on passing the contribution box through the congregation, as that would not have been objectionable from the moral stand-point of our friends, provided the money had been previously gathered. Neither could it have been objected to on the ground of delay, since it would have only required a few moments of time. The natural conclusion, therefore, is, that he meant to instruct them that upon each first day they should gather in, from various sources, and deposit in a safe place at home, an amount commensurate with their ability, to be given to him for the poor saints at Jerusalem, when he should arrive. Such a gathering in, however, would have been accomplished without the transaction of secular business, since it would have involved an examination of financial matters, and the collection of outstanding dues in some cases. But the transaction of secular business on the first day of the week could not be reconciled with the idea of its sacredness. The text, therefore, instead of making for the sanctity of the day, renders it quite certain that the apostle did not regard it as in any way holy, else he would not have made it a day of collections. The force of this argument is increased, provided we endorse the position taken by some commentators, which is that the contributions were not to consist merely of money, but also of such articles of food and clothing as the apostle could readily transport to Jerusalem. (To be Continued.)
The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Sabbath-School Review.
Now that we have a review lesson for October 14, it may not be uninteresting to call to mind the results of the passover week, up to the point to which we have come. Six days before the passover we find that Jesus came to Bethany, where a feast was made for him. It was at this time that Mary anointed Jesus. It has been supposed by some, from Matt. 2:2-13, and Mark 14:1-9, that this feast was only two days before the passover; but if we carefully follow the narrative, we shall see that several days intervened before the passover. Thus, on the next day after the feast, Jesus rode into Jerusalem. John 12:12. After entering the temple and looking around, he returned to Bethany. Mark 11:11. On the next day he again entered Jerusalem, and cleansed the temple, having cursed the barren fig-tree on the way. Mark 11:12-17. Following this he taught till evening, when he again left the city. Mark 11:19. The next morning he returned once more, and the disciples called his attention to the fig-tree, which had withered. Here we have the record of three full days after the feast, and we know what events occupied Thursday, the day of the feast, leaving us only one day unaccounted for, which Jesus probably spent in retirement. It is probable that Matthew and Mark give the account of the feast in the place that they do, after speaking of Christ's betrayal, in order to show under what circumstances Satan took possession of Judas.
The last week was filled full of instruction for the disciples. But it is of the passover night especially, that our review has to do. Peter and John had made all the necessary preparations during the day, and at the proper hour Jesus came with the twelve. As they were sitting down, a strife arose among the disciples. They still had in mind a temporal kingdom, and were each anxious to have the highest rank. According to the ordinary standard, their rank in the kingdom would depend on the position they occupied in the preparation for that kingdom; hence each wished the highest seat at the table. Jesus then arose from the table and gently rebuked this unseemly strife, by telling them that in his kingdom he who would be greatest must be willing to occupy the lowest place, appealing to his own life as an example. Although he was their Lord, he had been among them as a servant. At the same time he proceeded to wash their feet, giving them a most impressive lesson of humility. Having finished this solemn ordinance, Christ resumed his place at the table; the disciples were seated with him, and the meal was eaten.
A few brief thoughts in regard to the feet-washing. It is very evident that this was something extraordinary, something out of the usual order of events. Feet-washing as an act of hospitality was always performed when the guest first entered, and was not done by the host, he simply furnishing the water and utensils. See Luke 7:44. But in this case they were sitting down to supper, and besides, they had already bathed. See John 13:10. Verse 7 also shows conclusively that they did not understand Christ's motive in washing their feet at that time; but they were perfectly acquainted with feet-washing as an act of ordinary hospitality. It was not till Jesus had taken his garments again, and resumed his place at the table, that he explained the full meaning of his act.
It is very evident, also, that although the strife among the disciples furnished the immediate occasion for washing their feet, it was not solely on that account that Christ performed that ceremony. It was designed as an example for them to follow says, "If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." John 13:14, 15. He did not mean that they should do it as often as they got into strife, for if they followed him they would never give place to strife; but he gave them the ordinance to prevent strife, to help them to keep in mind their Lord, and to be humble as he was.
We can rest assured that there was no more strife after this lesson; but there was still among them a source of disunion, and this was the presence of Judas. Christ could not have full and free communion with his loyal disciples while this traitor was present. So, as they were eating, he told his disciples that one present should betray him, and by giving Judas the sop showed him that his treachery was known. Having received the sop, Judas went immediately out. John 13:18-30.
As the meal was drawing to a close, Jesus took of the unleavened bread on the table, and after giving thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples as an emblem of his broken body. Then he took the cup, pure, unfermented grape juice, "the fruit of the vine," and gave it to them, telling them all to drink of it, for it was an emblem of his blood. Thus the Lord's Supper was instituted.
While they were still at the table, Christ foretold his crucifixion, and their desertion of him, and Peter boasted of his firmness. The conversation and instruction recorded in the fourteenth chapter of John also took place before they left the room. After this talk, "when they had sung an hymn, they went out." Matt. 26:30; John 14:31.
It is not definitely known where the discourse and prayer recorded in John 15, 16, 17, were delivered, whether in the city or outside; nor is it material. In these chapters we have lessons that might be profitably studied for weeks and months. Some of the principal points have been touched upon in previous articles, and we will not consider them further. The aim has not been to be exhaustive, but simply indicate points for study. If any person has gained a new idea or has received a new impetus in Bible study, the object of the lesson notes has been gained. E. J. W.
"Smooth Things."
To SPEAK "smooth things," is not necessarily to preach error. A man may preach truth all his days, and dress it up in such a way as to destroy its power. He may hand out the truth in homeopathic quantities, when larger portions should be given; or he may attempt to do with the penknife what can only be accomplished with the scalpel, or the "old Jerusalem blade" which cuts right and left. The man who keeps everything that is disagreeable from his hearers is guilty of speaking "smooth things." Under his ministrations the covetous is not reproved, the formalist is not excited to action, the pleasure seeker not arrested in his course. The want of reproof causes them to feel and believe that all is well, whereas the truth should thunder in their ears continually.
We may be guilty of preaching smooth things by generalizing the truth, addressing ourselves to persons outside of the congregation, instead of to our auditors. Hence, though you handle a sword that is bright, it is without an edge—a hammer that falls so lightly or gradually that no effect is produced. If by a faithful discharge of duty we fail to convince, then the responsibility is not ours. We may be misrepresented, but all will come out right in the end. There is nothing that will justify unfaithfulness in us as declaring the truth. The charge to one of the prophets is as applicable at this time as when spoken, and for this reason, human nature has not changed. It is as follows: "And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briars and thorns be with thee, and though thou dost dwell among scorpions; be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear; for they are most rebellious."
An approving conscience is something that none can rob us of. The approving smile of Heaven is, and will continue to be, a source of comfort and satisfaction to all who declare the truth faithfully and refuse to speak smooth things.—Sel.
Silenced.
A DANCING professor felt it his duty to try to win one of his many associates to Christ. "Oh, ——," he said, "I long to see you a Christian. Do come to Jesus, wcn't you?" "For what?" was the blunt rejoinder. "Why, for salvation. Don't you want to be saved?" "Yes, I do, but what particular sins do you want me to be saved from?" "Why, we are all sinners, you know." "Yes, I know, but I do not cheat, steal, lie, swear, nor use tobacco. What lack I yet?" "Do you pray?" "No; do you?" "Yes;" said the "Name-to-live," "I pray for you." "For me! when, I'd like to know? Monday night you were at the dance; Tuesday night I met you at the ball, and we didn't get home, you know, until four o'clock in the morning; Wednesday night I saw you at the sociable, and like the rest of us, you 'carried on like sixty;' Thursday night I don't know where you were; but if cards could testify, they would tell what you and I were up to until two o'clock Friday night, and now it is Saturday, and for the life of me I can't tell what time you've had for prayer this week, or when you could have felt like it. Oh, I forget. Your church holds a prayer-meeting every Thursday evening, does it not?" "Yes." "And was that where you were last Thursday night?" "Yes, certainly." "Did you pray for me there?" "I tried to," was the faint response. "Well, I don't want to hurt your feelings; but for conscience's sake don't do that again. If you pray for anybody, pray for yourself. You claimed when you were converted to have had more happiness in one hour than you had had in your whole life before, and if that had been true, I should have been a Christian long before now; but as far as I can see, you seek your happiness just where I do—in the world; and if it is right for you, it can't be wrong for me." So saying he departed, leaving his friend to ponder upon his ways, and wonder how effectual and fervent the prayers of one could be who was trying faithfully to serve God and mammon, or how much such prayers would avail in the salvation of lost souls.—Christian Secretary.
Mind Your Own Business
The fool is busy in everybody's business but his own.
Object of the Teachers' Meeting.
By Editor
THE following from the S. S. Times we can most heartily endorse. If each teacher would come to the meeting with the determination to contribute as well as to receive, there would be marked improvement. In mental and spiritual matters, at least, it is true that the more we give the more we gain.
"The object of a teachers' meeting is misunderstood by too many. It is not to study the lesson, though that, in spite of all assertions to the contrary, seems to be the prevailing conception. Its proper object is to pile together the nuggets that all have dug out of the lesson, thus enriching all without impoverishing any. That which makes the majority of teachers' meetings without attractive power, is the fact that the teachers come without having searched beforehand for the hidden treasures of the lesson. They have nothing to contribute of any value. The empty baskets are shaken for a while, but as nothing comes out of them worth the having, the teachers go away with the idea that teachers' meeting is time wasted. A single session where each one brings in a gem of thought of his own finding, would dissipate that notion forever. There are teachers' meetings of this sort whose members would prefer to lose any other weekly gathering than to miss a single session of the one that prepares them to teach the next lesson."
THE teachers' meeting is especially beneficial in that it gives opportunity for harmonizing the teaching, and to a great extent shuts out clashing in the school. It unifies the instruction, and begets a better understanding of the work.
THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information.
As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study.
The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR.
All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge.
Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months.
Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly.
Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.
Or, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.
Scriptural Meaning of the Word Soul.
To THE list of texts given in our last paper in which the Hebrew neh-phesh, soul, denotes personality or self-hood, must be added all those texts in which the term is applied to God.
Lev. 26:11. And I will set my tabernacle among you; and my soul shall not abhor you.
Verse 30. And my soul shall abhor you.
Judges 10:16. And they . . . served the Lord; and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.
Prov. 6:16. These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him.
Isa. 1:14. Your appointed feasts my soul hateth.
Jer. 5:9. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
Verse 29. The same words.
Jer. 6:8. Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee.
Jer. 9:9. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
Jer. 12:7. I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies.
Jer. 14:9. Hath thy soul loathed Zion?
Jer. 15:1. Yet my mind (naph-shee, my soul) could not be toward this people.
Jer. 32:41. I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my soul.
Jer. 51:14. The Lord of hosts hath sworn by himself, etc.
Eze. 23:8. Then my mind was alienated from her.
Amos 6:8. The Lord God hath sworn by himself.
Zech. 11:8. And my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
In the following texts it is used of Christ in like manner:—
Ps. 16:10. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption.
Isa. 53:10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.
Verse 11. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.
Verse 12. Because he hath poured out his soul unto death.
Of the meaning of the term in these texts there can be no question; they express in full the personality of the Being to whom they are applied. And the usage or method of use as applied to God, is precisely that applied to man, thus: “My soul loathed them, and their soul abhorred me.” That is, “I loathed them, and they abhorred me.”
There is a somewhat remarkable usage in the Scriptures by which neh-phesh, soul, is applied to a dead person. This evidently because a man does not lose his personality in dying. Otherwise, no man could be identified after death. As the primary meaning of soul (neh-phesh) is person or creature, it is strictly correct to apply it to the dead, as a dead person, or dead creature.
Lev. 19:28. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead.—
Chap. 21:1. There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people.
Verse 11. Neither shall he go in to any dead body.
Chap. 22:4. Whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead.
Num. 5:2. Whosoever is defiled by the dead.
Chap. 6:6. All the days that he separated himself unto the Lord, he shall come at no dead body.
Verse 11. And the priest shall . . . make atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead.
Chap. 9:6. And there were certain men who were defiled by the dead body of a man.
Verse 7. And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man.
Verse 10. If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body.
Chap. 19:13. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man, that is dead.
Hag. 2:13. If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?
Three of the above texts are peculiar in form, but they doubtless fully express the idea of all, the others appearing to be elliptical. Lev. 21:11 says: “Unto all souls of the dead he shall not come, for his father or for his mother he shall not be defiled.” This seems to be the exact opposite of Gen. 1:30, and others. “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein is a soul of life, I have given every green herb for meat.” This translation is literally correct, but in the margin it is given, living soul, and also the same original in Gen. 2:7 is rendered living soul, speaking of man. And this is the usual form of expressing it.
As Adam became a soul of life, or living soul, by having the breath of life imparted to his frame, so when the breath departs the man is very reasonably called a soul of death, or a dead soul. The expression in Lev. 21:11, is strong and clear. The high priest was not permitted to defile himself by contact with, or approaching unto, the souls of the dead. The idea conveyed in our version is unquestionably correct: “Neither shall he go in to any dead body,” or dead person; the word soul being used to express the person, whether living or dead. In justice to the reader of the English the translators should have given a marginal reading here which would have indicated the original, as they did in Gen. 1:30.
Num. 6:6, is precisely the same except that neh-phesh is in the singular.
Num. 19:13, has a peculiarity of its own, in additional words to emphasize the condition of the man, or soul of the man, as dead. “Whosoever toucheth the dead soul of the man that is dead.” Some authors maintain that in the other texts here quoted, math, to die, or death, is understood. The word neh-phesh, soul, is alone expressed, but the subject indicates that a soul of death, and not a soul of life, is meant.
We have known people to be wonderfully shocked when the idea of a dead soul was presented to them. But the idea is not, by any means, unknown to the Scriptures. It is only because all their ideas of the subject are wrong, that they are shocked with expressions given by a literal rendering of the revelation of God to man.
What Will You Do about It?
By Editor
WE clip the following from an Oakland paper:—
"COMMON SENSE.—The San Francisco Occident, the organ of the Presbyterians of the Pacific Coast, points out to the people that the civil law cannot make Sunday holy. It says, and says truly, that the Sunday Law is one thing, Sabbath observance quite another. The State may give us a Sunday; but if Christian people do not make that Sunday a Sabbath, the day of rest will become a positive injury—a day of more riot, more revelry, and more opportunities for crime than any day in the week. When a great party proposes to make the Christian Sabbath a day of "rest and recreation," it means to grant a license to those who desecrate it. Such is not the Sunday Law that Christian people can sanction. It is asking them to approve what the wicked and profane desire—what is diametrically opposed to a decent respect for, and just observance of, the Sabbath of the church."
There is in the above some common sense, and some that appears to be extra common. Note its expressions:—
"The civil law cannot make Sunday holy."
So we say; no power but that of God can make a day holy. God made the seventh day holy; and men are vainly trying by civil law to make Sunday holy. Civil law can make Sunday a legal holiday, but no more.
"The Sunday Law is one thing, Sabbath observance quite another."
Right again. But the churches are demanding that the Sunday Law shall also make Sabbath observance. It cannot do it.
"The State may give us a Sunday; but if Christian people do not make that Sunday a Sabbath, the day of rest will become a positive injury—a day of more riot, more revelry, and more opportunities for crime than any day in the week."
Rather mixed. The State may give a Sunday rest, it is true. But Christian people must make it a Sabbath; which is true so far as such a thing is possible. But the error of the Christian people is that they now demand that the State shall make it a Sabbath, and enforce it as a holy day, which is beyond the power of the State, as it before said. There is danger that it will become a day of unusual evil; yes, it always has been. And you can only remedy this by making it a matter of conscience, and not of civil law. But, unfortunately, the ministry is now instructing the people that no man has any right to set up his conscience against civil law. For an instance, see the sermon of "Rev. A. J. Nelson," lately published in the San Francisco Post. An appeal to conscience can only be made on such authority as conscience can recognize. When the law of God is ignored, then the conscience is left without just restraint. The grand difficulty in this Sunday muddle is that Sunday has no higher authority for its enforcement than the civil law.
"When a great party proposes to make the Sabbath a day of rest and recreation, it means to grant a license to those who desecrate it."
Doubtful. We think the party intended to grant the demand of the church just as far as it is possible for civil power to go. They recognized the truth stated by the Occident, that "civil law cannot make Sunday holy." Why complain of the Republican party for not doing that which you say it cannot do?
"Such is not the Sunday Law that Christian people can sanction."
No; they demand a holy day where there is none, and where they acknowledge there is no power to make one. They will find no relief until they return to the Bible, which they have left, and cease to exalt civil law above a conscience which is enlightened by the word of God.
"It is asking them to approve what the wicked and profane desire."
Not so. The churches are entirely to blame for their present dilemma. They have rejected the law of God and the Sabbath which it enjoins, and now complain of the State because it has not the power to remedy their errors.
"What is diametrically opposed to a decent respect for, and just observance of, the Sabbath of the church."
What would you call a "just observance of the Sabbath of the church," on the part of an infidel? Please explain. Can an atheist render that "just observance of the Sabbath of the church?" Would it not be well for the church to observe its own Sabbath, and make greater efforts to convert infidels to the whole truth of the Bible, and cease to ask the State to do what civil law never can accomplish? The State makes Sunday a legal holiday, thus giving the churches an opportunity to throw their influence over the people on their chosen day of worship. What more can they ask? Do they want the State to compel the people to go to their churches on Sunday? If not, what shall the civil law do more to help them?
Alas for their fall! Rev. 14:8. They have turned so far from the truth of God that their power is gone, and they are now beseeching the State to compel the people to act as Christians, if they will not be Christians. And that they call making this a Christian nation! Such was the course of "the church" ten centuries ago. We are fast drifting, in this country, toward the same state of things.