p. 8 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 8, No. 35. (9/14/1882)

How They Look at It.

By Editor

THAT the position taken by the Republican party in reference to the Sunday Law brings this question forward as the leading issue of the present campaign, is evident to the most casual observer. That they have taken their position unqualifiedly and undisguisedly at the dictation of the church party, regardless of the rights and privileges of those who hold a different view in the Sabbath question, is equally plain. An article in the Colusa Sun of Aug. 26, 1882, under the heading, "The Issue," clearly sets forth the situation as it will appear to very many :—

For more than twenty years this law has slumbered among our statutes, and its antiquity must be venerated. The observance of Sunday, saith the preacher, "is a matter of conscience," therefore,(?) it is a subject for legislative enactment. We, too, have a profound respect for the Sabbath, but not after the manner of these Scribes and Pharisees. Concerning the "Sabbath" we believe that the Jew and the Adventist should be permitted to rest on Saturday undisturbed, and they themselves disturbing none. Other religionists should be protected in observing Sunday if they so elect. They should not be allowed to disturb anyone else. We believe that it would be well to set apart one day of the week as a day of rest for the nation, and those who wish to rest should have the quiet which is seemly and necessary. We would even be in favor of setting apart Sunday, because the majority already observe that day. This would require no sumptuary law. The question of buying and selling would be no part thereof. If we favored prohibition, we would not conceal prohibition in the quire of a Sunday Law. We would have a law which would say to the rum-seller, "You must not sell—on Monday or on any other day." A law which would say to the civil authorities, "You must not license." This you must not do, not because of Sunday, but because it is morally wrong. Then the observance of the day of rest would not be hampered with the prohibition law; and the enforcement of the prohibition law would not be disguised and complicated by a Sunday Law.

Like the Sacramento Republicans we are in favor of a Sunday Law with modifications; but we would have the honesty, the manhood, and the courage to state these modifications.

Not a Politician.

By Editor

Now that politics and religion are so blended in the canvass, and the “venerable day of the sun” is sought to be enforced on all, even to the exclusion of the Sabbath of the Lord, we, as observers of the true or Bible Sabbath, consider it our duty to speak out and let the people know the reasons of our faith.

In advocating the claims of the Bible Sabbath we have been misunderstood, sometimes misrepresented, accused of uniting with liquor sellers and abetting the vilest crimes. And now that a point of our religious faith, an institution of the Creator of all, which we highly reverence, is opposed by a large class of politicians in their efforts to exalt an institution which has no foundation in the Bible, we expect to be misunderstood again, and it will be claimed that we are gratifying a party preference in our course. To place ourselves right before the people, we think it proper to briefly state what has been our political experience.

In our early boyhood we entered a printing-office and we were thus brought up in the midst of political newspapers. About that time, President Jackson vetoed the United States Bank, which caused the political contests to become very heated. We took the side of Jackson, and so continued for years. We were editing a Democratic paper in Sauk Co., Wis., at the time when the “Fugitive-slave Bill” was passed by Congress. That action was very displeasing to us. Our sympathies then passed over to the “Free Soil Party.” Soon after this we accepted the religious faith which we now hold, and as we were not close bound to any political party, we ignored politics entirely and cast no vote. We continued thus till the war broke out in 1861, when we renewed our interest in the affairs of the nation, and voted with the Republican party. We voted for Grant, Hayes, and Garfield. But we took no active part in politics, and in our connection with the SIGNS OF THE TIMES for the last four years, have found some of our warmest friends in the Democratic party. Our paper takes no cognizance of politics, being of a purely religious character. Its circulation is quite large in some parts of the Southern States. Yet we have never tried to hide the fact that our personal sympathies were decidedly with the Republican party.

With the most kindly feelings for that body we went to Sacramento. But there we were pleading for a principle higher than politics, and we took particular pains to declare that we did not go as a politician. It was our hope, and the object of our endeavor, to see the State Convention take such a liberal view of the Sunday question as was taken by the County Convention of the Republicans in Sacramento. We did not demand any abatement of the Sunday enforcement further than to ask an exemption from penalties of those who conscientiously keep the seventh-day Sabbath. This was ignored; and a plank of “glittering generalities” adopted, which could be construed liberally toward almost anybody except those who by right should be exempted.

We think the Convention made a great mistake. It was evidently the desire of the Committee to conciliate the interests which could command the votes. This in politics is to be looked for. But we think they did not act wisely. So far as we can judge by the papers, they failed to satisfy the various interests represented in the Convention. It looks to us like a case of masterly indecision! An effort to catch all, as a result pleasing none.

We will only say this more, that the request of Colonel Babcock was modest, and if the party were really, as it is professedly, opposed to the expression passed at San Jose against “sumptuary laws,” it could not do less than grant the request of those whom Colonel Babcock represented. If any difference between the two parties in regard to “sumptuary laws” it does not appear in the platforms. But we forbear. We have no faith in politics, and only wish that religion might be kept separated from them, and left to be advocated in the pulpit instead of on the stump.

Smash-Up in Politics.

By Editor

THE prophecy was published in a California paper some months ago that the Sunday question would go far toward breaking down party lines. And so it has come to pass. It is the over-shadowing question of the time; literally, "the bone of contention" in every community. And the end is not yet. It is destined to be the cause of more discord and evil than any question which has troubled our country. If, indeed, it were a "Christian Sabbath," as is so strongly claimed; if its friends could prove that it had its origin and sanction in the Bible, then they would no doubt be content to leave its advocacy to the pulpit, as they do all truly Christian institutions, as baptism and the Lord's supper. But it is because they understand that it has not the basis or characteristics of a Christian institution, that they throw it into politics, and demand that candidates shall uphold it or lose their votes.

But we are now to notice the effect it has had on the condition and prospects of political parties. When the strong effort was made to enforce the law in this State, its friends early announced that they would vote for no man for office who would not indorse it. As it was regarded as a settled fact that they could command votes enough to control the election, it was easy to foresee that the political parties would have to act in reference to this expressed determination. It was already forced upon the parties before any conventions had met.

The Democratic State Convention met early—in June. It took a position against the Sunday Law. Immediately, there was a cry raised against its action all over the State, and the defections from the party were so numerous that it looked as if a regular stampede from the Democratic camp must be the result. To all appearance, the Republicans could have everything their own way if they would come out squarely on the side of the Sunday Law, and that it would do so appeared to be a foregone conclusion.

The Republicans met this expectation by declaring in favor of the Sunday Law, and the enthusiasm manifested over that resolution was truly unbounded. The delegates appeared to be inspired with a confidence that they would have a mere "walk over" in the coming race.

A short time has elapsed, and a wonderful change has taken place. Instead of a defection of scattered individuals, whole bodies are turning away from the gilded platform. The temperance people, who have persistently favored the Sunday Law because it was a temperance law, are now dissatisfied because they could get no recognition of their mild request in favor of local option. The favor which they asked was small in comparison to that which they had reason to expect from the professions of those papers and speakers who had dissected and repudiated the Democratic platform. But they were ignored entirely.

The church people are dissatisfied because the platform declares in favor of "a day of rest and recreation," and plainly disavows "the right or the wish to force any class of our citizens to spend that day in any particular manner," and only looking to "the suspension of all unnecessary business upon that day." All this is exactly what the churches did not want. For, (1) They do not want Sunday used as a day of recreation. The Sunday picnics and parades, etc., etc., they wish to have suppressed, while this platform indorses them, and all other Sunday recreations. (2) They are opposed to having all spend the Sunday in a manner to suit themselves, even if they do cease from ordinary labor on that day. They regard it as a religious institution, and want a law which will compel everybody to keep it according to their ideas of its sacredness. And, (3) They cannot fix the meaning of the platform to any particular kind of business. When an effort was made to procure warrants against railroad employes, they were refused on the ground that the law did not apply to them. Suppose it shall be decided that railroading, telegraphing, and the work of livery-stables, barber shops, bakeries, markets, etc., are "necessary business," we might as well have no law at all. It was decided in an Indiana court that, to some people at least, cigars are "a necessity," and may, therefore, be sold on Sunday! But wine and brandy are equally a necessity to others, while hundreds might not only plead, but prove, that it is absolutely necessary to labor on that day to procure subsistence for their families. Is it any wonder that a meeting of ministers repudiates this platform nearly unanimously?

But of all people the "League of Freedom" ought to be the best satisfied with the action of the Sacramento Convention. We do not attach any significance to its choice of a wholesale liquor-dealer as Chairman, because the political position of Newton Booth might well entitle him to that honor. But Mr. Shaeffer, late President of the League, was a member of the Convention. He addressed the Platform Committee immediately after Col. Babcock. He urged them to ignore the temperance question; he assured them that liquor-dealers would not only work in the party if they would take no position in favor of prohibition, but promised that the saloon men would close on Sunday, and uphold the Sunday Law, if prohibition were ignored. All understood that he spoke in behalf of the liquor interest, and his associates, to whom he referred, assented to all he said and promised. And the Committee did all that he asked, and he was the only one who received such a favor. In addition to this, a candidate for Governor was selected who, as it was said in a speech in his favor in the Convention, is one of our first wine producers, and he has acted as president of the Wine Growers' Association. It must be because trafficking in liquors stamps out all the fine feelings of our nature, that the League is so ungrateful as to repudiate the platform! Mr. Shaeffer said that he appeared there in behalf of the liquor interest, but the League has taken action on the matter, and has repudiated all that he said and promised.

Who can trust to anything in politics?

How will these conflicting interests affect the vote? It is impossible to tell. And if the Republicans triumph in the election, what will be the result as to the Sunday controversy? That is equally impossible to tell. They will have kept the pledge of their platform full as well as political parties usually meet their platform pledges, if they let the present Sunday Law stand in the code untouched. It has been a dead letter thus far, and may be in the future. It is very evident that all that has been done in its favor thus far is the result of a little enthusiasm worked up under a strong pressure, which does not seem to retain its heat after the first outburst.

Thus far in regard to the present political outlook. As to the final outcome of all these things we have views well defined, but that does not come within the scope of this article.

Hoping for More.

By Editor

The California Christian Advocate is not wholly satisfied with the Sunday plank of the Republican platform; yet it thinks something is gained, and it does not dare to surrender its present meager consolation for fear of losing all. Its motto seems to be, Keep what you get, and get more when you can. Thus, in its issue of Sept. 13 it says: "We are not disappointed in the action of the Republican Convention. Its platform is the exact opposite of that of the Democratic party on the Sabbath question." But it hastens to add: "Men who pretend to be temperance men, and now threaten to bolt the Republican ticket and to defeat it, are simply tools and agents of the League of Freedom. We cannot hope to get everything we want at one time. To form a third party now would be a malicious piece of political insanity which would inevitably result in electing the Democratic ticket, and repealing the Sunday law."

In the foregoing extract we have italicized that sentence which contains the gist of the whole matter. They have not all they want; they hope and intend to get more. At the Sacramento Convention, Eld. Waggoner remarked to one of the delegates, that "what the Sunday people then asked is but a tithe of what they will ask by and by." The delegate appeared to be utterly incredulous on the point. But the Advocate admits it all. We are glad to see such statements. They will open the eyes of many.

The Seventh Day Is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God

THE seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God

Bishops Too Soon.

By Editor

When Martin Van Buren was a candidate on the "Free-Soil" ticket, a functionary of the Episcopal Church refused to vote for him on the ground that he was too recently come from the pro-slavery ranks.

"Do you not receive converts just from the ranks of the enemy, into your church?" he was asked.

"Yes;" he replied, "but we do not make bishops of them at once."

We think it would have been well for the "church vote," or those controlling it, to have put some of the politicians and political editors into training before they started them out on a theological campaign. They seem to act awkwardly in the new harness. In a report in the S. F. Alta of a speech of a prominent candidate, wherein he defends the Sunday Law, are the following words:—

"At San Jose, they declared all this to be sumptuary, and, what is worse, they charge it all to Jefferson and Jackson. This is rough on those two old men; for they were both strictly religious, and observed the Sabbath as a divine institution."

In our youthful days we were a great admirer of "Old Hickory," and his frequent use of his favorite strong expression, "By the Eternal," was overlooked in the stout-hearted old soldier. In the latter part of his life he was decidedly of a religious turn.

We were a "Jeffersonian Democrat," too, and thought we understood Jefferson. Previous to 1882, we considered Jefferson an infidel; never once did we hear it hinted that he was "strictly religious." But we yield; we change our mind. We admit that he was as pious as a California politician!

Why do They do It ?

By Editor

IT seems to us that it is full time for the religio-political speakers and writers to cease their affirmation that the workingman's only hope of a day of rest depends upon upholding the present Sunday Law. A political paper says of those who do not approve of it that they mean,

"To deprive the workingmen of a legal holiday—a day set apart for rest and relaxation by law—and thus aim a blow at the toiling 'mud sills of creation.' "

Anyone who is not lamentably ignorant of the laws of California knows that the Sunday Law of the Penal Code makes no provision whatever for a legal holiday. The Civil Code makes every Sunday a legal holiday, and the workingman would have his legal holiday—"a day set apart for rest and relaxation by law"—if the Sunday Law of the Penal Code were entirely abolished. We would be pleased to see some one undertake to disprove this statement.

The fact is that the present excitement is not at all to secure to the workingman "a legal holiday." We do not know of a single interest or a single individual in the State by whom the Sunday legal holiday has been attacked. The Sunday Law regards the Sunday only from a religious stand-point; and as a religious observance, and not as a legal holiday, it is now forced into politics. It is because its friends do not want it as a legal holiday for rest and relaxation—or "rest and recreation" as the latest and "authorized version" has it—that it is made a political question at this time.

Yes, say the clerical advocates of the Sunday Law, it is the "Christian Sabbath," and must be observed in a manner becoming its sacred character.

Why not, then, take that position openly and unitedly, and not tell the people that it is not a question of religion at all, but merely a "police regulation" or a "sanitary measure?" It is too plain to admit of denial that all this pleading for the Sunday Law as a necessity in order to provide a legal holiday for the workingman, or that it is a mere police regulation, is a mere subterfuge—no better than a rank deception. This we have claimed from the beginning of this Sunday-Law excitement.

We do not affirm, however, that all the people, all the politicians, or even all the ministers who have asserted this, are yet well enough informed on the subject to be aware of the nature of the deception which is thus being practiced. We are sorry for them, and shall do all in our power to enlighten them. And with us it becomes a matter of anxious inquiry, How will they act in reference to it when they become better informed in respect to it? Will they then try to conceal their object by still advocating the Sunday Law for the sake of a legal holiday? Or will they come out openly and tell the public just what they want, and why they want it?

Signs Special Edition.

By Editor

As we expect and intend to circulate a large number, the price has been reduced. One copy, ten weeks, 25 cents; six copies, to one address, $1.00; $10.00 per hundred. If any have sent according to the terms first published, we will increase the number to correspond to the amount.

Which Day Is the Sabbath?

By Editor

The article in another column on the comparative claims of the seventh day of the week and the first day of the week, to our regard, as the weekly Sabbath, contains arguments which lie at the very foundation of this subject, and must determine our attitude, as candid and earnest seekers after truth, on the Sabbath and Sunday questions. Do not pass it by because it is somewhat lengthy. One or more numbers will appear in future papers. Read them all. It is designed to present arguments and evidence which will fully answer, though in a concise form, the important and decisive question, Which is the right day to keep as the Sabbath? the seventh day of the week, or the first day?

A Third Party.

ON account of the great dissatisfaction of many Republicans with the Sunday plank of the platform, there are strong rumors that another Convention will be called, and a third party enter the field in whose platform the Sunday question will be duly deified, and the temperance movement closely wedded therewith.

Strong Talk.

DR. McDONALD, President of the Home Protection Association, a life-long Republican, is reported in our exchanges as publicly declaring that he is “disgusted with the Sunday Law plank in the platform,” asserting that it “has no backbone, and is too treacherous and unsafe” for Christians to trust themselves upon it. And the Rescue, the organ of the Good Templars, says: “As regards the temperance question the Sunday plank is an entire blank, acceptable to the League of Freedom, and entirely in their interests.”

The Ground of Complaint.

By Editor

MANY Republicans are utterly dissatisfied with the Sunday plank in the platform. That favors Sunday as a day of rest and recreation. This word "recreation" is the bait which catches the element which in the church sense, is utterly anti-Sunday. To the saloonists and hoodlums, drinking, carousing, attending beer gardens, and all kinds of amusements, is "recreation." That is just what they want the Sunday for; and if the Republican party will secure them the day for such purposes they want no more. Indeed they are entirely satisfied with the plank; for they care nothing about that clause which speaks of making it a day of rest, even taking it in its most religious sense. They are willing all should rest who wish to, knowing that there are plenty of others who will go for the recreation. But the church party, while they endorse the resting clause, cannot countenance the recreation part. Hence their dissatisfaction with the plank.

The Spirit of the Contest.

We clip the following from a secular political paper. The object seems to be to give an idea of the present political campaign. It is only an extract from a long article:—

“The whole moral forces of the commonwealth, from center to circumference, have been aroused to furious indignation—not only all the church people, but all others who sympathize with them, all who have sprung from the loins of Christian women and been baptized on the Christian Sabbath—and he who expects to be elected on such a damnable platform, especially in this county, is no less than an unreasoning fool. In this Cain-like resentment against mankind, J—— T—— has kindled a veritable religious war as vehement in its spirit as ever flamed in the glens of Scotland. Since the conflict has been begun by the powers of darkness, let the fighting go on and the forces continue to be arrayed in solid phalanx; the churches against the gin-mills; Sunday-schools against the brew-houses; Christian women against the destroyers of their households; morality against vice; God against the devil. The former may lose the battle on the Barbary Coast and other confines of hell; but elsewhere, as sure as the great stone was rolled away from the door of the sepulcher on the morning of the first day of the week, the honor of California civilization shall be redeemed.”

What a climax! If such is indeed the nature of the conflict in which the political parties are engaged; if a “religious war” is kindled, “as vehement in its spirit as ever flamed in the glens of Scotland,” then unhappy was the day to our nation in which religion was forced into American politics! If this is the spirit engendered by this religious controversy, then the sooner religion is voted out of politics the better for the welfare of all people; especially the better for pure Christianity, which depends for support on the loving spirit and peaceful lives of its professors, and is always injured by the frenzied zeal of worldly-minded advocates.

The conflict was begun, however, and the subject was forced into politics when it was publicly announced that no man must be voted into office unless he adhered to the Sunday Law. This was the first step toward a “religious test” for eligibility to office.

A MINE OF INFORMATION.

History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

THE Bible record of the Sabbath; the secular history concerning it; the successive steps by which the change to the first day was made; and the work of restoration, are given in detail.

EVERY TEXT OF SCRIPTURE

Concerning the Sabbath is commented on at length; and the

COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS

In regard to the Sabbath and first day is given. The comparative merits of the seventh and the first day Sabbaths are fully shown. A copious index enables the reader to find the comments on any text, or the statement of any historian.

Should be read by everybody. 528 pp. Price, $1.25. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.

OUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE FORETOLD.

By Uriah Smith

THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY.

BY ELD. U. SMITH.

THIS is a full exposition of a portion of prophecy which applies to our own Government, showing the position the United States holds in prophecy, and the part it has to act in the closing scenes of time.

THE SUNDAY MOVEMENT,

Which is now attracting such general attention, is thoroughly canvassed and abundant testimony is given to prove that in a few years this will be the

ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION

In this country. Facts and statistics are largely presented, showing in the most conclusive manner that this government is the one pointed out in the prophecy quoted. 200 pages. Bound, 40 cents. Paper covers, 20 cents.

Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.

A BOOK FOR THE TIMES.

The Religious Amendment to the Constitution: OR THE SABBATH, THE SUNDAY, THE CHANGE AND THE RESTITUTION.

THE object of the proposed Constitutional Amendment, together with the authority for it, is fully canvassed.

The views of the leaders of the parties both for and against the Amendment are fairly given in this book.

The present agitation of the Sunday Law makes this book especially interesting and instructive at this time.

Bound in cloth, 380 pp. Price, $1.00.

Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.

THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES,

By Editor

PUBLISHED WEEKLY, AT OAKLAND, CAL., FOR THE

Missionary Society of Seventh-day Adventists.

A twelve-page Religious Family Paper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times, Second Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and Gospel, with Departments devoted to Temperance, The Home Circle, The Missionary Work, and the Sabbath-school.

Price Per Year, . . . . . . . . . $2.00 In Clubs of five or more copies to one address, to be used in Missionary Work, . . . 1.50

Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. —OR— REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Michigan. MISS ELIZA THAYER, Sec. N. E. Tract Society, South Lancaster, Mass. ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, Ravenswood, Shirley Road, Southampton, England. W. L. RAYMOND, Gaston, Oregon.