p. 16 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 38. (9/24/1896)

WHAT THE “DISCIPLES” THINK OF A SUNDAY LAW.

The Pacific Christian of September 19 devotes its first page to a symposium on the “Benefits and Difficulties of a Sunday Law.” Five persons send contributions, showing various opinions. One, an Oregonian, thus begins: “Can we do it by legislation? It is with no little reluctance that we are obliged to say, ‘No’—under the present conditions.” He then goes on to say that Oregon has a Sunday law, but it can not be enforced, and then closes thus:—

“How excellent would it be if our towns had a few of these fines for the benefit of the common schools! O Christian, we entreat thee to vote for the protection of home and fireside, even as at the family altar you pray for their protection and preservation—and then indeed will we have laws and lawmakers who will see to it that the peace and quiet of our day of rest will be unmolested and undisturbed by acts of debauchery and crime!”

When did the “day” ever complain? Laws are for the protection of men, not days.

Another, Mr. Edwards, of Gilroy, Cal., thus states the “benefits of a suitable and well-enforced Sunday law”:—

“1. The laboring man would have one day’s rest in seven, which history and experience teach is necessary to his physical well-being. “2. It would have a wholesome effect upon the morals of the community. “3. I believe it would be of benefit to the cause of Christianity on account of an increased attendance at the church services, the removal of temptations of various kinds, which tend to lead the young, especially, from the path of duty.”

1. That is, the poor “laboring man” is a slave, compelled to work, compelled to violate conscience. We need another “emancipation proclamation”! But more, we need enough of the Spirit of God’s emancipation proclamation of the Gospel to lead us to do right whatever the world may do.

2. That is, morals are made better by statute law! Civil law may restrain, but it can not make better.

3. That is, the world is in competition with the churches, and the only hope of the churches is to so shape matters that the people will come to the church! It was so anciently. Laws were asked to close the theaters and shows on Sunday so that people would attend church. It is a pity that our Lord and his apostles did not understand such methods! But Mr. Edwards recognizes difficulties, and names five as follows: Greed of individuals and corporations, influence of liquor traffic, corrupt officials, opposition of Seventh-day Adventists, and others who keep Saturday, and an indifferent public sentiment. But if these difficulties were removed, what need of a law?

Prof. S. M. Martin, the revivalist, rightly says: “I am opposed to so-called Sunday legislation. The places that I would shut up by law on Sunday, I would shut up all the week by the same law,” tho he does not deny the right of the state to enact such laws.

Mr. Hathaway begins by saying: “It is impossible to estimate the beneficial effects upon society of an enforced Sunday law,” and thus closes: “To my mind the Disciples of Christ have more to lose than gain in working for the passage and enforcement of a Sunday law.” That is, what is good for society would be of more loss than gain to Disciples!

Mr. J. M. Martin thus squarely puts the question: “A statute compelling men to keep any day as a religious observance, is at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Gospel. (See Gal. 4:10, 11; Col. 2:16, 17.) It would be a step in the direction of absolute intolerance—the destruction of religious liberty.” And this is the simple truth.

Signs of the Times: Series on the Great Controversy

By Editor

This Number of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES is a valuable number, and we hope to make the remaining numbers of the year still more valuable. The article by Elder A. T. Jones will be followed by others on the same topic and kindred subjects.

A COPY of the Hongkong Chinese Mail, of July 31, gives a graphic account of a cyclone which had just occurred in the colony of Macao. Many Chinese junks were wrecked, and many lives lost, while the damage to coast property runs up into the hundreds of thousands.

IN our next issue we shall begin a series of articles on the Great Controversy of the Ages, as outlined in the twelfth chapter of the Revelation. We believe that the study will be of interest to all. Now is a good time to subscribe for the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, beginning with this issue. It treats of subjects of as much more importance to man than the present political matters discussed, as the heaven is higher than the earth, and eternity is of more importance than time. This is not saying that these political questions are unimportant. The questions of righteousness and life are, however, vastly more important.

ONE D. M. Hudler, of Lanark, Ill., issues a public challenge to any Seventh-day Adventist preacher in the United States to a public discussion of the Sabbath question. Who or what Mr. Hudler is, or whom he represents save himself, we do not know. Many men seek notoriety in this way, altho that may not be the case with Mr. H. Mr. Hudler further wishes to affirm three negative propositions, which, stated in brief, are as follows: (1) That the Sabbath was not kept by any one from Adam to the Exodus of Israel. (2) That it was not commanded to any other people to keep in the past or present. (3) That the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding on either Jews or gentiles in this dispensation. We should hope that no one would be so unwise as to accept a challenge under such propositions as are presented. It is easy to affirm denials. The truth can be presented in a better way than by proving to some man, who denies it that he is mistaken, or in other words, to deny his denials.

Church Discipline.

We would not have our readers understand by any articles in these papers that the writers or writer does not believe in proper church discipline; for such is not the case. God has given specific instruction in his word as to how to deal with offending members—those whose life dishonors God, and who cause division and weakness. See Matt. 18: 15-18; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thess. 3: 6, 14; 1 Tim. 6: 3-5; etc. But in all this the effort should be not petty or personal spite or antipathy, but God's glory and the salvation of souls. There is no using of physical force or persecution of the offender.

Have Baptists Nothing Better?

By Editor

We are sorry to see the Pacific Baptist give circulation to the falsehoods and vilifications promulgated by one D. M. Canright concerning Sabbath keepers. If Baptists have no better theology to use than Mr. Canright’s antinomianism, let them use it; but we can hardly make ourselves believe that they wish to give currency to his wholesale maligning of a people concerning whom he himself bore this testimony after he had left them—

“Personally I have not one word of fault to find with the church [Seventh-day Adventist] where I live, or with those with whom I have labored. I have been treated justly, liberally, and tenderly. There is not one hard feeling between us, as far as I know. It will always give me pleasure to regard our people and speak of them as an honest and devout people. But believing that they are mistaken in their views, I can not preach with them.”—Review and Herald, March 1, 1887.

The above is only a part of what might be quoted. It would seem that Mr. Canright’s commendation to other churches is, not his ability to win souls, but his ability to vilify Seventh-day Adventists, and the chief use made of him, for which he has been poorly paid, is to obtain that which the Bible does not furnish, something to check the Sabbath and kindred truths of God. But Baptists ought to have something better. Are the Sabbath, the near coming of Christ, life through him, etc., etc., truth? or are they not? Vilification or abuse can not settle the Bible facts. What does the word of God say? What was Christ’s example?

The Church and the Word

In the San Francisco Chronicle's report (issue of September 11) of the “Conference of Methodist Laity” at Pacific Grove, occurs the following item:—

“Myron T. Holcombe read a paper on ‘Necessity of Bible Study,’ saying that Bible cranks were especially numerous in Oakland. He said the church has authority over the Scriptures and not the Scriptures over the church.”

Now this may be an incorrect report; we hope it is. We do not like to believe that Protestants are yet prepared openly, at least, to take such a position. Why a necessity of Bible study if the church has authority over the Scriptures? This is good Roman Catholic doctrine, but it is not true Protestant teaching. The exaltation of humanity and the lack of respect of God's word is always a result of apostasy, and deepens and accelerates the apostasy of which it is the result. Would to God that the Protestant Church would conform her teaching and practice to the word of God instead of exalting tradition or the teachings of men above the word.

Healdsburg College Illustration and Its Surroundings

The attention of our California and Nevada friends is invited to what is said on page 11 concerning Healdsburg College. We greatly regret that the cut of the college does not give a better idea of the grounds and surroundings. We supposed we had later cuts of both college and Students’ Home, but find at the last moment that we have at hand only those made some years ago. We freely say that this illustration does not do justice to the college, but it will give a fairly good idea of the building. What may be obtained within the building, is much better than the building. That can not be photographed or drawn by man; it must be wrought out in character.

The order of Native Sons is the pride of California. The state is forty-six years old, and many of her leading men are natives of the realm. And now comes the Pacific Ensign, organ of the W. C. T. U., and says: “The Chinese parlor of Native Sons of this city [San Francisco] is to be commended for its strictly moral regulations. The rules prohibit gambling and opium smoking at the lodge rooms, where no one in an intoxicated condition can enter. The penalties are heavy fines.” The American “Native Sons” will have to look to their laurels.