“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 320.

WE print on page 317 an article entitled, “That Resolution at Saratoga.” It is from Dr. E. T. Hiscox, the well-known Baptist minister and writer, author of the “Baptist Manual.”

We believe that Dr. Hiscox’s statement as to the practice of Seventh-day Baptists in the matter of Sunday work is correct, and the same is equally true of Seventh-day Adventists. Every consistent Seventh-day Adventist must obey the Golden Rule, therefore no Seventh-day Adventist can render himself unnecessarily obnoxious to anybody upon any day. The consistent Sabbatarian cannot observe Sunday any more than Daniel could obey the decree of the king forbidding any man to ask any petition of any god or man for thirty days; but every Seventh-day Adventist can do to others as he would have them do to him; and as a class, this is what Seventh-day Adventists try to do.

A QUEER scene was witnessed last week in a Brooklyn court when a Sabbatarian was summoned to court to defend his right to retain the guardianship of his own children. The basis of the action was that in observing the seventh day he was hindered from earning as much as he night otherwise do, and that therefore he was not a proper person to have the custody of his own children.

It was charged that he had actually resigned a lucrative position in the New York Post Office because of his conscientious regard for the seventh day, and his unwillingness to work upon that day. This was held to be evidence that he was a monomaniac upon that subject. The attorney, who was prosecuting the case, got the man to actually “confess” that he felt that he ought to obey his conscience; that he ought to do what he believed was right regardless of consequences. It is true that the man is now earning $15 a week, but that is only about half what he received in the post office, and it seemed to be quite beyond the comprehension of anybody connected with the case that any sane man would think of surrendering a position that was paying nearly $30 a week for one in which he could earn only half that sum, merely that he might obey a commandment of God.

It may not be out of place to mention in this connection some comments made by an Ohio paper upon the persecution of Sabbatarians in Tennessee. This paper, The Institute Bell, deplores the intolerance and bigotry of those who are prime movers in this persecution, but at the same time makes an “argument,” which shows conclusively that the editor has no proper conception of what it is to have a genuine conscientious conviction. The fact is that there is too much made of convenience and not enough of conscience. Custom and expediency are set above conscience, and while everybody grants as a theory that people ought to do right, very few realize that a man who violates his conscience for any reason whatever, sins both against God and his own soul, thus separating himself from God and losing his own self-respect and weakening his own moral character.

THE following item is from the Sun of the 1st inst.:—

The Joint Arbitration Committee of the bakers’ unions reported yesterday that at a meeting in 263 Bowery, the unions reported that they were dissatisfied with the way President Roosevelt of the Police Board is enforcing the Sunday laws. There is a law, they said, by which bakeries and bakery stores must be closed at a certain hour on Sunday forenoon. A committee was appointed to see him regarding the enforcement of this law. The unions says that if Mr. Roosevelt is sincere in his professions he will have to look after the bakeries as well as the saloons.

We remarked last week that a demand for “liberal Sunday laws” were in a position to consistently demand anything in that direction. Most of them have, no doubt, at some time or other, given their influence in favor of making or enforcing so-called laws to compel other people to cease doing something on Sunday, that they might properly engage in were it not for the “law,” thus restricting the liberties of those who are engaged in certain lines of business, and therefore forfeiting their right to protest when the so-called Sunday “laws” infringe their rights.

Doubtless many of the bakers who are demanding that the bake-shops close at a certain hour on Sunday forenoon, would like to adjourn to the saloon or beer garden, which they would of course, wish to have open; but it will be very difficult for them to persuade the majority of the people that a place ought to be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors if shops for the sale of bread are closed; so that really such a demand is a demand that they be permitted to do as they please on Sunday, but that other persons be restricted in their liberties.

There is nothing in the world to prevent a baker from closing his shop at any hour, and there is no reason in the world why another should close at the same hour if he does not wish to. It is simply selfishness that demands it.

Share this: