Amendment of our National Constitution from the stand-point of the
advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath. This argument, in brief, is this:
The proposed amendment, in its practical working, is intended to secure
the better observance of the first day of the week, as the civil
Sabbath. But the Bible, the revealed law of God, it is affirmed,
contains no warrant either for individual or national observance of the
first day of the week. The amendment, therefore, it is maintained,
should not be favored, but earnestly opposed, by those who acknowledge
the supreme authority of the law of the Bible.
This, it will be seen at a glance, is no argument against the principle
of the proposed amendment. On the other hand, it bases itself on that
very principle, viz., that it is the bounden duty of the nation to
acknowledge the authority of God, and take his revealed word as the
supreme rule of its conduct. The argument, therefore, instead of being
directed against the amendment itself, is directed almost entirely
against that interpretation of the divine law of the Scriptures which
fixes the Christian Sabbath on the first day of the week. We consented
to admit to our columns a short series of brief articles presenting an
argument against the amendment. Pressing the lines of courtesy and
fairness far beyond the limits of our agreement, we have, in fact,
admitted many long articles, the burden of which has been to show that
there is no warrant in the word of God for the observance of the first
day of the week as the Sabbath of divine appointment. We shall expect
equal generosity from the journals of our seventh-day Sabbatarian
friends.
The amendment proposed is in substance as follows: An acknowledgment of
God as the ultimate source of all power and authority in civil
government; of Jesus Christ as ruler of nations; and of the Bible as the
fountain of law, and the supreme rule of national conduct. Let this be
distinctly borne in mind. We have here a clear assertion of the very
principles for which the seventh-day Sabbatarian most strenuously
contends.
Just here, we would take occasion to say that even if the proposed
amendment contained an express acknowledgment, in so many words, of the
first-day Sabbath, and if the argument for the seventh-day Sabbath were
a perfect demonstration, there would still be, on that account, as
matters actually stand in our land at present, no valid objection
against such explicit Constitutional acknowledgment of the first day.
Suppose a company of the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, going
forth as missionaries, should discover, in a distant sea, an island
inhabited by a people in many respects highly civilized, possessing a
portion of the Bible, and observing one day in seven, say the fourth day
of the week, as a day of rest and worship of the true God, and
acknowledging it as such in their Constitution of government. Suppose
that in the same island should be found a large and active minority,
thoroughly infidel and atheistic, striving in every way to overturn the
Sabbath. The missionaries, perceiving much room and opportunity for
doing good to the people, settle among them, and seek, among many
things, to change the Sabbath to what they regard as the proper day. In
what way would they attempt to accomplish this? Would they permit
themselves for a moment to be classed with the infidel and atheistic
opponents of the Sabbath? Would they not stand side by side with those
who defended the Sabbath observances of the country against the attacks
of immoral and unbelieving enemies of all Christian institutions?
If these missionaries were advocates of the first-day Sabbath, and we
were of the number, for our part, this is what we would do: We would
practice for ourselves the observance of what we are persuaded is the
Christian Sabbath. We would multiply and scatter abroad copies of the
entire Bible, and seek to convince the people and the nation that God’s
law requires the observance of the first day. In the meantime, confident
that, by the blessing of the Head of the church, the circulation of the
divine word and the proclamation of its truths would at length change
the conviction of the islanders, we should say to them: “Do not cease to
observe a day of rest and worship. To have one such a day in every seven
is right. Do not blot out its acknowledgment from the Constitution. You
need its legal safe-guards. True, there is no divine warrant for the
observance of the fourth day of the week instead of the first. But a
fourth-day Sabbath is better than no Sabbath at all. We will help you to
preserve from the assaults of our common enemies the observances of the
Sabbath, that you may have them to transfer, as we urge you to do, to
the first day of the week.” Would the advocates of the seventh-day
Sabbath do otherwise, except in substituting the seventh day for the
first? And now let us take the actual, corresponding case in our own
land. The great mass of Christians here, as elsewhere, regard the first
day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. Admit, for the sake of the
illustration, that they have no better ground for their opinion than the
islanders mentioned above. Is it not right for them to have a day of
rest and worship? Is it not right for them to observe one such a day in
seven? Is it maintained that, because the day is not the proper one,
there is and can be nothing right about these Sabbath observances? Then,
if all is wrong, it must be better to have no Sabbath at all, and
utterly secularize the week. This, our seventh-day friends cannot and
will not admit. They gladly testify that our first-day Sabbath, poorly
as it may be observed, is infinitely to be preferred to the unbroken
current of the worldliness of the week. A Sabbathless week; successive
rounds of equally secularized days, marked, if marked at all, by the
recurrence of unusual worldly gayety and dissipation; this is what
infidelity and atheism would give us for the existing Sabbath. Do the
friends of the seventh-day Sabbath desire any such substitution? Their
argument against the proposed amendment on the ground that it expressly
or impliedly contains an acknowledgment of the first-day Sabbath, is,
that it will enforce existing Sabbath laws, and strengthen first-day
Sabbath observances. But is it not better to do this than accept the
dread alternative? Even from this point of view, then, we claim for the
proposed amendment, what in some cases it has actually, and, we believe,
most consistently, received, the approval and support of seventh-day
Sabbatarians.
But we return to the form of the proposed amendment. It expresses, as it
should, only the most fundamental principles. It asserts the duty of the
nation to acknowledge God in Christian relations. It recognizes the
Bible as the fountain of the nation’s laws, and the supreme rule of its
conduct. Now, if we were among either the first-day or the seventh-day
missionaries, in the case of the islanders already referred to, such a
national acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible is just exactly
what we would desire. If the islanders had this principle, as has been
supposed, incorporated into their written Constitution, we could ask for
nothing more advantageous for our missionary work. If they had it not,
and certain citizens were laboring to secure its insertion by an
amendment of the instrument, we would most assuredly accord these
laborers our heartiest encouragement and support. We should suspect
ourselves of prejudice, or rather of a deficiency in good common sense,
if we found ourselves inclined to pursue an opposite course. Believing
that God’s law requires the observance of another day than the fourth,
how could we reasonably do anything else than co-operate and rejoice in
the work of leading such a people to acknowledge the supreme authority
of that law, and to register their purpose in the fundamental instrument
of their government, to adjust all national affairs according to its
requirements?
And now, what can be said of our seventh-day Sabbatarian brethren? Are
they not inconsistent? They proclaim the duty of the nation to
acknowledge “the highest of all laws.” So far, we are agreed. They
maintain that the Bible is that law. Here, too, we are at one. And yet
they—not all of them, we are happy to state—oppose a movement which aims
to secure in the organic law and life of the nation a sincere, reverent,
and obedient acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible—an
acknowledgment which forecloses discussion on no question on which
Christians or others may differ, but which brings the final appeal in
all national controversies to the tribunal of the unerring word of God.
The inconsistency of this attitude of opposition to the Christian
Amendment cannot but create unfavorable presumptions in regard to the
soundness of judgment of any who may occupy it. An attack from so weak a
point, upon the Constitutional acknowledgment of the Christian
Scriptures, it will be generally felt, does not betoken a very
formidable assault upon the Sabbath of the Christian church. And yet,
notwithstanding this, to our mind, exceedingly unfortunate connection,
we would bear cheerful testimony to the fact that the articles we have
inserted, so far as they are an argument against the first-day Sabbath,
and this is manifestly the point which the writer had principally in
view, contain a clear, calm, courteous, and attractively written
presentation of one side of a very important subject. We shall present
the other side of the question in succeeding issues of this journal.
REJOINDER, BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
“SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.”
We have debated for some time in our own mind the propriety of
attempting an answer to the strictures, if such they may be called, upon
our articles on the Constitutional Amendment. Having decided, however,
that they contain a show of logic which might deceive the careless
reader, we have at last determined to give them a notice commensurate
with the importance they assume, if not from their intrinsic merit, at
least from the distinguished source whence they emanate.
Before doing this, we take pleasure in acknowledging the generosity of
their author in allowing us to discuss in the columns of his paper the
subject from a stand-point of a nature calculated to dampen rather than
stimulate the ardor of his readers in the work in which, with him, they
are engaged. From the outset, we have discovered no disposition to take
any advantage by which the full effect of what we had to say might in
any way be lessened. On the contrary, attention has several times been
called to our communications, as being worthy of perusal by all.
Having said thus much in reference to the treatment we received at the
hands of the editor of the _Statesman_ up to the time of the completion
of the publication of our articles, we shall be pardoned for expressing
our surprise at finding ourselves, in his first reply, standing somewhat
in the attitude of one who had taken advantage of indulgence shown him
to present a line of argument different from that proposed at the
beginning.
It is possible that we have mistaken the design of the statements to
which we allude. This we hope may prove to be the case; for, so far as
we are concerned, individually, we have covered the precise ground which
we designed to at the first. If the editor of the _Statesman_ has found
himself disappointed, either in the nature or the length of the
argument, he is to blame, and not we.
1. Because, so far as the matter of length is concerned, we stated to
him that we should leave that entirely “with his magnanimity, convinced
that he would not cut us short in our work so long as what we had to say
was pointed, gentlemanly, and of such a nature as to bear forcibly upon
the question at issue between us.”
2. As it regards the scope of the articles, we stated, unqualifiedly,
that we should treat the subject from the stand-point of an observer of
the seventh day, appealing to the Bible for our authority. Nor were we
content with declaring our plan of opposition by _letter_, but we went
so far as to give, in the caption of our articles themselves, an outline
of the order in which we should treat the subject. It was as follows:
“The Constitutional Amendment; _or_, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the
Change, and the Restitution.” In it, as will be observed, is exactly set
forth the manner in which we discussed the propriety of the amendment;
(1) Showing the emptiness of the claims of the Sunday. (2) The force and
obligation of those of the seventh day. (3) The manner in which the
change of days occurred, and (4) The work which God has inaugurated for
the purpose of bringing about the Restitution.
Thus much by way of personal acknowledgment and explanation.
We turn now to the criticism proper upon our argument.
First, there is an attempt to state the positions which we assumed to
prove.
In reply, it is sufficient to say that it is deficient in one very
important particular. That particular relates to our proposition that
God himself has inaugurated a movement _entirely outside of, and opposed
to_, the Constitutional Amendment party, for the purpose of bringing
about a Sabbath reform in his own way. For proof of this, we appeal to
our last article in full. It is, to say the least, not a little
remarkable that the editor of the _Statesman_ should have overlooked
this point in our communications, since a perception of it would have
saved him the perpetration of the great mistake which he has made, as we
shall see hereafter.
Secondly, It is intimated that the proposed amendment is not necessarily
connected with the Sabbath question; and that, therefore, observers of
the seventh day should unite with those of the first in securing its
passage, which, being done, the differences between them could be
settled at leisure.
Now we confess to not a little surprise that such a position should be
taken by a gentleman of so much candor and penetration as the editor of
the _Statesman_. Have we then been deceived up to this point? Is it true
that Sunday observance has not heretofore been represented as something
of vital importance to the nation, to be secured, and only secured, by
the alteration of the Constitution as proposed? Have these gentlemen not
been really in earnest when they have appealed to the strong love of the
people for the strict observance of what they have been pleased to call
the Sabbath, in their endeavors to arouse them to the significance of
their movement? If they have not, then they are unworthy of public
confidence, and should henceforth be cast down from the leadership of a
great party, which boasts, not only its morality, but also its
Christianity.
Let us see, then, whether the amendment, which is now in their hands,
is, or is not, by their own confession, to be employed in the interest
of Sunday observance.
That the _Christian Statesman_ is a fair exponent of the opinions and
intentions of the leading spirits in the movement for the amendment, we
think no one will have the hardihood to deny. What it advocates and
favors, then, is destined to stand or fall with the triumph or defeat of
the men who speak through it. Turning to the prospectus of the identical
copy of the _Statesman_ which contains the criticism which we are
reviewing, we find the following statement: “The design of this paper,
as its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of civil
government in the light of Christianity. It has been established to
advocate the proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. At the same time, it will aid in maintaining all existing
Christian features in our civil institutions, in particular, laws
against the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,” &c.
We might pause here, but, in a matter of this importance, let us make
certainty doubly certain.
It was _strange_ that the writer should have made the assertion which he
did, with the prospectus from which we have quoted before him. It is
_passing strange_ that—as if guided by a Providence which had doomed him
to make a complete exposure of his real sentiments, although in so doing
his own consistency should be involved—he should, within two weeks from
the penning of the above assertion, go back upon the files of his
periodical for two years, and reprint, by way of _emphasis_, according
to his own statement, the following editorial, which forever settles the
point that he believes and knows that the amendment and Sunday-keeping
are destined to be joined together in a common victory. As the reader
peruses this editorial, let him bear in mind the fact that it is not the
effusion of an excited and exasperated man, but the expression of a deep
and settled conviction which has once found utterance, and which so
perfectly expresses the real sentiments of its author that, after years
of deliberate reflection, he felt the truth of what he had said so
forcibly that he was constrained to give it fresh utterance. Let him
also note the fact that the italics are not our own, but those of the
editor. We regret that we have not space to give it in full, and invite
those who can do so, by all means to turn to the copy of the _Statesman_
which contains it, and read it for themselves.
“Time for the meeting of Congress, ... Two years ago we printed the
following telegram, dated at Washington, on Sabbath, Dec. 4, and
commented on it in the following terms, which we now emphatically
repeat: ‘The trains yesterday and _to-day_ brought large accessions to
the number of Congressmen and visitors already here, and _by to-morrow
morning_ it is expected that nearly every Senator and member will have
arrived.’ Thus the fact is heralded over the whole country that a large
number of the members of the National Congress openly and wantonly
indulge in common travel on the Sabbath.... And there are other
reflections suggested by their conduct.
“1. _Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold
any official position in a Christian nation...._ The interests of a
nation can never be safe in the hands of Sabbath-breakers, and every one
of these Congressmen has done that for which, if our laws were right, he
ought to be impeached and removed.
“2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the nation
has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our
public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the
higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are
corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is
responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls
into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from
other crimes; and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation,
should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of
the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in
harmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from
tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.
“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of
the law of God as the supreme law of nations, _and all the results
indicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no one say that
the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical
ends.”—_Christian Statesman_, Vol. 6, No. 15.
Now let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of
_practical bearing_, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not
splitting hairs as to what _consistency would demand_ under certain
circumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest
degree probable that a party, represented by men who express,
beforehand, sentiments like those contained in the above editorial,
would, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion
of all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of
argument employed above that which would _compel them to this action_,
since it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State
responsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore,
is it not _promised_, in so many words, that if the amendment is
carried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that
all offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by
a public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate
the Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust?
Thirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the
amendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should
not prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it
is better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the
hands of atheists.
Before debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in
mind that what I have said in the _Statesman_, as well as what I now
say, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a
Seventh-day Adventist.
So far as our Seventh-day Baptist friends are concerned, we have no
disposition to hold them responsible for the views which we, as
Adventists, hold. But so far as it regards our relation to this subject,
it is materially affected by these considerations. A failure to discern
this has led the gentleman into very absurd positions. When he attempts
to make a _Seventh-day Adventist conscience_, he must form it upon a
_Seventh-day Adventist model_. Before he can do this, all his bright
visions of a temporal millennium and good days to come, must vanish into
thin air. To say, as he does, that common sense would teach him to
pursue a certain line of conduct, is one thing; to say that, did he
occupy the position which we hold, common sense would teach him to do
the same thing, is another, and entirely different, thing. Let it be
borne in mind, therefore, that we are not now discussing the proposition
whether we _ought to be Seventh-day Adventists_, but, taking the ground
which he has _chosen_, whether, _as Adventists_, we ought to support the
proposed amendment. This being done, we are ready to inquire, What is
the peculiar faith of the people in question?
We answer, 1. They believe that Jesus Christ is about to come in the
clouds of heaven. 2. That they represent a body of believers which the
Lord is raising up in order that they may lift the standard of his
downtrodden law and Sabbath, as one around which those who will be ready
to hail him at his appearing, though few in numbers, will ultimately be
gathered. 3. That, in the light of prophecy, those who thus break away
from the errors of the papacy are in danger of persecution, not from
infidels and atheists, bad as they may be, but from those who, in the
guise of religion, shall, without warrant from God, endeavor to enforce
by statute law the observance of a day which finds no authority in the
word of God, but has for its support simply the _dictum_ of the man of
sin. 4. That the very body of men whose appearance in this country they
have for twenty years so confidently predicted, as being the ones who
should do the work in question, have actually appeared, and are
inaugurating the campaign which is very soon to be waged with
unrelenting fury against those who keep the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus.
All these features of their faith were shadowed forth in our
communications in the _Statesman_.
With this understanding, how utterly empty and infelicitous is the logic
of our friend. Take, for example, his chosen illustration of the
islanders. There is in it hardly a single point _appropos_ to the case
in hand.
1. The island to which the missionaries are supposed to go is one in
which, according to his statement, the fourth-day Sabbath is already
acknowledged as such in their Constitution of government, and therefore
carries with it the sanction and authority of statute law; whereas, with
us there is no such Constitutional acknowledgment.