Chapter III: Part 3

That this law has been brought over into our dispensation, and every jot and tittle of it is binding now, and will continue to be, so long as the world stands. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”—JESUS, Matt. 5:17-19. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.”—PAUL, Romans 3:31. “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”—JAMES, Jas. 2:8-11. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.”—JOHN, 1 John 3:4-6.

5. That, agreeably to this view, Christ—of whom it is said, “Thy law is within my heart”—was a habitual observer, during his lifetime, of the Sabbath of the decalogue. “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, _as his custom was_, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” John 15:10.

6. That the women, whose religious conceptions had been formed under his teachings, carefully regarded it. “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56.

7. The Lord instructed his disciples that it would exist at least forty years after his death, since he taught them to pray continually that their flight, at the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred A. D. 70, might not take place on that day. “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.” Matt. 24:20.

8. That the great apostle to the Gentiles was in the habit of making it a day of public teaching. “And Paul, as his _manner was_, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 27:2. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4.

9. That, in the year of our Lord 95, John still recognized its existence. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” Rev. 1:10.

10. That God has never removed the blessing which he placed upon it in the beginning, or annulled the sanctification by which it was at that time set apart to a holy use.

11. That, in perfect keeping with the above propositions, it is, equally in the New with the Old Testament, scores of times denominated the Sabbath; and that, while God, and Christ, and prophets, and apostles, and inspired men, unite in applying to it this sacred title, they never, in any single instance, allow themselves to speak of any other day in the week in the use of this peculiar appellation.

12. That it is not only to continue during the present order of things, but that, in the new earth, clothed in all the freshness and beauty of its Edenic glory, creation, more than ever before, will be the subject of devout gratitude, and weekly commemoration on the part of the immortal and sinless beings who shall worship God therein forever. “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. 66:22, 23.

Putting all these facts together—connected, consistent, and unanswerable as they are—men will discover that a great departure has taken place from the original practice of the church, and against the explicit command of God. Should they ask, as assuredly they will, when, and by whom, it was inaugurated, it will not be a fruitless effort on their part to obtain needed information. God has made ample provision for the instruction of those who would do his will, and for the condemnation of those who refuse so to do. Referring to prophecies given centuries ago, mapping out beforehand the history of the world, they will find the prophet Daniel—while describing the work of the “little horn,” which arose among the ten horns of the great and terrible beast, and which little horn nearly all Protestant commentators agree in applying to the papal church—stating of it, by way of prediction, that it should “wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws,” and that they should “be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Dan. 7:25.) Consulting history, they will discover that, so far as the saints are concerned, these terrible words have been so completely fulfilled that this power has actually put to death, in one way or other, at least fifty millions of the people of God.

Again, perceiving, as they will readily, that the “laws,” which this presumptuous power should blasphemously claim to be able to change, are the laws of God, what will be their astonishment at learning, from the representatives of this great oppressive system—which alone has extended through a period sufficiently long to cover the “time, times and half a time,” or the 1260 years of Daniel’s prophecy—that it actually boasts that it has done the very work in question. Nay, more; what limit can be put to their surprise when they find these men absolutely pointing with exultation to the practice of the Christian world in the observance of Sunday, as an evidence of the ability of the Roman Catholic church to alter and amend the commands of God! That they do this, however, in the most unequivocal terms, will be abundantly proved by the following quotations from their own publications:—

“_Question._ Is it then Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God? _Ans._ During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but _the church_, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so we now sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord. _Ques._ Had the church power to make such a change? _Ans._ Certainly; since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by the Holy Spirit.”—_Cath. Catechism of Christian Religion._

“_Ques._ How prove you that the church has power to command feasts and holy days? _Ans._ By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

“_Ques._ How prove you that? _Ans._ Because, by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.—_Abridgment of Christian Doctrine._

“It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the _Catholic church_ which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church.”—_Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day_, p. 225.

Instinctively anticipating some providential mode of escape from the terrible consequences of that great apostasy, out of which the religious world has for centuries been endeavoring to work its way, conscientious men and women will catch the notes of warning which for twenty-five years have been sounding through the land, in these words: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.

Inquiring into the origin of the message which is thus being given to the world, they will find that, for a quarter of a century, God has been calling attention to the subject of his law and his Sabbath, and that a denomination of earnest men and women, but little known as yet among the learned and mighty of the land, have been devoting themselves with zeal and a spirit of self-sacrifice to the tremendous task of restoring God’s downtrodden Sabbath to the hearts and judgments of the people. They will find, also, that these persons have not entered upon this labor because they anticipated an easy and speedy victory; nor, indeed, because they ever believed that the great mass of mankind would so far shake off the trammels of tradition and the fear of reproach as to be able to venture an unreserved surrender to the teachings of the Bible; but simply because they saw in it that which was at once the path of duty, and that of fulfilling prophecy.

Having accepted Dan. 7:25, in common with the religious world, as applying to the papacy, and learning, as the result of investigation, that the days of the great persecution were to reach from the decree of Justinian (A. D. 538,) giving authority to the Bishop of Rome to become the corrector of heretics, to A. D. 1798—when the pope was carried into captivity, having received a wound with the sword agreeably to Rev. 13:10—these students of God’s word at once perceived that the next thing in order would be the completion of the restitution, which had begun in the taking away of his ability to put the saints to death, by a work equally called for in the inspired prediction; namely, that of rescuing from his hands the “times and laws” which he thought to change. Or, in other words, that the effort of the pope to remove the Sabbath of the Lord from the seventh to the first day of the week should be made to appear in its true light; namely, as the work of a blasphemous power which had held the world in its grasp for centuries.

But, while they were clear in those convictions which led them in 1846, under the title of Seventh-day Adventists, to claim that they were fulfilling the prophecy of Rev. 14:9-12, they discerned that the same facts which brought them to this conclusion also compelled the conviction that theirs was to be the road of persecution: hardship, and privation. They read in Rev. 12:17, in these words, “The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” the history of the last generation of Christians; and saw that, in God’s inscrutable providence, it was to be their fortune to be the object of diabolic hate, because of the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, to which they cling with determined perseverance.

Once more: In studying the 11th to the 18th verses inclusive of the 13th chapter of the same book, they saw that—if their view of the work which was assigned them was correct—that portion of the Scriptures was applied to the United States of America, and indicated that this country was to be the theater of a mighty contest between those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” and the government under which they live, from which they could only be delivered by the coming of Christ. This view they unhesitatingly proclaimed. For twenty years, they have announced it as a part of their faith. When they first declared it to be such, they brought upon themselves ridicule and contempt, for, humanly speaking, every probability was against them. The government was ostensibly republican in form, and professedly tolerant to the very extreme, in all matters of religious opinion. The Constitution had even provided that “Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Nevertheless, so firm were they in the conviction that they had the right application of the prophecy, that they unhesitatingly walked out upon their faith; and for a fifth of a century they have talked it, and published it everywhere, notwithstanding the odium it has brought upon them. Lest we might appear to be drawing upon our own imagination in a matter of such importance, we append the following extracts from their works. The words in parentheses are our own, and serve to explain that which a larger quotation from the context would make clear of itself:

“When the ‘beast’ (the papacy) had the dominion, all in authority must be Catholics. The popular sentiment then was that none should hold offices in the government, except they professed the Catholic faith. The popular religion at that period was Catholicism. They legislated upon religious subjects, and required all men to conform to the popular institutions and dogmas of the papacy, or suffer and die. The image must be made in the United States, where Protestantism is the prevailing religion. Image signifies _likeness_; therefore Protestantism and Republicanism will _unite_; or, in other words, the making of laws will go into the hands of Protestants, when all in authority will profess the popular sentiments of the day, and make laws binding certain religious institutions (_i. e._, Sunday observance, &c.), upon all, without distinction.”—_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_, Vol. 6, No. 6, 1854.

“It seems to me, even to look at the subject in the light of reason, that a conflict must in time come between commandment-keepers and the United States. This, of course, will lead those who find that they cannot sustain their Sunday institution by argument to resort to some other means.”—_Advent Review and Herald_, Vol. 10, No. 11, 1857.

“When all concur upon this question (Sunday-keeping), except a few who conscientiously observe the fourth commandment, how long before their constancy would be attributed to obstinacy and bigotry? And how long before the sentence would go forth, as it did in the days of Pliny, ‘that for this, if for nothing else, they deserved to be punished.’”—_Review and Herald_, Vol. 19, No. 15.[1]

How changed the political sky to-day from what it was when these words began to be spoken! Now, thoughtful men are pondering whether, after all, these things may not be so. They see a powerful organization looming up in the country, which appends to the call for their conventions the names of some of the most influential men in the land. They hear them declaring in so many words, that what they are determined to do is to sweep away the constitutional barrier between them and a coerced observance of Sunday, so that all may be compelled to regard it as sacred. What we want, say they, and what we are determined to have, is such an amendment of the Constitution, 1. That it shall recognize God and Christ; 2. That it shall enable us to secure the reading of the Bible in the common schools; 3. That we may be enabled to enforce the better observance of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._, Sunday.

These declarations, a few years since, would have appalled every lover of constitutional liberty. Every man and woman imbued with a proper sense of the genius of our institutions would have been struck with horror at the very thought of pursuing the course in question. But a change has come over the spirit of the land. Steadily, the advocates of a day which has no authority in the word of God are drifting where all before them have done who have sought to maintain a human institution upon the claim of divine authority. It is idle for them to say at this stage of the proceedings that they propose to regard the rights of those who have conscientious scruples on this subject. God has said that the matter will culminate in oppression; nay, even though this were not so, reason itself would prove that this would be the case. Without questioning the sincerity of the men who at the present make these statements, we appeal to that very sincerity for the evidence that this matter will end just where the Seventh-day Adventists have claimed that it would.

They have convinced themselves that they are called of God to a mighty work. They believe that they have a noble mission. They are men of mind and nerve. But, when a few months shall have revealed the insufficiency of their logic, when Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists shall have confronted them with a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” against their favorite scheme, they would be more than human if—refusing to yield to arguments which they cannot answer—they should continue to look with complacence upon the very men who, after all, will prove to be their most formidable antagonists in the great conflict. In fact, it would be a denial of both nature and history to say that they would not at last come to regard them in the light of enemies of God, really more worthy of condemnation and coercion than those who were simply unbelievers in any Sabbath at all, and so incapable of standing before the systematic effort which they have set in motion.[2]

But, candid reader, the facts are before you, and between us and these events there will be ample time for calm reflection, and deliberate decision. Where do you choose to stand in this final conflict between the venerable Sabbath of the Lord and its modern papistic rival? Will you keep the commandments of God, as uttered by his voice and written by his finger? or will you henceforth pay intelligent homage to the man of sin, by the observance of a day which finds its authority alone in the mutilated form of the commandments, as they come from his hand? May God help you to make a wise choice.

Footnote 1:

For further information upon this subject, the reader is referred to
“The Three Angels’ Messages” and the “United States in Prophecy,”
published at the _Review and Herald_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich.

Footnote 2:

Persons desiring to investigate this question still further, by
addressing the author of these articles, will receive by mail, without
charge, a tract in which he has discussed at length a branch of this
subject merely alluded to in this communication.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

Immediately on the publication of the foregoing articles in the _Christian Statesman_, the editor of that paper announced his purpose to review them in the columns of that periodical. This purpose he subsequently carried out in the publication of eleven communications, in which various strictures were offered upon the positions taken by me in my original contributions. I immediately requested the privilege of replying to these criticisms in the columns of the _Statesman_, so that those who had read my argument in the beginning, and the replies of the editor of the _Statesman_ thereto, might have an opportunity to see the relative strength of the positions occupied by that gentleman and myself tested in fair and open debate. My petition, however, was denied, and I was compelled either to remain silent or seek elsewhere for an opportunity to make my defense. Fortunately, at this juncture, the columns of the _Advent Review_, which is the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, were freely offered me for the purpose in question, and in them the Replies of the editor of the _Statesman_, and my Rejoinders thereto, have since been published. To these Replies and Rejoinders, as they appeared therein, the remainder of the present volume is devoted. To them, the reader is earnestly invited to give his most serious attention, since they present, side by side, the lines of argument usually employed for and against the Sabbath of the Lord.

W. H. L.

REPLIES AND REJOINDERS.

Reply of the Editor of the Christian Statesman.
ARTICLE ONE.
SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.

We have given not a little space to the argument against the Christian 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.

2. In the case of the islanders, their mistake in the selection of the day is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in possession of only a _part_ of the Bible, and their remedy was to be found in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our opponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from childhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry, who are leading the movement in question, plead ignorance of the line of argument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since, for at least two hundred years, it has been iterated and reiterated, until their familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved, not only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining and imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who, having conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy the privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of working on the first day of the week.

3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the point of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every vestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above, the danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not to be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but from those who, according to Paul, having “a form of godliness,” shall “deny the power thereof.” In other words, who, while accepting the Scriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as in the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the seventh day, which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has never claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man.

With this statement of our views, further remark is uncalled for. We think that even our reviewer will now perceive that, before he could bring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three, above, it would be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the system of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task which our opponent judging from the line of argument which he has thus far pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he has become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the work in which we are engaged.

Fourthly. It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with infidels and atheists.

So far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally found to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right, regardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with God. The individual who would desert sound principles because some wicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with him, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question, who is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an erroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our friend, because, in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges their devotion to the Bible in its strict construction.

Is it, then, from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be, we think we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever they attempt to “fawn upon us overmuch,” we will preach to them the _law of God, Sabbath and all_, and my word for it, they will themselves shortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and distinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in discerning it; for it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it formerly was, that the “carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The infidel of the present day hates that law with a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the large body of first-day observers—we are happy to say not of the _Statesman_ school—who have abolished the ten commandments in order to dispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in berating the law which David pronounced “perfect,” and Paul declared to be “holy, just, and good.”

Finally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be better pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his printed name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution against the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be with one which—while his name would fail to appear in its fundamental law—was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and religious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is one by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments inflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a day which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be reasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place and authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists, and padlocks upon their tongues; then, and not till then, can Seventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment which, though in many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his people, and his law.

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE TWO.
THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

Having shown in our last article that seventh-day Sabbatarians, to be consistent with themselves in appealing to the Bible as of supreme authority, should be among the earnest friends of the Religious Amendment, we come now to consider their argument against the first-day Sabbath.

On many points dwelt upon in the articles we have published, there is no difference of view. We believe that the Sabbath was instituted, not in the wilderness, for Israel; but in Eden, for mankind. We maintain, also, that the law of the Sabbath is an essential part of the great moral code of the ten commandments, spoken by God’s voice amid the awful manifestations of Sinai, and written by the finger of God on tables of stone as a law of perpetual obligation for the whole human family. These, and other points admitted on both sides, need not occupy time and space in this discussion. We are concerned here, and now, simply with the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. Our readers have had before them an argument, of considerable length, to show that God never authorized a change of day. We proceed to prove that the transfer was made by divine authority and approval.

In doing this, we shall first have to inquire into the facts of history. We shall have to ask, Was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, acknowledged as binding up to the resurrection of Christ, continued by the apostles and the early church after that event? Was any other day substituted by them in its place? For an answer to these questions, we must appeal to _facts_. We make our appeal to the records of the New Testament. A careful and thorough examination of these authoritative records shows conclusively that _the seventh day was not observed as the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ by the apostles and the early church_.