Reply by Eld. Lewis by A. H. Lewis

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 1, 1867

Reply by Eld. Lewis.

By A. H. Lewis

In the Recorder of Nov. 29, Eld. Lewis made to the foregoing the following reply:

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

Dear Brother—I have for several years been deeply interested in the cause of Sabbath truth, and its future in our country. I have, therefore, watched carefully the progress of events affecting the different phases of the question. I have noted with interest the rise and movements of the Seventh-day Adventists, and their relations to this question, and the marked evidence of a new uprising on the part of the people with whom I have the honor to be connected. I see, also, outside of these two denominations, which, among the many, alone defend the true Sabbath, abundant evidences of increasing agitation. The direct conflict between God's law and no-lawism, between obedience and wild, licentious disobedience, is fairly upon us, and can no longer be ignored. Even now, many feel the surgings of the tide, and are striking wildly at supposed enemies, or clutching at the props which, breaking, only whelm them in greater confusion, while they realize neither the true causes, nor the tendencies of all this agitation.

If I seem too hopeful as to the result, it is because I have strong faith in God, and know that he will yet get to himself a great name among his enemies. I do not, however, believe that this nation, as such, will ever become a Sabbath-keeping one, nor, in any complete sense, a God-fearing one; for I remember that “many are called, but few chosen.” I remember that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived;” that the tares and the wheat shall grow together until the harvest. I remember that the “Man of sin,” the “lawless one,” who has “changed times and laws,” continues in his work until he is “destroyed by the brightness of His coming,” who, exchanging scepter for sword, shall come as judging, conquering king. Neither do I see any reason to doubt but that the Sabbath is the representative question in the “third angel’s message.” Hence, I deem, with you, that the “sure word of prophecy” is enough, though we may not see when or how God’s purposes will be accomplished.

There is, however, another chain of argument, showing that the United States may easily, and must inevitably, become a persecuting power as regards the Sabbath. Every principle and course of action will yield its legitimate fruit, whether among rude barbarians, or among erudite statesmen, and school-skilled divines. The outward forms of the results may be different, but their character will be identical, and practically the same. The unmistakable tendency of American society, in religion and morals, is to no-lawism, and hence no-Sabbathism. The struggle of Puritanism to sustain the sacredness of Sunday, is a struggle to maintain itself, rather than to really defend that which the age has already rejected, namely, Sunday as a divinely-appointed Sabbath. Such a platform requires that the church should legislate for herself, and having legislated, she must enforce her legislation; else it is all an unmeaning farce. As God’s government is nothing, he having no power to enforce his laws, so church authority is practically nothing, unless enforced upon dissenters. History proves this by showing that the church began to grow corrupt the hour it adopted no-lawism, and in the same hour sought a union with the State, and began to develop the spirit of persecution. No-lawism in religion necessitates either a practical or an organic union of church and State. This union is no less a union de facto for not being a union de jure. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the organic union of church and State, as in Europe, in an age, and among a people like ours, can give as great aid, each to the other, as the practical de facto union, which we call public sentiment.

A prominent example of this was seen for a long time in the case of our great national sin, just expiated, in part, by our late civil war. Slavery would have died of its inherent weakness long before, had it not been upheld by the church and the religious influence of the American public. No national sin can long exist without this, or stand against it. It must be seen, therefore, in view of what the present public feeling is concerning the Sabbath, that so soon as the agitation reaches a point where the popular idea is disturbed or endangered by the dissenters, dissenters will be deemed worthy of being silenced; and not becoming silent, must necessarily be forced into silence, or the authority and power of the church be lost.

Some will say that there is too much intelligence and toleration to admit of legal measures. Such men are taught neither by the history of the past, nor the outcropping spirit of the present. They forget that the activity of public opinion in the South, and its apathy in the North, lately gave us the infamous “fugitive slave bill,” and our corrupt politics gave hundreds of men who were eager to do its dirty, ungodly work. The protest of a few justice-loving men stayed not the tide, and so it swept us down into the maelstrom of civil discord. Such is the future of our present national sin, Sabbath-breaking. It may not develop the same phases of civil war, but it will develop bitter persecution of the faithful, and the final dreadful overthrow to the disobedient. If any one shall insist that “public opinion” is inoperative without statute law, let him remember that nearly or quite every State has now strict laws against the violation of Sunday, while Sabbath-keepers are unmolested only by virtue of certain appended provisions and amendments. Let public opinion, and the voice of the leading denominations of Christians, demand it, and these provisions will be quickly repealed, and the work is done.

There is another element which complicates the question still more, and which will for some time draw the support of the better class of community to the efforts for the punishment of Sunday violation. It is the connection between the Sunday and moral reform, especially the temperance reform. Already good men are blindly reaching in this, the wrong direction, to accomplish the right thing. They do not see that all this no-Sabbathism, and consequently immorality is the legitimate fruit of the course and teachings of the church in her long-continued Sabbath violation; and hence they are struggling with one hand to put out the fire which the other hand kindles. Earnest, consistent Sabbath-keepers are foes of the Sunday, and will be deemed abettors of Sunday immorality wherever they obtain influence; and so men will be found in plenty who will think they do God service in persecuting them. This spirit already exists wherever the influence of Sabbath-keepers is feared. It is not twelve months since a clergyman—a churchman, in the land of Roger Williams—said to me, “Had I the power to make and execute the laws, I should deem it my duty to stop your [Seventh-day Baptists] working on Sunday.” That he would do it, were he able, I have no doubt. It is scarcely twelve months since a Baptist clergyman in the same village said in his own pulpit, and through the public print, words of like import, as will be seen by the following, from the Narragansett Weekly, (Westerly, R. I.,) of Oct. 19, 1865.

“Here it might be added, as a historical fact, that the diversity of practice in Sabbath-keeping has not only given occasion for evil report abroad, but has also given countenance to Sabbath-breaking at home, and has injured not a little the moral and religious tone of the whole community; thus proving that conscientious mistakes are not exempt from their evil consequences. The Sabbatarians are doubtless sincere, but sincerity is not a proof of truth. History has a voice in reference to the Sabbath.” *

“One thing only in the ecclesiastical observances of the town operates detrimentally to the moral and spiritual interests of the people; that is, the diversity of views and practices in regard to the Sabbath. The people of this town have never known that quiet and common respect which belong to the Sabbath, and which are known in many communities. Not a few have been so far demoralized that they sometimes profess to set apart one day and sometimes another, thus subsidizing God’s Institution to their worldly pursuits. By what law of conscience is this possible? Yet this course is pursued even by members of churches. And some observe no day at all, and so cast away the Sabbath entirely. The result of these practices is, that the public sentiment has become clouded and vitiated in respect to the nature and sacredness of the Sabbath Institution. The consciences of multitudes seem stupefied upon this highly important matter. And it is a matter of great moment to a people to have the Sabbath Institution so broken as it is among us. In this matter a very grave responsibility rests somewhere. For so great an injury to the community, there surely ought to be some great compensating good. Such good no one has been able to discover. It is a very serious matter for a class of persons to disturb the public peace, and derange the proper observance of God’s Institution for the spiritual good of all men. It is plainly a question of Christian charity and Christian ethics, whether those who hold to the Sabbatarian views, being in the minority, (one church,) ought not, out of proper regard for the weal of the majority, (five churches,) to form themselves into a community by themselves. We believe in religious liberty, but not in religious annoyance of our neighbors. Our worship was annoyed this day by a steam whistle. It hardly comports with Christian philosophy for one class of men to put stumbling-blocks in the way of others.

“As Sabbatarianism has had in this town a history of nearly two hundred years, during a portion of which time it professed to lead in public opinion, and has thus here had its fullest development in this country, it is due and just that certain historical facts relative to its influence should here be stated, since this will be expected of us, and the fruit of a doctrine is the proof of its character and worth. A careful survey of this history of Sabbatarian views and practice has left on my mind the following conclusions:

The Sabbatarians, though they have manifested constant and remarkable zeal in explaining and promulgating their peculiar views, seem not to have developed any higher type of piety than Christians of the common faith.
They seem not to have been favored above other Christians with intelligence in their worship, or ardor in their devotions, or consistency in their lives, or prosperity in their pursuits.
They seem not to have been superior to the members of other churches in their labors for the conversion of souls, or their Christian offerings for the world’s evangelization.
It is impossible to discover that their peculiar views and practices have produced any higher results upon individuals and churches, and the community, than the faith and practice of other denominations.
It is plain that their views and practices have been prejudicial to the quiet, harmony, and morality of the community, and have dimmed the eyes of men around them in respect to the breadth and spirituality of the Sabbath Institution.

I state these facts reluctantly, and in the mildest phraseology. I must, however, be true to history. I might add, as doubtless I ought, that having carefully weighed the arguments of the Sabbatarians, I am unable to see that they have the support of the Scriptures, or the light of Christian history, or the defence of moral philosophy. And I begin to question how far Christian charity requires us to be silent in respect to sentiments and practices, however conscientiously held by good men, as some of the Sabbatarians are, that have no solid support, and that tend to mar the high character and happy effects of so great and important an Institution as the Sabbath—one of the highest appointments of God for our race.”

What the above shows of the feelings in one locality, where the claims of the Sabbath have been but mildly pressed, is true of other localities, and will continue to be, as men hear more of the truth, and fear it.

All reforms seem to burst upon the world quickly. So this will seem to the unthinking. Nevertheless, the elements have been long at work. This is merely the ripening. Many will yet embrace the truth, and many will refuse even to hear it. When I say it will triumph, I mean to recognize the fact, that “every knee shall bow,” some to the scepter, many to the sword. You and I, my brother, may “die on the field of battle,” before the triumph—may only see the promised land afar off. But it is a glorious death. To die even at the foot of the citadel of error, where our bodies shall become the stepping-stones to those who, coming after us, shall scale the walls, were enough. God grant, that whether we fall in the midst of the fight, or in the full flush of victory, we may die faithful to the truth, triumphing in Him who died and rose again for our justification.

Yours for the truth.

A. H. LEWIS.

Nov. 21, 1866.