Untitled article by F. W. Howe.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 25, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 33

The Sinai-Columbian Christian Sabbath.

By F. W. Howe.

SOME months ago, when the issue of Sunday closing was more in doubt than now, so long ago as December 5, 1891, the Michigan Christian Advocate had this to say in reference to the national duty of Sunday observance:—

We learn that when this same good Being had finished his works of creation, “he rested from all his works which he had made.” “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made.”

From that day to this the children of men in all Christian nations have observed and kept a Christian Sabbath in recognition of the hand of a great and good Creator. And now, strange as it may appear, the sickening spectacle presents itself in this most enlightened Christian Nation on earth of a discussion upon the propriety of closing the Columbian Exposition on the Sabbath. Was there ever a more ludicrous, ridiculous proposition entertained by a pretended Christian people?

Well, scarcely. And there are several reasons why this proposition is not only ludicrous and ridiculous, but disingenuous also. In the first place it is absolutely false that “from that day [the seventh of creation] to this the children of men in all Christian nations have observed and kept a Christian Sabbath.” First, because there has never been a “Christian nation”; second, because there has never been a “Christian Sabbath.” Adam was not the father of a Christian nation; nor did Moses lead out a Christian nation from Egypt to Sinai. Yet the Bible gives no command or authority for any Sabbath except to Adam and in the Decalogue. Hence the only Sabbath which God ever blessed and sanctified was not the “Christian Sabbath” of a “Christian nation,” but the “holy Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”

The only institution which can properly claim the name “Christian” must have been established by the teachings of Christ, and the warrant for it found in the New Testament. This can not be said of Sunday observance. No text can be given as authority or command for it. It is not sufficient to say that it was taught by “the church.” So is the mass, the worship of images, and auricular confession, all of which the Advocate presumably protests against. But the same “holy church” is the only authority for Sunday sacredness and obligation. The true Sabbath is neither “Jewish” nor “Christian,” since it is peculiar to neither dispensation, but was made for man—not by any civil law or ecclesiastical synod, but established by the omnipotent Creator; and his one law has never been abrogated or modified.

No, we agree that there was never a more ludicrous, ridiculous, hypocritical, or blasphemous proposition than that which volunteers to assist the Almighty in the government of the universe by civil legislation intended to compel all men to submit to religious opinions and practice not taught in the Bible. None but “a pretended Christian people” ever venture to attempt it. But the Advocate of this unholy proposition continues:—

And now we propose to have a grand celebration, appropriate millions of money for that purpose, invite the world to a grand banquet to commemorate one of the grandest events in the world's history, and in so doing make ourselves conspicuous by desecrating the Sabbath and setting at defiance the commands of God. And for what? and to please and accommodate whom? The moral and religious, law-abiding element of the Nation, or the saloon, law-breaking and bummer element, the curse of this as well as all other countries subject to its dictation or control?

The Advocate evidently supposed there was only one way of taking the alternative in its last question. As a matter of actual fact—whether it pleased the Advocate or not—the recent action of Congress in reference to Sunday closing does please “the saloon, law-breaking and bummer element” since it has practically yielded this “subject to its dictation and control;” and consequently, this action does and must displease the really “moral and religious, law-abiding element of the Nation.” Perhaps the blind zeal of the Advocate did not foresee this result; but it ought to have done so. In the last number of THE SENTINEL a quotation from the Washington Post states that—

The brewers and saloon men are delighted at the action of Congress in requiring the Exposition to be closed on Sunday, and if necessary they would raise a big amount of cash to have that pernicious piece of legislation enacted. They know that the hordes of people, if debarred from the inspection of exhibits, would seek solace and amusement in the bar-rooms—which will not be closed on Sundays—and augment the revenues of the proprietors by many thousands of dollars. The sporting fraternity, also, advocates the proposition from the same spirit of self-interest that actuates the whisky men.

So there are Chicago advocates that do not even pretend to Christian motives, as well as the Michigan Christian Advocate, all harmoniously working for what can only result in degrading the name of our American civilization and morality—saying nothing of the Christian religion; because genuine Christianity is so chary of the world and its wickedness that it is never betrayed into consorting with vice and iniquity.

And yet this course has been deliberate. The Advocate thus states its determination:—

Let there be united action of the better element of the country. Say to the Congress about to convene, You settle this question by an appropriate resolution at once, or you will never represent an intelligent Christian people again; you will never again appropriate our money to desecrate the Sabbath with. Say to the Christian churches, Takeunited, prompt action and let every Christian family pledge to stay away and not patronize the institution. Give the world to understand that the religious element is a power in this country sufficient at least to cause the Sabbath to be respected by those wielding the Government, if not by individuals.

Let it be remembered that this plan of a religio-political boycott against the open Sunday Fair and all congressmen who should favor it, was inaugurated long before its threatenings became effective in the recent action of Congress. And the end is not yet.

The majority of Americans were, and are still, indifferent, heedless of the danger that threatens individual constitutional liberty, from the arrogant dictation of an ecclesiastic minority. An irretraceable step has been taken to commit the Government of the United States to a systematic course of religious legislation. What shall be the next? National Reformism replies through the mouth of Rev. J. D. Sand, of Pittsburg, “The Church is gaining power continually and its voice will be heard in the future much oftener than in the past.”

Listen to the voice of Christ: “My kingdom is not of this world.” “Not through power, nor with might, but by my Spirit shall mankind be redeemed.” His religion has no place for any scheme of compulsion by civil enactment. The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation,” not the jubilant threat of a legalized religious despotism. Herein is something to be pondered by every genuine Christian; something that should be rousingly significant to every patriotic lover of liberty.

F. W. HOWE.

Ann Arbor, Mich.