Which Day Is Sacred ? by W. W. Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Jan 19, 1905

Which Day Is Sacred ?

By W. W. Prescott

Sabbath Observance in Light of Decree of Spires

Reply to Bishop Satterlee

Seventh-day Adventists Rest Their Case on Famous Protest Against Civil Intrusion and Arbitrary Church Commands—The Principles in Which Protestantism Had Its Birth

UNDER these headings there was printed in the Washington Post of January 7 an open letter written by the editor of the REVIEW to Bishop Satterlee, of Washington, who had replied to the “Appeal to Clergy” which was printed in the last issue of this paper. The general tenor of the bishop’s letter can be seen from the quotations made, and from the whole trend of the reply. The editor’s letter is as follows:—

The Right Rev. Henry Y. Satterlee, Bishop of Washington.

DEAR SIR: Referring to your letter of Dec. 30, 1904, printed in the Washington Post of December 31, we beg to say that we greatly appreciate the Christian spirit in which you have replied to our former letter, and that it is only love for the pure gospel of apostolic times, for our brethren in the ministry, and for those who look both to you and to us to be “ensamples to the flock,” which prompts some consideration of the two points in your communication to which you courteously invite our attention.

Your first point is stated as follows:— “The first, the sociological point of view, relates to the enactment of Sunday laws by the civil authorities. Apart from all Christian association whatever, whether emanating from the Old or the New Testament, the institution of the American Sunday has been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States to be part of the common law of the land.”

The conclusion which you drew from this point, after dwelling upon “the necessity of a weekly day of rest,” and the benefits derived from such an institution, runs thus:— “Whatever our own personal wishes and convictions may be, it is the part of true patriots who love their country, who would cling to the institutions which have been handed down to us from colonial days by our American forefathers, to join with the rest of our fellow countrymen, as with one heart

and one mind, in espousing the cause of those beneficent laws which are enacted regarding the American Sunday as an American institution.”

The second point to which you call our attention is “the religious one.” After reciting certain events which are recorded in the New Testament as having occurred on the first day of the week, but which furnish no authoritative basis for the change of the Sabbath, and after appealing to “the early Christian writers of the first three centuries,” usually called the Church Fathers, you state the ground upon which Sunday observance rests, in these words:— “Not by any statute law did this observance of the first day of the week become general, but through the free working of that universal Christian consciousness which constitutes the real authority of the church.”

Put into brief and direct form, we understand the points to be these:—

First: Inasmuch as “the American Sunday has been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a part of the common law of the land,” it is the duty of every citizen of this country to regard his “personal wishes and convictions” as entirely subordinate to the authority of the magistrate, and to join those who have no convictions on the subject “in espousing the cause of those beneficent laws which are enacted regarding the American Sunday.”

Second: From the fact that certain events are recorded in the New Testament as having occurred on the first day of the week, the very large conclusion is drawn that, contrary to the custom of centuries and the direct command of God, “the first day of the week is mentioned as the day that was loved and kept sacred,” and it is further declared that this observance became general “not by any statute law,” but “through the free working of that universal Christian consciousness which constitutes the real authority of the church.”

It seems to us, dear sir and brother, that the best answer we can make to these points is, passing over much which might be said concerning some of the things which you assert that “every reader of the New Testament knows,” to quote some history which appears to us to be pertinent to the case in hand.

The evangelical princes in attendance upon the Diet of Spires decided, says D’Aubigne in his History of the Reformation, “to appeal from the report of the Diet to the Word of God, and from the Emperor Charles to Jesus Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords.”

One of the reasons given why they could not consent to the decree of the Diet is found in the following paragraph:— “Because it concerns the glory of God and the salvation of our souls, and in such matters we ought to have regard, above all, to the commandment of God, who is King of kings and Lord of lords; each of us rendering his account for himself, without caring the least in the world about majority or minority.”

The closing paragraphs of their famous protest are as follows:— “Moreover the new edict declaring the ministers shall preach the gospel, explaining it according to the writings accepted by the holy Christian church; we think that, for this regulation to have any value, we should first agree on what is meant by the true and holy church. Now, seeing that there is great diversity of opinion in this respect; that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine; that each text in the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts; that this holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness: we are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as is contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God.”

“For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we PROTEST by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to his holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires.

“At the same time we are in expectation that his imperial majesty will behave toward us like a Christian prince who loves God above all things; and we declare ourselves ready to pay unto him, as well as unto you, gracious lords, all the affection and obedience that are our just and legitimate duty.”

In his comments upon this protest, D’Aubigne, the historian of the Reformation, says:— “Thus, in the presence of the Diet, spoke out these courageous men whom Christendom will henceforward denominate THE PROTESTANTS. . . . “The principles contained in this celebrated protest of the 19th April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith: the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate, and the second the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate; and the authority of the Word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles: We must obey God rather than man. In presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ. But it goes further: it lays down the principle that all human teaching should be subordinate to the Word of God. Even the primitive church, by recognizing the writings of the apostles, had performed an act of submission to this supreme authority, and not an act of authority, as Rome maintains; and the establishment of a tribunal charged with the interpretation of the Bible, had terminated only in slavishly subjecting man to man in what should be most unfettered—conscience and faith. In this celebrated act of Spires no doctor appears, and the Word of God reigns alone.”

In this remarkable protest, which sets forth divine principles with such clearness and force, Protestantism had its birth. And in appealing, as you do, first “to the enactment of Sunday laws by the civil authorities,” and second to “that universal Christian consciousness which constitutes the real authority of the church,” as the ground for urging us to join in an effort to secure the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, in direct opposition to the commandment of God which says that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” it appears that you are repudiating what D’Aubigne declares to be “the very essence of Protestantism.”

Will you pardon us if we quote, as applicable to the present situation, a sentence or two from Luther’s stirring letter to Henry VIII? “By the grace of God, king of England and France, defender of the faith, and lord of Ireland:” “For me, I cease not to cry, ‘The gospel! the gospel! Christ! Christ!’ While my opponents cease not to reply ‘Customs! customs! ordinances! ordinances! Fathers! Fathers!’ Let your faith, says St. Paul, stand not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

In our former letter we invited the attention of the ministers of Washington to the pure teaching of the Word of God as it relates to the question of Sabbath observance. We beg you to consider the fact that the disagreement is not between the Seventh-day Adventist ministers and the ministers of other denominations, but between those who advocate the observance of Sunday as a holy day and a plain “Thus saith the Lord” which requires the observance of another day. If there is any controversy, it will be with the Word of God, and not with us.

We renew our statement made at the close of the former letter: “If any position here set forth is not in harmony with the truth, we shall be glad to have it pointed out from the Scriptures. We desire only the truth.”

In behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist ministers of Washington, I beg to remain, Yours sincerely and with great respect, W. W. Prescott,