p. 3 | Some Interesting Correspondence

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 7, 1906

Some Interesting Correspondence

AN organized effort has been inaugurated in England to secure the better observance of Sunday. In the interest of this movement a conference was appointed to be held in London, May 9, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury promised to preside. In view of the fact that the promoters of this conference desired that it should represent the convictions shared by “the entire Christian community,” our brethren in London felt it proper that they should express themselves concerning the question at issue, and they accordingly addressed the following letter to the chairman of the conference:—

APRIL 18, 1906.

YOUR GRACE: In view of the conference on Sunday observance, to be held in Caxton Hall on the ninth of May at which Your Grace is to preside, and in view of the proposal that the said conference should “represent all sections of the Christian people of this country,” we beg respectfully to call your attention to the existence of a small, but growing body of Christians in this country, which is unable to reconcile Sunday observance with Bible teaching.

This body of Christians, known as “Seventh-day Adventists,” is profoundly convinced of the sacredness and obligation of the Sabbath and of its moral and physical benefits. These, however, by the rest, the blessing, and the sanctification of God (Gen. 2: 1-3), by the tremendous authority of the law that was spoken with his own voice (Ex. 20: 10-11), as well as by the example and precept of Christ (Matt. 24: 20) and of his apostles (Acts 13: 42-44), are essentially and permanently associated with the seventh day and with the seventh day only.

The institution of the seventh-day Sabbath is founded in the facts of creation, and therefore must be as far-reaching and as enduring as the creation itself. This view of the Sabbath is confirmed by the declaration of Christ, that “the Sabbath, was made for man” (Mark 2: 27), and by the words of Isaiah, that as long as the new earth should endure, all flesh should come up to the worship of God, Sabbath by Sabbath. Isa. 66: 22-23.

This very positive and authoritative teaching concerning the Sabbath, demands that an equally positive statement should be as authoritatively proclaimed, if there is to be any break or change in the observance of the Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists have searched the Bible in vain for any hint of a change. Of the eight texts that refer to the first day of the week, six name it in connection with the resurrection; the one in Acts 20: 7 speaks of a Saturday-night service followed by a Sunday spent in traveling; and 1 Cor. 16: 2 enjoins the laying by of a sum of money in store, according as God had prospered the giver, in which instruction there is no hint of a sacred day, but a possibility of prolonged investigation of accounts. The title “Lord’s day,” used by John, can only, when interpreted Scripturally, be applied to the day definitely claimed by the Lord as his.

Since no command of any kind is to be found in the Bible enjoining any degree of observance of the first day of the week as a day of rest, the observance or non-observance of Sunday must surely be, at best, among the doubtful questions concerning which the Apostle Paul exhorts us not to judge or despise one another. It is far otherwise with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which remains unaltered and unalterable. Every time the ten commandments are read in our national church, solemn witness is borne to this fact, and the words of Jehovah accuse his people of a great transgression.

Is it not significant in this era of Bible distribution, of foreign missions, of abounding religious activity, that there should be such a decreasing regard for Sunday as to call for corporate religious protest? May there not be some fundamental weakness in the institution, that it thus demands support? Would it not be well, now that all sections of the religious world have been awakened to the importance of the question, that the forth-coming conference should consider afresh whether the church has been justified or well-advised in turning from the original day of rest on which God’s blessing had been set, and which he himself had sanctified, for a day which, however high its claims in other respects, was never designed by God as a day of rest?

The report of the advisory committee appointed by Your Grace emphasizes the importance of proceeding along lines of spiritual activity. Now that calls are being heard from many quarters for more stringent legislation in behalf of Sunday observance, would it not be fitting that Your Grace should publicly discourage such a spirit? When the church claims for itself liberty to vary the law of God regarding Sabbath observance, it can not consistently join in a movement to impose the day of its selection upon others by legal compulsion. In view of these considerations, and for the fuller representation of Christian thought at the conference, and in the interests of Scriptural Sabbath observance, we beg to ask in good faith, on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventists of this country, that Your Grace will give us permission to state concisely, at the conference, the position which we hold in the matter of Sunday observance.

We are, etc.

To the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Christian spirit manifested in this letter and the forcible appeal to Bible authority ought to make a deep impression upon every candid mind, but, of course, it was plain that Sunday observance could not be promoted by a candid consideration of the teaching of the Scriptures concerning the Sabbath. The Bishop of Croydon therefore replied to the letter thus:—

APRIL 24, 1906.

DEAR SIR: The Archbishop of Canterbury has placed the arrangements of the details of the conference which is to be held on May 9 in the hands of a committee, and has therefore handed to me, as chairman of his advisory committee, your letter of the eighteenth inst., with the request that it should be considered and answered.

May I say that as this conference has been convened for the better observance of Sunday, as a day of rest and worship, it would be impossible to consider the particular question which your letter suggests.

I am, etc.

The Bishop of Croydon was technically correct in his position. A conference committed to the promotion of Sunday observance could not, with safety to its success, discuss the Biblical authority for the change of the Sabbath. To do so would inevitably imperil the issue of the whole movement. Sunday observance and the Bible do not agree well together.

The correspondence closed with the following note to the bishop:—

APRIL 30, 1906.

MY LORD BISHOP: I beg to thank you for your letter of the twenty-fourth inst.

I regret your decision that it would be impossible to consider at the conference the question whether Sunday comes to us with any divine authority to displace the Sabbath as a day of rest. It seems to me that this consideration is all-important in any appeal addressed to the conscience in behalf of a better observance of Sunday.

May I protest that the conference will not be truly representative of Christian thought if a plea, founded solely on the Word of God, is denied expression therein, and if the fact that there are Christians who honestly regard the seventh day of the week as the only divinely authorized rest-day is suppressed at the conference.

I ask, therefore, for the sake of a fuller understanding of the existing situation on the part of those who are present, that, at least, you will read, or cause to be read, at the conference, my letter to the Archbishop.

I am, etc.

Among the many thousand readers of The Present Truth, in which this correspondence was published, will certainly be found some who will be led to investigate the Sabbath truth by reading these letters. It does not require the wisdom of an archbishop, or even of a bishop, to discern that Sunday observance does not rest upon any Bible authority. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”