Your ShelfYour Projects

The Closing Messages

4%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 8, 1870

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 35, No. 12.

Read the full edition

The Closing Messages

By Roswell F. Cottrell

The Closing Messages.—No. 27.

We showed that the United States is filling out the prophetic description of the two-horned beast of Rev. 13:11–18; and that a demand is now being made of the people of this government that they should make an image of the Papal beast, i. e., that there should be a union of church and state, so that the most generally-received religious teachings shall gain the support of civil law—a thing which human ordinances always need, to supply the lack of the divine sanction. We proved that this was now being urged; and we promised to show that legislation is now being called for upon the very point of religious doctrine that will constitute the mark of the beast. Having shown that God expressly claims the Sabbath as his sign, and that the beast presents its act of “changing the Sabbath into Sunday,” as the sign of his power and authority, we proceed to the proof that legislation is now being urgently demanded in favor of this particular institution.
Dr. Durbin, in the Christian Advocate and Journal, speaks of a time coming when the civil power will enforce the sentiments of the church by law. He says:
“I infer, therefore, that the civil magistrate may not be called upon to enforce the observance of the Sabbath (Sunday), as required in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but, when Christianity becomes the moral and spiritual life of the state, the state is bound through her magistrates to prevent the open violation of the holy Sabbath, as a measure of self-preservation. She cannot, without injuring her own vitality, and incurring the Divine displeasure, be recreant to her duty in this matter.”
The American Presbyterian gives the following hint of what may be looked for:
“Gentlemen, managers of the Republican party, we do not ask you to put the Sabbath or Prohibition on your banners, however much these watchwords would honor them; the time may come when that, too, must and will be done; but we warn you, in the name of the six million members of evangelical churches in this country, representing a population three times as great, that the moment you dare, for the sake of conciliating a body of infidel foreigners, not one tenth as numerous, to write an antichristian sentiment on your banners, you will betray a fatuity, &c.”
The N. Y. Evangelist, in 1854, said:
“The principle that Christianity is recognized by the state as something which essentially belongs to it, gives us, we think, the true and simple basis, upon which the laws relating to the observance of the Sabbath, are to be enforced. The law throws its protection round the sacredness and quiet of the first day of the week, not because it recognizes it as a sacred day in itself considered, but for other reasons.”
The N. Y. Observer, of Aug. 23, 1860, gives an account of a large and enthusiastic meeting held at Saratoga Springs, the object of which was to consider the subject of effecting measures to secure laws for the observance of Sunday. Hon. Millard Fillmore, Ex-President of the U. S., was president of the meeting:
“On his right sat Gov. Buckingham, of Connecticut, and Hon. J. W. Beekman, of New York, and on his left, Gov. Morgan, of New York, and the Hon. W. C. Alexander, of New Jersey, representatives (with the honored chairman of the meeting) of the three great political parties.”
It seems that the only point on which they could all unite, was the demand for a universal Sunday law. Of this large concourse of people, the reporter says:—
“Probably no two men thought exactly alike on any other subject. Doubtless, all did not agree as to the grounds on which public action should be taken, or as to the extent to which that action should be pushed. But I have no question from the tone of the meeting, and from casual remarks I overheard, that, if it had been put to vote, it would have been resolved by acclamation that our American Christian Sabbath—the precious birthright of our national independence—must and shall be preserved.”
At a five-days’ session of the Washtenaw Christian Convention called by the pastors of all evangelical churches in the county, in January, 1868, the necessity of Sunday laws was taken up and ably discussed.
Rev. J. W. Erdman remarked: “The United States is founded on the principle of the sanctity of the Sabbath, and, if its observances are disregarded, the nation is doomed to early destruction. It [Sunday] should be observed, even if it be necessary to make and enforce strict Sunday laws.*”
Rev. Mr. Hickey said: “Unless the sacredness of the day is respected, the liberties of the American people will not endure.”
Rev. J. Dwellie, of Ypsilanti, remarked that “political papers which will not sustain prohibition and the Christian Sabbath should not be patronized by Christian men.”
“Rev. J. S. Smart declared that the Republican party had lost the late elections by their abandonment of the sacredness of the Sabbath and of the temperance cause. Unless it stood up for both, he urged all Christian men to abandon the party. He asserted that the Sabbath was as dear to the American citizens as any institution which they possessed, and that if necessary, they would shed blood in its defense as freely as they had during the war.”
An association has just been formed for the purpose of securing the adoption of certain measures for the amending of the National Constitution so that it shall speak out the religious views of the majority, and especially, to enforce Sunday-keeping under the popular name of “Christian Sabbath.” It is called the “National Association,” and its officers are a long array of Reverends, D. D.’s, Honorables, Esquires, &c. In their address, they say, “Men of high standing, in every walk of life, of every section of the country, and of every shade of political sentiment and religious belief, have concurred in the measure.”
In their appeal, they most earnestly request every lover of his country to join in forming auxiliary associations, circulate documents, attend conventions, sign the memorial to Congress, &c., &c.
In their plea for an amended Constitution, they ask the people to “consider that God is not once named in our National Constitution. There is nothing in it which requires an ‘oath of God,’ as the Bible styles it (which, after all, is the great bond both of loyalty in the citizen and of fidelity in the magistrate); nothing which requires the observance of the day of rest and of worship, or which requests its sanctity. If we do not have the mails carried and the post offices open on Sunday, it is because we happen to have a Postmaster-General who respects the day. If our Supreme Courts are not held, and if Congress does not sit on that day, it is custom, and not law, that makes it so. Nothing in the Constitution gives Sunday quiet to the Custom house, the Navy Yard, the Barracks, or any of the Departments of Government.”
“Consider that they fairly express the mind of the great body of the American people. This is a Christian people. These amendments agree with the faith, the feelings, and the forms of every Christian church or sect. The Catholic and the Protestant, the Unitarian and the Trinitarian, profess and approve all that is here proposed. Why should their wishes not become law? Why should not the Constitution be made to suit and to represent a constituency so overwhelmingly in the majority? This great majority is becoming daily more conscious, not only of their rights, but of THEIR POWER. Their number grows, and their column becomes more solid. They have quietly, steadily opposed infidelity until it has, at least, become politically unpopular. They have asserted the rights of man and the rights of the Government until the nation’s faith has become measurably fixed and declared on these points. And now that the close of the war gives us occasion to amend our Constitution, that it may clearly and fully represent the mind of the people on these points, they feel that it should also be so amended as to recognize the rights of God in man and in government. Is it anything but due to their long patience that they be at length allowed to STRIKE OUT the great facts and principles which give to all government its dignity, stability, and beneficence?”
Sunday is called the Christian Sabbath. If it be a Christian institution, an ordinance of the Christian church, why enforce it by law rather than baptism or the Lord’s supper?
Again, it is generally said that the divine law of the Sabbath does not bind men to any particular day; that any one day in seven fully answers the requirement of the fourth commandment. Then why not allow all to rest when they choose and labor when they please?
But the peace and order of community make it necessary that all should observe the same day.
Sunday legislation, then, is to supply a defect in the divine law! Had God foreseen and appreciated the wants of community, he certainly would have specified a particular day. But, seriously, has he not appointed the day?—and is not this legislation subversive of his requirement? But it will carry. God has forewarned us that the image of the beast will be made, and that the mark of the Papal authority will be enforced. Then persecution will rage against those who, in obedience to the heavenly message, keep the commandments of God. My friend, on which side will you be found? R. F. COTTRELL.