THE STATESMAN ARTICLES

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 18, 1873

THE STATESMAN ARTICLES.

The readers of the Review will remember that Bro. W. H. Littlejohn lately wrote a series of seven articles on “The Constitutional Amendment, or the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change and the Restitution,” which were published in the Christian Statesman, of Philadelphia, Pa. These articles appeared in the Review, Vol. xl., Nos. 19–26. After they were finished, the editor of the Statesman replied to them in his paper. His replies are just finished; and in response to his courtesy in admitting Bro. L.’s articles into the Statesman, we now propose to let the readers of the Review see what he has to say in reply. To each of his articles Bro. L. will append a rejoinder, so that all can see how well the positions of the Statesman will stand the test of criticism. This investigation has in hand the great practical issue of the Sabbath question, as related to the future political action of this government, and, as such, will be pursued with interest by all our readers. The following is the Statesman’s first article:—

SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.

We have given not a little space to the argument against the Christian Amendment of our National Constitution from the standpoint of the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath. This argument, in brief, is this: The proposed amendment, in its practical working, is intended to secure the better observance of the first day of the week, as the civil Sabbath. But the Bible, the revealed law of God, it is affirmed, contains no warrant either for individual or national observance of the first day of the week. The amendment, therefore, it is maintained, should not be favored, but earnestly opposed, by those who acknowledge the supreme authority of the law of the Bible. This, it will be seen at a glance, is no argument against the principle of the proposed amendment. On the other hand, it bases itself on that very principle, viz., that it is the bounden duty of the nation to acknowledge the authority of God, and take his revealed word, as the supreme rule of its conduct. The argument, therefore, instead of being directed against the amendment itself, is directed almost entirely against the interpretation of the divine law of the Scriptures, which fixes the Christian Sabbath on the first day of the week.

We consented to admit to our columns a short series of brief articles presenting an argument against the amendment. Pressing the lines of courtesy and fairness far beyond the limits of our agreement, we have, in fact, admitted many long articles, the burden of which has been to show that there is no warrant in the word of God for the observance of the first day of the week, as the Sabbath of divine appointment. We shall expect equal generosity from the journals of our seventh-day Sabbatarian friends.

The amendment proposed is in substance as follows: An acknowledgment of God as the ultimate source of all power and authority in civil government; of Jesus Christ as ruler of nations; and of the Bible as the fountain of law, and the supreme rule of national conduct. Let this be distinctly borne in mind. We have here a clear assertion of the very principles for which the seventh-day Sabbatarian most strenuously contends.

Just here we would take occasion to say that even if the proposed amendment contained an express acknowledgment, in so many words, of the first-day Sabbath, and if the argument for the seventh-day Sabbath were a perfect demonstration, there would still be, on that account, as matters actually stand in our land at present, no valid objection against such explicit Constitutional acknowledgment of the first-day.

Suppose a company of the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, going forth as missionaries, should discover, in a distant sea, an island inhabited by a people in many respects highly civilized, possessing a portion of the Bible, and observing one day in seven, say the fourth day of the week, as a day of rest and worship of the true God, and acknowledging it as such in their Constitution of government. Suppose that in the same island should be found a large and active minority, thoroughly infidel and atheistic, striving in every way to overturn the Sabbath. The missionaries, perceiving much room and opportunity for doing good to the people, settle among them, and seek, among many things, to change the Sabbath to what they regard as the proper day. In what way would they attempt to accomplish this? Would they permit themselves for a moment to be classed with the infidel and atheistic opponents of the Sabbath? Would they not stand side by side with those who defended the Sabbath observances of the country against the attacks of immoral and unbelieving enemies of all Christian institutions?

If these missionaries were advocates of the first-day Sabbath, and we were of the number, for our part, this is what we would do. We would practice for ourselves the observance of what we are persuaded is the Christian Sabbath. We would multiply and scatter abroad copies of the entire Bible, and seek to convince the people and the nation, that God’s law requires the observance of the first day. In the meantime, confident that, by the blessing of the Head of the church, the circulation of the divine word and the proclamation of its truths would at length change the conviction of the islanders, we should say to them: “Do not cease to observe a day of rest and worship. To have one such a day in every seven is right. Do not blot out its acknowledgment from the Constitution. You need its legal safeguards. True, there is no divine warrant for the observance of the fourth day of the week instead of the first. But a fourth-day Sabbath is better than no Sabbath at all. We will help you to preserve from the assaults of our common enemies the observances of the Sabbath, that you may have them to transfer, as we urge you to do, to the first-day of the week.” Would the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath do otherwise, except in substituting the seventh day for the first?

And now let us take the actual, corresponding case in our own land. The great mass of Christians here, as elsewhere, regard the first day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. Admit, for the sake of the illustration, that they have no better ground for their opinion than the islanders mentioned above. Is it not right for them to have a day of rest and worship? Is it not right for them to observe one such a day in seven? Is it maintained that, because the day is not the proper one, there is and can be nothing right about these Sabbath observances? Then, if all is wrong, it must be better to have no Sabbath at all, and utterly secularize the week. This our seventh-day friends cannot and will not admit. They gladly testify that our first-day Sabbath, poorly as it may be observed, is infinitely to be preferred to the unbroken current of the worldliness of the week. A Sabbathless week; successive rounds of equally secularized days, marked, if marked at all, by the recurrence of days of unusual worldly gayety and dissipation; this is what infidelity and atheism would give us for the existing Sabbath. Do the friends of the seventh-day Sabbath desire any such substitution? Their argument against the proposed amendment, on the ground that it expressly or impliedly contains an acknowledgment of the first-day Sabbath, is, that it will enforce existing Sabbath laws, and strengthen first-day Sabbath observances. But is it not better to do this than accept the dread alternative? Even from this point of view, then, we claim for the proposed amendment, what in some cases it has actually and, we believe, most consistently received, the approval and support of seventh-day Sabbatarians.

But we return to the form of the proposed amendment. It expresses, as it should, only the most fundamental principles. It asserts the duty of the nation to acknowledge God in Christian relations. It recognizes the Bible as the fountain of the nation’s laws, and the supreme rule of its conduct. Now, if we were among either the first-day or the seventh-day missionaries, in the case of the islanders already referred to, such a national acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible is just exactly what we would desire. If the islanders had this principle, as has been supposed, incorporated into their written Constitution, we could ask for nothing more advantageous for our missionary work. If they had it not, and certain citizens were laboring to secure its insertion by an amendment of the instrument, we would most assuredly accord these laborers our heartiest encouragement and support. We should suspect ourselves of prejudice, or rather of a deficiency in good common sense, if we found ourselves inclined to pursue an opposite course. Believing that God’s law requires the observance of another day than the fourth, how could we reasonably do anything else than co-operate and rejoice in the work of leading such a people to acknowledge the supreme authority of that law, and to register their purpose in the fundamental instrument of their government, to adjust all national affairs according to its requirements?

And now, what can be said of our seventh-day Sabbatarian brethren? Are they not inconsistent? They proclaim the duty of the nation to acknowledge “the highest of all laws.” So far we are agreed. They maintain that the Bible is that law. Here, too, we are at one. And yet they—not all of them, we are happy to state—oppose a movement which aims to secure in the organic law and life of the nation a sincere, reverent, and obedient acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible—an acknowledgment which forecloses discussion on no question on which Christians or others may differ, but which brings the final appeal in all national controversies to the tribunal of the unerring word of God.

The inconsistency of this attitude of opposition to the Christian Amendment cannot create unfavorable presumptions in regard to the soundness of judgment of any who may occupy it. An attack from so weak a point upon the Constitutional acknowledgment of the Christian Scriptures, it will be generally felt, does not betoken a very formidable assault upon the Sabbath of the Christian church. And yet, notwithstanding this, to our mind, exceedingly unfortunate connection, we would bear cheerful testimony to the fact that the articles we have inserted, so far as they are an argument against the first-day Sabbath, and this is manifestly the point which the writer had principally in view, contain a clear, calm, courteous, and attractively written presentation of one side of a very important subject. We shall present the other side of the question in succeeding issues of this journal.

“SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.”

A REJOINDER.

We have debated for some time in our own mind the propriety of attempting an answer to the strictures, if such they may be called, upon our articles on the Constitutional Amendment. Having decided, however, that they contain a show of logic which might deceive the careless reader, we have at last determined to give them a notice commensurate with the importance they assume, if not from their intrinsic merit, at least from the distinguished source whence they emanate.

Before doing this, we take pleasure in acknowledging the generosity of their author in allowing us to discuss in the columns of his paper the subject from a standpoint of a nature calculated to dampen rather than stimulate the ardor of his readers in the work in which, with him, they are engaged. From the outset, we have discovered no disposition to take any advantage by which the full effect of what we had to say might in any way be lessened. On the contrary, our attention has several times been called to our communications, as being worthy of perusal by all.

Having said thus much in reference to the treatment we received at the hands of the editor of the Statesman up to the time of the completion of the publication of our articles, we shall be pardoned for expressing our surprise at finding ourselves, in his first reply, standing somewhat in the attitude of one who had taken advantage of the indulgence shown him, to present a line of argument different from that proposed at the beginning.

It is possible that we have mistaken the design of the statements to which we allude. This we hope may prove to be the case; for, so far as we are concerned, individually, we have covered the precise ground which we designed to at the first. If the editor of the Statesman has found himself disappointed, either in the nature or the length of the argument, he is to blame, and not we.

1. Because, so far as the matter of length is concerned, we stated to him that we should leave that entirely “with his magnanimity, convinced that he would not cut us short in our work so long as what we had to say was pointed, gentlemanly, and of such a nature as to bear forcibly upon the question at issue between us.”

2. As it regards the scope of the articles, we stated, unqualifiedly, that we should treat the subject from the standpoint of an observer of the seventh-day, appealing to the Bible for our authority. Nor were we content with declaring our plan of opposition by letter, but we went so far as to give, in the caption of our articles themselves, an outline of the order in which we should treat the subject. It was as follows: “The Constitutional Amendment; or the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and the Restitution.” In it, as will be observed, is exactly set forth the manner in which we discussed the propriety of the amendment; (1) Showing the emptiness of the claims of the Sunday.

(2) The force and obligation of those of the seventh-day. (3) The manner in which the change of days occurred, and (4) The work which God has inaugurated for the purpose of bringing about the Restitution.

Thus much by way of personal acknowledgment and explanation.

We turn now to the criticism proper upon our argument.

First, There is an attempt to state the positions which we assumed to prove.

In reply, it is sufficient to say that it is deficient in one very important particular. That particular relates to our proposition that God himself has inaugurated a movement entirely outside of, and opposed to, the Constitutional Amendment party, for the purpose of bringing about a Sabbath reform in his own way. For proof of this, we appeal to our last article in full. It is, to say the least, not a little remarkable that the editor of the Statesman should have overlooked this point in our communications, since a perception of it would have saved him the perpetration of the great mistake which he has made, as we shall see hereafter.

Secondly, It is intimated that the proposed amendment is not necessarily connected with the Sabbath question; and that, therefore, observers of the seventh day should unite with those of the first in securing its passage, which, being done, the differences between them could be settled at leisure.

Now we confess to not a little surprise that such a position should be taken by a gentleman of so much candor and penetration as the editor of the Statesman. Have we then been deceived up to this point? Is it true that Sunday observance has not heretofore been represented as something of vital importance to the nation, to be secured, and only secured, by the alteration of the Constitution as proposed? Have these gentlemen not been really in earnest when they have appealed to the strong love of the people for the strict observance of what they have been pleased to call the Sabbath, in their endeavors to arouse them to the significance of their movement? If they have not, then they are unworthy of public confidence, and should henceforth be cast down from the leadership of a great party, which boasts, not only its morality, but also its Christianity.

Let us see, then, whether the amendment, which is now in their hands, is, or is not, by their own confession, to be employed in the interest of Sunday observance.

That the Christian Statesman is a fair exponent of the opinions and intentions of the leading spirits in the movement for the amendment, we think no one will have the hardihood to deny. What it advocates and favors, then, is destined to stand or fall with the triumph or defeat of the men who speak through it. Turning to the prospectus of the identical copy of the Statesman, which contains the criticism which we are reviewing, we find the following statement: “The design of this paper, as its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of civil government in the light of Christianity. It has been established to advocate the proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At the same time, it will aid in maintaining all existing Christian features in our civil institutions, in particular, laws against the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,” &c.

We might pause here, but in a matter of this importance let us make certainty doubly certain.

It was strange that the writer should have made the assertion which he did, with the prospectus from which we have quoted, before him. It is passing strange that—as if guided by a Providence which had doomed him to make a complete exposure of his real sentiments, although in so doing his own consistency should be involved—he should, within two weeks from the penning of the above assertion, go back upon the files of his periodical for two years, and reprint by way of emphasis, according to his own statement, the following editorial, which forever settles the point that he believes and knows that the amendment and Sunday-keeping are destined to be joined together in a common victory. As the reader peruses this editorial, let him bear in mind the fact that it is not the effusion of an excited and exasperated man, but the expression of a deep and settled conviction which has once found utterance, and which so perfectly expresses the real sentiments of its

author, that after years of deliberate reflection, he felt the truth of what he had said so forcibly that he was constrained to give it fresh utterance. Let him also note the fact that the italics are not our own, but those of the editor. We regret that we have not space to give it in full, and invite those who can do so, by all means to turn to the copy of the Statesman which contains it, and read it for themselves.

“Time for the meeting of Congress, Two years ago we printed the following telegram, dated at Washington, on Sabbath, Dec. 4, and commented on it in the following terms, which we now emphatically repeat: ‘The trains yesterday and to-day brought large accessions to the number of Congressmen and visitors already here, and by to-morrow morning it is expected that nearly every Senator and member will have arrived.’ Thus the fact is heralded over the whole country that a large number of the members of the National Congress openly and wantonly indulge in common travel on the Sabbath. And there are other reflections suggested by their conduct.

“1. Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation. The interests of a nation can never be safe in the hands of Sabbath-breakers, and every one of these Congressmen has done that for which, if our laws were right, he ought to be impeached and removed.”

“2. The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from other crimes, and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.”

“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”—Christian Statesman, Vol. 6, No. 15.

Now let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of practical bearing, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not splitting hairs as to what consistency would demand under certain circumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest degree probable that a party represented by men who express beforehand sentiments like those contained in the above editorial, would, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion of all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of argument employed above that which would compel them to this action, since it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State responsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore, is it not promised, in so many words, that if the amendment is carried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that all offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by a public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate the Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust?

Thirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the amendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should not prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it is better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the hands of atheists.

Before debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in mind that what I have said in the Statesman, as well as what I now say, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a Seventh-day Adventist.

So far as our Seventh-day Baptist friends are concerned, we have no disposition to hold them responsible for the views which we, as Adventists, hold. But so far as it regards our relation to this subject, it is materially affected by these considerations. A failure to discern this has led the gentleman into very absurd positions. When he attempts

to make a Seventh-day Adventist conscience, he must form it upon a Seventh-day Adventist model. Before he can do this, all his bright visions of a temporal millennium and good days to come, must vanish into thin air. To say, as he does, that common sense would teach him to pursue a certain line of conduct, is one thing; to say that, did he occupy the position which we hold, common sense would teach him to do the same, is another, and entirely different thing. Let it be borne in mind, therefore, that we are not now discussing the proposition whether we ought to be Seventh-day Adventists, but, taking the ground which he has chosen, whether as Adventists we ought to support the proposed amendment. This being done, we are ready to inquire, What is the peculiar faith of the people in question? We answer, 1st, They believe that Jesus Christ is about to come in the clouds of heaven. 2d, That they represent a body of believers which the Lord is raising up in order that they may lift the standard of his downtrodden law and Sabbath, as one around which those who will be ready to hail him at his appearance, though few in numbers, will ultimately be gathered. 3d, That, in the light of prophecy, those who thus break away from the errors of the papacy are in danger of persecution, not from infidels and atheists, bad as they may be, but from those who, in the guise of religion, shall, without warrant from God, endeavor to enforce by statute law the observance of a day which finds no authority in the word of God, but has for its support simply the dictum of the man of sin. 4th, That the very body of men whose appearance in this country they have for twenty years so confidently predicted, as being the ones who should do the work in question, have actually appeared, and are inaugurating the campaign which is very soon to be waged with unrelenting fury against those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

All these features of their faith were shadowed forth in our communications in the Statesman.

With this understanding, how utterly empty and infelicitous is the logic of our friend. Take, for example, his chosen illustration of the islanders. There is in it hardly a single point apropos to the case in hand.

1. The island to which the missionaries are supposed to go is one in which, according to his statement, the fourth-day Sabbath is already acknowledged as such in their Constitution of government, and therefore carries with it the sanction and authority of statute law; whereas, with us there is no such Constitutional acknowledgment.

2. In the case of the islanders, their mistake in the selection of the day is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in possession of only a part of the Bible, and their remedy was to be found in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our opponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from childhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry who are leading the movement in question plead ignorance of the line of argument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since for at least two hundred years it has been iterated and reiterated, until their familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved, not only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining and imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who, having conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy the privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of working on the first day of the week.

3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the point of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every vestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above, the danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not to be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but from those who, according to Paul, having “a form of Godliness,” shall “deny the power thereof.” In other words, who, while accepting the Scriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as in the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the seventh day which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has never claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man.

With this statement of our views, further remark is called for. We think that even our reviewer will now perceive that before he could bring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three above, it would be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the system of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task which our opponent, judging from the line of argument which he has thus far pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he has become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the work in which we are engaged.

Fourthly, It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with infidels and atheists.

So far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally found to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right, regardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with God. The individual who would desert sound principles because some wicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with him, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question, who is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an erroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our friends, because in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges their devotion to the Bible in its strict construction. Is it then from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be we think we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever they attempt to “fawn upon us overmuch,” we will preach to them the law of God, Sabbath and all, and my word for it, they will themselves shortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and distinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in discerning it. For it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it formerly was, that the “carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The infidel of the present day hates that law with a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the large body of first-day observers—we are happy to say not of the Statesman school—who have abolished the ten commandments in order to dispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in berating the law which David pronounced “perfect,” and Paul declared to be “holy, just, and good.”

Finally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be better pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his printed name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution against the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be with one which—while his name failed to appear in its fundamental law—was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and religious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is one by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments inflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a day which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be reasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place and authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists, and padlocks upon their tongues: then, and not till then, can Seventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment, which, though in many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his people, and his law.

W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

Allegan, Mich., Jan. 14, 1873.