p. 204 | The “Statesman” on the Stand

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 22, 1874

The “Statesman” on the Stand.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE Christian Statesman has noticed the questions put to it some time ago, and says they are “frankly answered.” We are thankful for the information, for we should never have thought so from the mere reading of the answers. Its answer amounts to this, that they do not propose to establish “all Christian laws, and usages, and institutions,” as they have often and plainly avowed, but to strengthen by the force of the National Constitution such as are already “in our government.” It enumerates as follows:—

“Among these are the laws which regulate marriage, and those which forbid and punish blasphemy, the offering of prayer in our National and State legislatures, the maintenance of religious worship and instruction in our asylums, reformatories, and jails, the observance of public thanksgivings and fasts, the use of the oath in courts of justice, and many others. All these, as well as the laws which guard the Sabbath, we desire to maintain. All these, moreover, are proper to the State, and cannot, in any candid mind, be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper.”

Without any fear of contradiction “in any candid mind,” we declare the above to be simply an evasion of the issue. It is true that these are not to be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper, and why? Simply because they are not peculiar to Christianity, as are baptism and the Lord’s supper. Every point specified, as marriage, blasphemy, prayer, religious instruction, fasts, and the judicial oath, could be and are subjects of legal enactment with Jews as well as Christians. It certainly does not tell well for the frankness or discrimination of those who object to our Constitution as suiting those who reject the Christian religion as well as those who accept it, that in explaining what they mean by “all Christian laws, usages, and institutions,” they should enumerate points not peculiar to Christianity, every one of which may be accepted and enforced by a people who reject the gospel of Christ!

A writer and advocate of the Amendment, who is also a Vice-President of the National Association, said:—

“We are not a Jewish, but a Christian, nation; therefore our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity.”

Mr. Brunot, in taking the chair as President of the convention at Pittsburgh, said:—

“We propose such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will suitably acknowledge . . . Jesus Christ as its ruler and the Bible as the supreme rule of its conduct, and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

Now, to legislate for Christians as distinguished from Jews, and to recognize Jesus Christ as ruler, it is necessary to place on a legal basis that which is peculiar to Christianity in distinction from Judaism, or that which is established by Christ in the gospel. But in the above enumeration by the Statesman there is not a single point of that character. And if each and every item of its specification were enjoined by Congress on a constitutional basis, no one could thereby judge that we are “a Christian nation,” more than they can by our present Constitution and laws. We are left, willing or unwilling, to the conclusion that the “Amendment party” do not frankly avow their position, or else that their position is not well defined in their own minds.

In an appeal to the members of the Pittsburgh Convention we tried to point out to them the difference between the principles of morality and the “laws or institutions” of Christianity; a difference of which the speakers in that Convention seemed to be oblivious. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are “Christian institutions,” and really come within the province of the Amendment as advocated by the Statesman. But marriage, fasts, prayers, the judicial oath, &c., are not Christian institutions. They are all accepted by the Jew as well as the Christian, and a Constitution enforcing all these might be accepted by the Mohammedan as well as by either Jew or Christian. How, then, will the authority of Jesus Christ as a ruler, or the Christian character of the nation, be recognized by enforcing these by the general government? We think there is yet room for an answer, or an explanation of its answer, from the Statesman. And an explanation is necessary to establish its claim that it frankly answers questions.

We have thus far omitted all reference to the Sabbath, and will now endeavor to show that their ground is no more tenable on that question than on the others. The point which first meets us on this subject is, whether or not it is a Christian institution. We say it is not. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment—the only Sabbath of the Bible—is the seventh day, which God sanctified when he created the heavens and earth, “because that in it he had rested from all his work.” This antedates Christianity, as does marriage; they were both instituted before sin entered into the world. The Statesman properly includes marriage in those things which are not to be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper. Properly, because it is not peculiar to Christianity—it does not belong exclusively to Christians. And the Sabbath, dating from creation, belongs to the same class.

But the Statesman does not accept this position. It does not accept the seventh day, the rest day of the Creator, as the Sabbath. It puts forth the first day of the week under the title of the “Christian Sabbath,” as an institution erected by Christ, and as peculiar to the Christian religion. If this is truth, then the Sunday is to all intents a “Christian institution,” “usage,” or “law,” and as such is necessarily classed with baptism and the Lord’s supper.

We have tried in vain to get the “Amendment party” to notice this point, but so far they have proved slow of perception, or unwilling “frankly” to meet the question.

The “questions” to which it professes to reply contained this very point, to wit: “Do they hold that the observance of the first day of the week is a Christian institution?” The Statesman well knows that this was the point at which we aimed; yet in its frank reply it conveniently passes it over in silence!

Again, if the Sunday is a Christian institution, it is the only “Christian institution, usage, or law,” embraced in the Statesman’s enumeration of laws to be maintained by Constitutional authority; the only thing properly embraced in the avowed object of the amendment party. And that it is the main object in all their efforts we believe to be the truth. Despairing of upholding the Sunday on Scripture grounds, they call for aid from the general government. The same course on the part of the Romish church led to establishing the inquisition. Every church is satisfied to rest their cause on the Scriptures when these are plainly in their favor. For unscriptural dogmas they have always invoked the aid of secular power.

The Statesman asks in turn if we are in favor of granting the “Demands of Liberalism.” So far as their demands are just, so far as they require what we consider justice to all men of all beliefs or no belief, we answer, Yes. But

so far as they would obstruct the legitimate action of civil government, we answer, No. But of this we will speak more definitely in the future.

J. H. WAGGONER.