The “Religious Amendment” and the “Christian Sabbath.”
By R. F. Cottrell
LET no one imagine that those who are calling for a religious amendment of our National Constitution, so that it shall “respect the sanctity” and “require the observance” of the “Christian Sabbath,” intend in the least to abridge our “Christian liberty” by binding all to the observance of a definite day. They too well know the steps of that reasoning by which they have come to the conclusion that the fourth commandment is fully obeyed, both in spirit and in letter, by keeping the first day of the week, or even any one day in the seven. They know that the earth is round, and constantly revolving, and consequently, that days are slippery, unreliable things, being always on the move. Considering this, of course they will not be so silly as to undertake, by human legislation, to do that which the law of God has failed to do; namely, to bind all to the observance of one particular day. They are aware of the impracticability of observing the same specific time as holy or sanctified, from Boston to San Francisco, since there are three hours and twenty minutes difference in the beginning and ending of the day in these two cities; so that, before the Californians are fairly awake on Sunday morning, the Boston bells are calling the people to the place of worship. They know too, as well as any one who would teach them, that if a person cross the Pacific Ocean, either eastward or westward, he will either gain or lose a day, as the case may be; and therefore, since many of our people are addicted to travel, there might soon be as many Christian Sabbaths in the United States as there are days in the week. Of course these men must be aware of the obvious and almost unpardonable folly of attempting to dictate to all the observance of a particular day. It is true that some ignorant persons may be silly enough to claim that there is in fact no practical difficulty in observing a definite day as the Christian Sabbath throughout the United States, or even the whole world; that from Maine to California there is no disagreement in the reckoning of the days of the week—all know when Sunday146comes; that, in fact, the men of both continents, Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, and Pagans, are in perfect harmony in numbering the days; so that a person may travel from Oregon eastward to China or Japan and back again, and repeat the journey a thousand times, if possible, and yet not gain or lose a day, nor find himself out of harmony with the people of any nation of the whole world in respect to the days of the week; that in this respect there is more difficulty than there would be if the earth were “as flat as a pancake.” But how manifest is the folly of these sticklers for a definite day, when we consider that it is always possible that somebody will cross the Pacific, and perhaps a number of times, and in different directions; and in so doing, who knows but they will get the days so mixed up that nobody can tell which is which? All this is as well known to those who ask for the recognition of the Christian Sabbath in our National Constitution, as it is to anybody else; and therefore any one can see the absurdity of thinking that they will ever think of attempting to bind our free and enlightened citizens to the observance of a definite day. For since they admit that “the essential point” in the Sabbath commandment is “the proportion of time,” namely, “one day of rest after six of labor,” it is reasonable to expect, as one of their ablest writers has expressed it, that “the very freedom and universality of the gospel dispensation would lead us to think that the precise day of the week on which the Sabbath should be kept,” would not be “insisted on.” Therefore, let all be assured that these men are too enlightened and liberal, and understand their own freedom under the gospel too well, to insist on the observance of a definite day, thus binding a yoke upon the disciples which neither they nor their fathers have been able to bear. Of course they will not presumptuously attempt to change the commandment of God, which, as they hold, does not designate a particular day, but leaves to all the freedom of choice, so as to bind all to the particular day which they are pleased to choose. God’s law needs no improvement. If he had thought it best for all to agree on a particular day, he would have appointed it. Let no one imagine for a moment that these men will set about the impious work of supplying the deficiencies of God’s law, a work so insulting to the great Lawgiver, as well as so contrary to their own creed. Reader, please pardon the irony; but let it be an eye-opener to the fallacy of that argument, which claims that God has not in the fourth commandment appointed a definite day of the week; but that its claims are fully met by keeping the Roman Sunday, the first day of the week, instead of the seventh day named in the commandment, which all intelligent persons know is the day commonly called Saturday. Be not deceived; but open your eyes to the “irrepressible conflict” that is evidently before us, and take your stand, while you may, to “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Choose to obey God rather than men, by keeping the day which he has appointed, and so escape his threatened wrath by braving the wrath of men, who undertake to legislate for God, and compel all to fall down and worship the image which they shall be pleased to set up. See Rev. 14: 9–12; 13: 11–15; and 12: 17. The test is inevitable, and the time is at hand. On which side will you be found?—R. F. COTTRELL, in Sabbath Recorder.