A QUICKSAND DEFENSE by W. N. G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 14, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 20.

A QUICKSAND DEFENSE.

By W. N. G.

That the advocates of the religious amendment to the national Constitution suffered defeat in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, is not conclusive evidence of the ultimate defeat of the principle involved in the proposed amendment. The National Reform movement already has a foothold in congressional law and in Supreme Court decision, as well as in state law in nearly all the states. It is sustained by many who are in reality opposed to it—by many religious people unwittingly, by many legislators through policy, and by judges and jurors who erroneously suppose that they are obliged to enforce even unconstitutional law lest higher courts may overrule them.

That the advocates of practical church and state union meet defeat in special measures, and their illogical sophistries are often exposed, is no evidence that they will be turned from their purpose. Tho they are dreadfully exercised as to how they shall overcome the results of their late defeat at Washington, they are not slow to claim it as a victory. The editor of the Evangel and Sabbath Outlook was an active participant in the discussion before the Congressional Committee, having ably opposed the proposed amendment. Commenting upon the discussion, he writes:—

“In the cross-questioning, which was put upon the speakers who closed the debate for the affirmative, various members of the committee, able lawyers, brought out the weak points in overwhelming confusion. This part of the hearing developed the fact that the Sabbath question is a prominent feature of this movement. The logic of the situation was set forth by a member of the committee, when, by questioning, he showed that under the amendment, if a case of ‘sabbath-breaking’ were carried to the Supreme Court, the advocates of the amendment would be compelled to abandon Sunday and

keep the Sabbath. He showed that no ‘interpretation’ could permit any other decision under the text of the Bible. That episode alone was worth a volume of arguments in favor of the Sabbath.”

This statement seems to worry the editorial staff of the Christian Statesman, one of whom happened to be the individual whose fallacious position was so openly exposed. In order to parry the force of this showing, that paper attempts to play upon the phrase “no interpretation,” etc. Of course the idea was that no legitimate interpretation of the Bible, taking the Bible as it reads, “could permit any other decision.” But the Statesman, for the purpose of showing that the Bible could be interpreted in accordance with its theory, is obliged to resort to an interpretation at variance with the plain language of the text. The following is a subterfuge which is given as a reply to the Evangel:—

“The question asked by the member of the committee was in reference to the interpretation by the Supreme Court, in case the members of the court believed the seventh-day Sabbath to be the Sabbath of the Bible. He did not show that ‘no interpretation’ could permit any other decision under the text of the Bible. With the simple acknowledgment of the Bible in the Constitution our Supreme Court as it has always been made up would interpret the Bible as Christians with so great unanimity have always interpreted it in our country, as teaching the observance of the first-day sabbath. But if by any possibility the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court should ever be Seventh-day Baptists, or Adventists, or Jews, and should interpret the Bible as enjoining the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, then the nation which believed in the first-day sabbath would have to speak more definitely, and in its own sovereign legislation lay down the constitutional basis so clearly that the Supreme Court could not override the explicit expression of its will in this matter of Sabbath law.”

In other words, the National Reform scheme contemplates, if necessary, that it shall be upheld by special congressional interpretation of the Bible. And there is no doubt that such special interpretation would be necessary; for it is now a recognized judicial principle that where language is plain, there is an end of construction. It is also an admitted rule that a law is to be construed according to the intention of the lawmaker, and this intention is to be gathered from the language of the law. As to the Sabbath law, there is no reasonable doubt as to either the language of the law or the intent of the Lawmaker. Nor is it even necessary to suppose a Supreme Court composed of “Seventh-day Baptists, or Adventists, or Jews,” for a reasonable expectation that it would adhere to the recognized principles of construction, unless limited by special legislation on the subject. For we do not by any means assume that all legal wisdom or judicial integrity is confined to those classes. That it is the design of the National Reform church-and-state combination to have the Bible construed by national law is further shown by the statement that, at the hearing before alluded to, it was

“most explicitly maintained that the Supreme Court would have to construe all laws in harmony with the Bible as the fundamental law of the nation. No individual’s understanding of the law of the Bible would be supreme law in any matter of national action. The nation itself would interpret the Bible by its legislation in making laws, and then by its judiciary in construing both constitutional law and statutory enactments resting upon it. And this is one of the main objects and benefits of the amendment. Then, in the second place, it is simply not true that ‘no answer’ was given to the above question. The question was answered by the statement that if the Supreme Court interpreted what was enacted by Congress as a first-day sabbath law as if it were a seventh-day Sabbath law, the nation that wishes to observe and maintain a first-day sabbath law would have to amend its constitutional law and make its own interpretation of the Bible so explicit that no court could misunderstand or override the nation’s expressed will.”

These plain admissions render it unnecessary to add argument to show what is designed in the movement for enforced religion in the name of Christianity. We have simply to take their own statements. Sometimes they try to evade the necessary logic of their position when it peers too far into the future for their present convenience; but, like a man in the quicksand, the more they try to extricate themselves from an awkward position, the deeper they become involved. W. N. G.