CONSISTENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN STATESMAN.
By James White
WE have several times had occasion to speak of the inconsistency of the Christian Statesman, the organ of the party which seeks a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We now have occasion to call attention to its consistency. We scarcely know how we should regard this: whether to rejoice, or not. When the principles of a party are wrong, we are often pleased to see them act inconsistently, as they thereby preserve the integrity of their action. But on the whole we are pleased that the Statesman has at last taken a consistent position, and that it can no longer hide behind a profession of good will to those Christians for whom it has no feelings of good will in fact. In a discussion with Eld. W. H. Littlejohn, the editor of the Statesman charged the Seventh-day Adventists with inconsistency because they opposed the Religious Amendment of the Constitution. He claimed that as long as we recognized the Bible as the supreme law, we ought to join in an effort to incorporate it in our civil government so as to bring to its determination every question of right or wrong under our government. But we insist, and always have insisted, that the Religious Amendment party have never sought to bring questions in our civil policy to the test of the Bible. The only test proposed is that of the decisions of our civil courts, and, of course, they are expected to give force to the ideas of the persons who make the law, that is, of the majority. The one thing, more than all others, for which the Statesman is laboring, is the enforcement of the Sabbath by our general government. But it wants the "Christian Sabbath," or as some of their writers term it, the "American Sabbath," thus sustained by the authority of the Constitution. But the Bible knows nothing of a "Christian Sabbath," or of an "American Sabbath." The commandment of God as written in the Bible, says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Would the Statesman and its party be willing to have the Federal Courts decide the Sabbath controversy by the plain reading of the law of God? We well know they would not. They would have our government administered on an entirely new basis, and one unknown to any government heretofore, either human or divine. They would have the courts render their decisions, not by the terms of the law, but by inferences drawn from that which is not law. We have further claimed that if their ideas were carried into practice the result would be a persecution of the minority for their religious principles; an entire subversion of the rights of those who choose to keep the Bible Sabbath—the seventh day; for that is the only day which the Bible recognizes as the weekly Sabbath. But the Statesman, while it advocated the enforcement of Sunday as the Sabbath to the entire exclusion of the seventh day, still claimed that there would be no persecution; that nobody's rights would be infringed upon in the least; and that the observers of the seventh day were needlessly and foolishly alarmed at the prospect of the success of the Religious Amendment party. Speaking of the Seventh-day Adventists, it used the following language:— "From the beginning of the National Reform movement, they have regarded it as the first step toward the persecution which they as keepers of the seventh day will endure when our Sabbath laws are revived and enforced. One cannot but smile at their apprehensions of the success of a movement which would not harm a hair of their heads, but their fears are sincere enough for all that." Here was its inconsistency. We could not give it credit for so great a degree of ignorance as would be necessary in any one to prevent his seeing that their efforts would lead to the very results which it disclaimed. Indeed, one of the writers of that party, who was a vice-president of the association, used the following language:— "But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath, and ignoring the Jewish?" The Statesman affected to smile at the fears of those who apprehended a denial of anybody's rights under their amendment. But the writer of the above question gave a quite different answer, as follows:— "The answer is, We are not a Jewish, but a Christian, nation; therefore our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case." Thus "their witness agreed not together." And now we come to a test of results. The laws of Pennsylvania are both unjust and severely strict against those who keep the seventh day. At different times members of the Seventh-day Baptist church have been fined and imprisoned for laboring upon Sunday, while they kept the seventh day religiously and conscientiously. Senator Jones, of Philadelphia, has labored with a noble zeal for the passage of a bill to protect in their religious rights those who keep the seventh day. In the Statesman of March 3, 1881, is the following communication (copied) with remarks by the editor:— "The accompanying bill, No. 122, has just been handed to us, with the statement that it has already passed a second reading in the legislature of Pennsylvania. Its enactment will tend toward the destruction of the Christian Sabbath in this commonwealth. It is very desirable that the bill should be understood by our people, and that numerous and emphatic protests be adopted and forwarded immediately. We therefore request that you publish it.
"Yours truly, FELIX R. BRUNOT, ELLIOTT E. SWIFT." Most of our readers will recognize Mr. Brunot as the leading spirit of the Amendment Association, and its President for a number of years. The bill referred to is entitled, "An act to protect religious liberty and to provide for the relief of persons who observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and to exempt them from the penalties of the act of Assembly of April 22, 1794."
This bill is one for relief and exemption from certain penalties under certain conditions. It does not propose to give religious equality to those who keep the seventh day. It is a bill for toleration merely. But even this is too much for the advocates of the Religious Amendment of the Constitution. The Statesman, in its comments, says:— "There is undoubtedly a hardship in imposing penalties upon those who, religiously observing the seventh day as the Sabbath, follow their usual avocations on the first day, or Sunday. But the question arises whether it is desirable to recognize two Sabbaths. The act of 1794, forbidding worldly employment on Sunday, has been binding on the Jews and all others who keep the seventh day as their Sabbath. The answer to the facts set forth in the preamble to the bill under discussion is, that declarations and acts in favor of liberty of conscience are not inconsistent with Sunday laws. As a civil and political institution, the establishment and regulation of the Sabbath is within the powers of the civil government, and Sunday laws are not intended to enforce religion, but to protect the social customs and institutions of the people. There cannot be a separate Sabbath for every sect which chooses to fix on a different day, and the interests of the few must always yield to the demands of the many." The editor approaches the subject mincingly, as if at least half ashamed to publicly go back on its past profession of good will to Sabbath-keepers. It might with good reason be ashamed of the evasions contained in the above paragraph. Why does it persistently ask for governmental protection of the first day as the Christian Sabbath if it now says, "Sunday laws are not intended to enforce religion, but to protect the social customs and institutions of the people"? Is it ready to admit that the keeping of Sunday is not a religious act, but Sunday, after all, is not a Christian Sabbath, but a Sabbath of custom—an institution of the people? The keeping of the seventh day is a religious act, a duty plainly enjoined in the Bible. If, then, Sunday laws are not enforced in the interest of religion, how can the Statesman claim that the amendment movement, which it has before avowed will result in the protection and enforcement of Sunday, has for its object the subordination of all things in our government to the Bible and its institutions? Again it says "that declarations and acts in favor of liberty of conscience are not inconsistent with the Sunday laws." Oh, of course not; for what right has any one to have a conscience which will not accept of Sunday as a substitute for the Bible Sabbath? We are reminded of the oft-repeated declaration of principle which actuated the early settlers of New England, to grant to every one the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience—provided that his conscience did not lead him to be a Baptist or a Quaker! "According to his own conscience," provided his conscience co-incides with ours, or will be guided by ours. This is the religious liberty advocated by the Statesman. We are sick of this religio-political casuistry, indulged in by the Statesman and its party. It is a casuistry worthy of the Jesuits, and its tendency is toward a Jesuitical institution, namely, the Inquisition. Step by step the "true inwardness" of their system of ethics comes to light, and every step justifies the estimate we have already put upon the object of that party. We are continually receiving confirmations of our views of the prophecy of chapters 13 and 14 of the Revelations, and of the coming time of trouble, to be brought by wicked powers, upon those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
But we have no fear for the result, for the Lord "preserveth the souls of the saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked." Ps. 97 : 10. "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." Ps. 2 : 20. J. H. W.