p. 40 | Appeal and Protest by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 26, 1882

Appeal and Protest.

By J. H. Waggoner

To the Members of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution, held in Pittsburgh, Pa., February 4 and 5, 1874.

[The present state of the Sunday cause makes almost everything of interest which has a bearing on the case. The entire Sunday movement looks toward a Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In no other way can the Sunday advocates accomplish their purposes. If the Supreme Court of California decides in favor of the law, it will transfer the fight to the Legislature, where, the probability is, the law will be repealed. In any event, the great corporations, as the through lines of railway, can never be restrained from Sunday traffic by State laws. The following "Appeal and Protest" shows how we viewed the subject in 1874, and we have seen no reason to change our views in any particular. To the contrary, passing events strengthen and confirm our faith that we are on the eve of very important fulfillments of prophecy, affecting the truth of God and the rights of his commandment-keeping people.]

Although the rules of your Convention would not permit the introduction of views opposed to its object, you have expressed a willingness to hear both sides, and I therefore invite your attention to a brief statement of objections.

I speak in behalf of those who observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord our God, and especially in behalf of the Seventh-day Adventists of America.

It is a pleasure to us to agree with all those who profess the spirit of Christian reform, and we are happy to agree with you in the general principles of government; on the necessity of restraining vice and immorality by civil enactments. We deprecate anarchy as we do tyranny. We are neither lawless nor law-breakers; nor have we any fellowship in our religion with the doctrines of the Antinomians.

But we are compelled to differ with you in regard to a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And we respectfully, but earnestly, enter our protest against the steps you are taking in that direction. Some of our reasons are here briefly offered.

There is a clear distinction between morality and Christianity; not a distinction which divorces them, but one which accords to each its own proper relations. Christianity is a remedial system, based upon and enforcing moral law; but moral law antedates Christianity. Moral law proves that men are sinners; Christianity is the remedy for sin.

While we recognize the right and duty of civil government to restrain from crime or to enforce morality, as far as its province extends, we deny that it has any right to enforce Christian institutions, which do not admit of coercion. Any attempt to enforce Christianity or its institutions is a usurpation, and is subversive of that freedom of conscience without which there can be no true worship of God. It is contrary to both the teachings and the spirit of the gospel, as a Christian by force is an impossibility.

You may say that pure morality by force is also an impossibility. So it is, and this is proof that we must distinguish between civil and moral government. God is the only moral governer; his law is the only moral law. Civil government cannot judge men on merely moral grounds. It may restrain from overt acts of immorality, by which the rights of others are endangered or destroyed. Thus far and no farther may it go in that direction. The argument of Dr. Milligan in your Convention on the right to restrain men from certain actions was altogether irrelevant to the question in issue, as the actions to which he referred were not at all of a religious nature.

But as the difference between us which leads us to protest against your course, relates very much to the Sabbath, it may be replied to us that the Sabbath is a fundamental or primary institution, antedating Christianity. To this we consent; but we deny your right to produce it as a reason for your course until you reject both the name and idea of a Christian Sabbath. A Sabbath dating from the creation is, indeed, a primary institution, but not so a Christian Sabbath. The weight and bearing of this distinction may be seen by comparing the Sabbath with other institutions, both primary and secondary.

Marriage is a primary institution; it is as old as man's moral relations to God and to his fellow-man. It was instituted before the fall of man, and before any distinction of races existed. And being given to the first of the human family, it is confined to no race or class, therefore, it may be properly guarded by human legislation.

But baptism and the Lord's Supper are not of that nature. They are Christian institutions, and may not be enforced upon unbelievers, nor upon any class, by civil power. This will not be disputed. But while we have the teachings and practice of all Christian bodies in favor of this proposition, not a word should be needed to prove to them that the avowed object of your Association, to place "Christian usages and institutions on a legal basis" in our National Constitution, is a wrong, both to man and to Christianity. It is a usurpation over the consciences of men, and a perversion of the gospel system.

The distinction between moral law and a remedial or Christian system is so clear and definite that it is impossible that moral law should become remedial. Moral law cannot justify a transgressor. It proves him guilty, but it cannot remove his guilt. It cannot be both moral and remedial. And so says inspiration when speaking of the law as a sinner. "Therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Now, the Sabbath is either primary or secondary; either a part of the moral law or of the Christian system, but it cannot be both. If it be a Christian institution, as you claim, then it may no more be enforced by civil authority than may baptism or the Lord's Supper. We affirm that it is a primary institution solely; that it comes down to us unaffected by changes of dispensation, and is confined to no race or class. As our blessed Saviour said, it "was made for man."

Having laid down these facts and principles, we protest against the injustice done to us by the advocates of the religious amendment in classing us with the opposers of law, of morality, and of good order. We plead for law—for God's moral law; and we are always happy to meet our fellow-men on this ground. We fully indorse the inspired declarations: "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." For an original, a primary, or creation Sabbath we have a law, in the implicit declaration of Jehovah himself, who said in a voice that shook the earth: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." And he gave as the only reason for this precept his own example of resting from his work of creation on the seventh day, and his own acts of blessing and sanctifying that day.

We have a plain statement in the New Testament that where no law is, there is no sin. And inasmuch as we have found no law for a Christian Sabbath, or for observing the first day of the week as a Sabbath, we protest against being classed with opposers of law and of order, and invite you to produce a warrant for violating the commandment which says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath," and also a precept requiring us to observe another day. We have the disciplines, the confessions of faith, the catechisms, and the constitutions of the various religious bodies recognized as evangelical in favor of this affirmation, that the only Bible commandment for the observance of a weekly Sabbath is the fourth commandment of the decalogue. And we take the position as beyond dispute that, when an institution and its law exists, the obligation of the institution must be found in the law, and may not be inferred from something outside of the law or contrary to the terms of the law. We definitely appeal to your own sense of right in behalf of our protest against being classed with opposers of law and order because we cling to the law, and accept it in the exact words of the Lawgiver, and admit of no unauthorized commutation thereof. If, when the authority of a law is acknowledged as you acknowledge the authority of the fourth commandment, it is allowable to compel men by civil power to depart from its express statements and clearly defined reasons, and to accept the substitution of something else which is inferred, but not commanded, then there is a revelation of divine will of little worth, and then the divine government rests on an unsubstantial foundation.

We respect the rights of all classes. The rights of an infidel, as man, may no more be trampled upon by his fellow-man than may the rights of a Christian. We respect the convictions of that ancient people whom God chose to be the depositories of his sacred oracles. But while they, to their own injury and to the dishonor of God's plan of salvation, reject the Lord Jesus as the way of salvation, we protest against being classed with them as enemies to Christ and to his gospel, because we keep that day which Jehovah claimed as his, even from creation. We are Christians; we honor Christ and accept him as our only hope. And the Scriptures to which we have here referred in regard to the authority of the law; its being the rule of life and the standard of right, and the instrument which proves that the world is guilty in the sight of God, were written by an able minister of the New Testament. We profess to "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." See Rev. 14: 12.

We protest, in the name of our Lord and Master, against any legislation to compel us to depart from the explicit teaching of his own word.

We protest against the erection of any religious tests in our government, which are calculated to engender the most bitter and unchristian feelings among all classes, and which can conciliate and benefit none. Let the history of the past be a warning against any religious intolerance. And that part of the Declaration of Principles, adopted in this Convention, which refers to the "First Amendment" to the Constitution as a safeguard against any religious intolerance we unhesitatingly pronounce deceptive, as it is not possible to make the Bible and Christian usages the law of the land without a modification of that amendment which forbids the establishment of religion. This you cannot deny.

For the sake of Christianity, we protest against your action, believing that it will be injured by so close connection with the civil power. When men have got to accept religious tests in order to swear allegiance to the Constitution, the administration of government must of necessity, soon fall into the hands of professed Christians and church members. And so a premium will be offered to political demagogues to become members of the professed church of Christ for worldly gain and personal aggrandizement. When this comes to pass, we may write "Ichabod" upon the Protestant churches of America.

We have reason to fear that our protest will be disregarded, and that you will succeed in carrying out your plans. The spirit of the times is in that direction; a feeling of religious intolerance is growing up in this nation. We regret that it has taken such hold on the minds of so many eminent men of commanding influence. We entreat you to beware lest you be found at length co-workers with that power which will make war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. See Rev. 12: 18.

As Protestants, we have very generally agreed that the great anti-Christian power of the book of Revelations, represented by "a wild beast," is the Roman power, or more strictly the Papal Roman power. If you succeed in placing the administration of this government in the hands of the Protestant churches, you will then have made a complete image to that beast, against which we are so strongly warned in that Holy Book. We believe that many of you are sincere in your convictions that you are doing God service, but this is no excuse for a wrong. So was Paul when he persecuted the church of Christ; and so, doubtless, were many officers of the Inquisition who, instead of being ambassadors for Christ, the highest office given to any of his followers, turned judges and executioners of the divine will in regard to religious duties. Do not, we pray you, follow in their steps. You may not intend to oppress the sincere worshipers of God, nor to bind the consciences of any sincere followers of Christ. We must, however, except those who have avowed their intention to legislate for their own accommodation, and not at all for the benefit of those who may dare to oppose their views. But however sincere you may be, you will find that, in clothing the already deep-seated religious prejudices of the age with civil power, you will kindle a fire of persecution in this land, which, when once kindled, you will have no power to control.

We have no feelings of ill-toward any; we have no more disposition than we have power to oppose you by force. But we assure you that

our convictions are as strong as yours; in our determination of duty we are as firmly fixed as you are. Planting ourselves upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, taking as our warrant the explicit words of Jehovah, we calmly await the crisis which you are precipitating upon us. We cannot consent to yield the plain word of the Lord, nor to suffer any abatement of our obedience to that word because of any human legislation. We deprecate the conflict which you are bringing about. But though it may be severe to our natural feelings, our conscientious convictions compel us to refuse to bow down to the image which you may set up. From the judgment of fallible men we shall appeal to that tribunal and to that day before which, on the authority of his own commandments, "God shall bring every work into judgment." J. H. Waggoner. Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 5, 1874.