We have debated for some time in our own mind the propriety of attempting an answer to the strictures, if such they may be called, upon our articles on the Constitutional Amendment. Having decided, however, that they contain a show of logic which might deceive the careless reader, we have at last determined to give them a notice commensurate with the importance they assume, if not from their intrinsic merit, at least from the distinguished source whence they emanate.

Before doing this, we take pleasure in acknowledging the generosity of their author in allowing us to discuss in the columns of his paper the subject from a stand-point of a nature calculated to dampen rather than stimulate the ardor of his readers in the work in which, with him, they are engaged. From the outset, we have discovered no disposition to take any advantage by which the full effect of what we had to say might in any way be lessened. On the contrary, attention has several times been called to our communications, as being worthy of perusal by all.

Having said thus much in reference to the treatment we received at the hands of the editor of the Statesman up to the time of the completion of the publication of our articles, we shall be pardoned for expressing our surprise at finding ourselves, in his first reply, standing somewhat in the attitude of one who had taken advantage of indulgence shown him to present a line of argument different from that proposed at the beginning.

It is possible that we have mistaken the design of the statements to which we allude. This we hope may prove to be the case; for, so far as we are concerned, individually, we have covered the precise ground which we designed to at the first. If the editor of the Statesman has found himself disappointed, either in the nature or the length of the argument, he is to blame, and not we.

1. Because, so far as the matter of length is concerned, we stated to him that we should leave that entirely “with his magnanimity, convinced that he would not cut us short in our work so long as what we had to say was pointed, gentlemanly, and of such a nature as to bear forcibly upon the question at issue between us.”

2. As it regards the scope of the articles, we stated, unqualifiedly, that we should treat the subject from the stand-point of an observer of the seventh day, appealing to the Bible for our authority. Nor were we content with declaring our plan of opposition by letter, but we went so far as to give, in the caption of our articles themselves, an outline of the order in which we should treat the subject. It was as follows: “The Constitutional Amendment; or, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and the Restitution.” In it, as will be observed, is exactly set forth the manner in which we discussed the propriety of the amendment; (1) Showing the emptiness of the claims of the Sunday. (2) The force and obligation of those of the seventh day. (3) The manner in which the change of days occurred, and (4) The work which God has inaugurated for the purpose of bringing about the Restitution.

Thus much by way of personal acknowledgment and explanation.

We turn now to the criticism proper upon our argument.

First, there is an attempt to state the positions which we assumed to prove.

In reply, it is sufficient to say that it is deficient in one very important particular. That particular relates to our proposition that God himself has inaugurated a movement entirely outside of, and opposed to, the Constitutional Amendment party, for the purpose of bringing about a Sabbath reform in his own way. For proof of this, we appeal to our last article in full. It is, to say the least, not a little remarkable that the editor of the Statesman should have overlooked this point in our communications, since a perception of it would have saved him the perpetration of the great mistake which he has made, as we shall see hereafter.

Secondly, It is intimated that the proposed amendment is not necessarily connected with the Sabbath question; and that, therefore, observers of the seventh day should unite with those of the first in securing its passage, which, being done, the differences between them could be settled at leisure.

Now we confess to not a little surprise that such a position should be taken by a gentleman of so much candor and penetration as the editor of the Statesman. Have we then been deceived up to this point? Is it true that Sunday observance has not heretofore been represented as something of vital importance to the nation, to be secured, and only secured, by the alteration of the Constitution as proposed? Have these gentlemen not been really in earnest when they have appealed to the strong love of the people for the strict observance of what they have been pleased to call the Sabbath, in their endeavors to arouse them to the significance of their movement? If they have not, then they are unworthy of public confidence, and should henceforth be cast down from the leadership of a great party, which boasts, not only its morality, but also its Christianity.

Let us see, then, whether the amendment, which is now in their hands, is, or is not, by their own confession, to be employed in the interest of Sunday observance.

That the Christian Statesman is a fair exponent of the opinions and intentions of the leading spirits in the movement for the amendment, we think no one will have the hardihood to deny. What it advocates and favors, then, is destined to stand or fall with the triumph or defeat of the men who speak through it. Turning to the prospectus of the identical copy of the Statesman which contains the criticism which we are reviewing, we find the following statement: “The design of this paper, as its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of civil government in the light of Christianity. It has been established to advocate the proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At the same time, it will aid in maintaining all existing Christian features in our civil institutions, in particular, laws against the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,” &c.

We might pause here, but, in a matter of this importance, let us make certainty doubly certain.

It was strange that the writer should have made the assertion which he did, with the prospectus from which we have quoted before him. It is passing strange that—as if guided by a Providence which had doomed him to make a complete exposure of his real sentiments, although in so doing his own consistency should be involved—he should, within two weeks from the penning of the above assertion, go back upon the files of his periodical for two years, and reprint, by way of emphasis, according to his own statement, the following editorial, which forever settles the point that he believes and knows that the amendment and Sunday-keeping are destined to be joined together in a common victory. As the reader peruses this editorial, let him bear in mind the fact that it is not the effusion of an excited and exasperated man, but the expression of a deep and settled conviction which has once found utterance, and which so perfectly expresses the real sentiments of its author that, after years of deliberate reflection, he felt the truth of what he had said so forcibly that he was constrained to give it fresh utterance. Let him also note the fact that the italics are not our own, but those of the editor. We regret that we have not space to give it in full, and invite those who can do so, by all means to turn to the copy of the Statesman which contains it, and read it for themselves.

“Time for the meeting of Congress, ... Two years ago we printed the following telegram, dated at Washington, on Sabbath, Dec. 4, and commented on it in the following terms, which we now emphatically repeat: ‘The trains yesterday and to-day brought large accessions to the number of Congressmen and visitors already here, and by to-morrow morning it is expected that nearly every Senator and member will have arrived.’ Thus the fact is heralded over the whole country that a large number of the members of the National Congress openly and wantonly indulge in common travel on the Sabbath.... And there are other reflections suggested by their conduct.

“1. Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation.... The interests of a nation can never be safe in the hands of Sabbath-breakers, and every one of these Congressmen has done that for which, if our laws were right, he ought to be impeached and removed.

“2. The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from other crimes; and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.

“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”—Christian Statesman, Vol. 6, No. 15.

Now let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of practical bearing, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not splitting hairs as to what consistency would demand under certain circumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest degree probable that a party, represented by men who express, beforehand, sentiments like those contained in the above editorial, would, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion of all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of argument employed above that which would compel them to this action, since it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State responsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore, is it not promised, in so many words, that if the amendment is carried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that all offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by a public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate the Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust?

Thirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the amendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should not prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it is better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the hands of atheists.

Before debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in mind that what I have said in the Statesman, as well as what I now say, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a Seventh-day Adventist.

So far as our Seventh-day Baptist friends are concerned, we have no disposition to hold them responsible for the views which we, as Adventists, hold. But so far as it regards our relation to this subject, it is materially affected by these considerations. A failure to discern this has led the gentleman into very absurd positions. When he attempts to make a Seventh-day Adventist conscience, he must form it upon a Seventh-day Adventist model. Before he can do this, all his bright visions of a temporal millennium and good days to come, must vanish into thin air. To say, as he does, that common sense would teach him to pursue a certain line of conduct, is one thing; to say that, did he occupy the position which we hold, common sense would teach him to do the same thing, is another, and entirely different, thing. Let it be borne in mind, therefore, that we are not now discussing the proposition whether we ought to be Seventh-day Adventists, but, taking the ground which he has chosen, whether, as Adventists, we ought to support the proposed amendment. This being done, we are ready to inquire, What is the peculiar faith of the people in question?

We answer, 1. They believe that Jesus Christ is about to come in the clouds of heaven. 2. That they represent a body of believers which the Lord is raising up in order that they may lift the standard of his downtrodden law and Sabbath, as one around which those who will be ready to hail him at his appearing, though few in numbers, will ultimately be gathered. 3. That, in the light of prophecy, those who thus break away from the errors of the papacy are in danger of persecution, not from infidels and atheists, bad as they may be, but from those who, in the guise of religion, shall, without warrant from God, endeavor to enforce by statute law the observance of a day which finds no authority in the word of God, but has for its support simply the dictum of the man of sin. 4. That the very body of men whose appearance in this country they have for twenty years so confidently predicted, as being the ones who should do the work in question, have actually appeared, and are inaugurating the campaign which is very soon to be waged with unrelenting fury against those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

All these features of their faith were shadowed forth in our communications in the Statesman.

With this understanding, how utterly empty and infelicitous is the logic of our friend. Take, for example, his chosen illustration of the islanders. There is in it hardly a single point appropos to the case in hand.

1. The island to which the missionaries are supposed to go is one in which, according to his statement, the fourth-day Sabbath is already acknowledged as such in their Constitution of government, and therefore carries with it the sanction and authority of statute law; whereas, with us there is no such Constitutional acknowledgment.

2. In the case of the islanders, their mistake in the selection of the day is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in possession of only a part of the Bible, and their remedy was to be found in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our opponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from childhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry, who are leading the movement in question, plead ignorance of the line of argument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since, for at least two hundred years, it has been iterated and reiterated, until their familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved, not only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining and imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who, having conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy the privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of working on the first day of the week.

3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the point of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every vestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above, the danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not to be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but from those who, according to Paul, having “a form of godliness,” shall “deny the power thereof.” In other words, who, while accepting the Scriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as in the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the seventh day, which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has never claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man.

With this statement of our views, further remark is uncalled for. We think that even our reviewer will now perceive that, before he could bring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three, above, it would be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the system of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task which our opponent judging from the line of argument which he has thus far pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he has become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the work in which we are engaged.

Fourthly. It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with infidels and atheists.

So far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally found to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right, regardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with God. The individual who would desert sound principles because some wicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with him, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question, who is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an erroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our friend, because, in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges their devotion to the Bible in its strict construction.

Is it, then, from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be, we think we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever they attempt to “fawn upon us overmuch,” we will preach to them the law of God, Sabbath and all, and my word for it, they will themselves shortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and distinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in discerning it; for it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it formerly was, that the “carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The infidel of the present day hates that law with a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the large body of first-day observers—we are happy to say not of the Statesman school—who have abolished the ten commandments in order to dispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in berating the law which David pronounced “perfect,” and Paul declared to be “holy, just, and good.”

Finally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be better pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his printed name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution against the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be with one which—while his name would fail to appear in its fundamental law—was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and religious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is one by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments inflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a day which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be reasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place and authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists, and padlocks upon their tongues; then, and not till then, can Seventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment which, though in many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his people, and his law.