ANSWER
TO
BISHOP H. C. POTTER
ON"
SUNDAY OPENING
OF THE
COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION.
CHARLESTON, S. C.
The Daggett Printing Co,
Printers and Binders, 153 East Bay.
1893,
ANSWER TO BISHOP H. C. POTTER.
Sir : An article appeared in the October number of "The
Forum," signed H. 0. Potter, advocating the opening of the
"Columbian Exposition" at Chicago on Sunday, and other
relaxations of the American custom of Sunday observance.
Bishop "Potter's" position in the "Protestant Episcopal
Church" lends weight to his views on this subject, which,
otherwise, his presentation of them in the article above referred
to, probably would not carry; and I feel sure it will be a source
of regret to all but a very few of his branch of the Church to
know that he entertains and has thought fit to publish them.
A Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America hav¬
ing taken the initiative among the clergy in a movement to
change a religious custom so long, so widely and so well-estab¬
lished as the Anglo-Saxon usage of keeping the Christian Sab¬
bath, must, it will be presumed, have found in it, a grievous
religious or social evil that ought to be reformed.
Does it not seem, therefore, to have been Bishop Potter's duty,
at the outset, to have pointed out, clearly and specifically, the evils
which have arisen from the usage which he desires to change,
and the advantages derived from the contrary practice where
now in use? And is it not especially so in this case, in view of
certain facts which he admits at the beginning of his article?
—I mean, his acknowledgement that Congress, at its last session,
in its resolution, requiring the "Columbian Exhibition" to be
closed on Sunday, undoubtedly expressed the will of its constitu¬
ency—the people of United States—and that this is made even
more certain by " the most emphatic unanimity," as the Bishop
expresses it, with which 30,000 delegates, fresh from the people,
gathered from different parts of the country to the Convention
of the "Society of Christian Endeavor," recently held in New
York, resolved that the "Columbian Exhibition" ought to be
closed on Sunday.
Bishop "Potter" speaks of this Convention as "a very impresr
fsive and a very suggestive assemblage."
4
Another very significant and strongly corroherative fact not
alluded to by the Bishop is, that all general Synods, Presbyteries
or Convocations, representing the leading Churches in this
country, that have met since this question has been agitated,
have demanded that the Exhibition shall be closed on Sunday,
the General Convention of the "Prostestant Episcopal Church,"
recently in session in Baltimore, being, I believe, the only excep¬
tion.
Why?
Surely not because Bishop Potter's article voices the senti¬
ments of that Church!
From facts within his knowledge Bishop "Potter" reasonably
concludes that fifty millions of the people—practically the whole
Anarlo-Saxon race in the United States—has declared in favor of
the closing of the "Columbian Exposition" 011 Sunday, and
judging from the action of Great Britain and her colonies at
their international exhibitions, and for centuries past, on kindred
questions, it is safe to say that the whole Anglo-Saxon race, »
as a race, throughout the world, aggregating more than one-Mh
hundred millions of the most practical^ prosperous, the mos^/PU^-^-
powerful and the happiest people on earth, favor, with practical
unanimity, the closing of places of public amusement, or of
merely secular instruction, on Sunday.
In view of this overwhelming opposition to his proposed
" reform," was it not doubly incumbent upon Bishop " Potter" to
specify the evils that have grown, or are growing, or may be
expected to grow, out of the continuance of the Anglo-Saxon
observance of Sunday in these United States? and the advant¬
ages to be derived from the relaxation of that observance which
he proposes, before he can expect a sensible, not to say religious,
people to listen patiently, while he condemns the one or advo¬
cates the other?
They will say with Job: "Produce your cause, saith the
Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob."
Bishop " Potter " has not, I think, brought any strong reasons
to support his proposed "reform."
Bishop "Potter's" courage cannot be doubted, whatever we
may think of his discretion, when he thus puts his unsupported
judgment against that of such an array, and not against these
only, but against the experience and testimony of their forefathers
through many generations,
5
Surely, in this, he but exemplifies Solomon's proverb: "Great
men are not always wise men."
Let Bishop " Potter " compare these Sabbath-keeping Anglo-
Saxons with any or all of the nations that have not " remem¬
bered the Sabbath Day to keep it holy," and to provide a day
"that their poor, and their cattle and the stranger may rest,"
and tell us what advantage, whether spiritual or temporal, he
finds to have accrued to them that may be traced to their disre¬
gard of that day! Have they increased more rapidly, or as rapidly,
in numbers? in wealth? 'in power? Is life to them more delight¬
ful? more desirable? more endurable?
I risk nothing in saying that Bishop "Potter " must answer, if at
all, with an emphatic negative. But, if not, statistics leave
■no room for doubt, when they tell us that in the continental
countries that disregard the Christian Sabbath there are from
four and one-half suicides in some, to eight and one-half in
others for every one that takes place in Great Britian !
Life is, therefore, less endurable, in countries where the
Christian Sabbath is not duly observed.
Considering these things, the wise men of France, under
lead of "Leon Say," are forming associations and bending their
energies to bring about among their people, a nearer approach to
the Anglo-Saxon observance of the Christian Sabbath.
The Emperor " William " is pursuing the same end in Ger¬
many by makiug Sunday labor illegal.
*Coincident with these efforts of foreign rulers and leaders to
promote the Anglo-Saxon observance of the Christian Sabbath,
we find Bishop "H. C. Potter," of the P. E. Church of America,
advocating the opening of places of amusement or of " recrea¬
tion " on Sunday, of which, one alone, the Chicago Exhibition
would, it is said, cause about 60,000 people, in and about the
Exhibition, besides nearly double that number of railroad
employees, to labor on that day, who could otherwise rest!
And to what end?
We are told that it is in order that the poor; may see this
exhibition of the world's industry and receive instruction and
recreation, which otherwise they would not see or receive. If
this be the reason, the proposition would stand thus: For the
sake of the poor workingmen living in Chicago and within the
* See Encyclopedia Britanica. Article Sunday.
6
narrow territory surrounding it, from which such men could
afford to pay their expenses to and while in Chicago, we ask the
people of the United States, or, at least, 50,000,000 of them, to
violate their religious convictions and abandon their religious
customs, established and reverenced for many generations, with
the happiest results, and, through Congress to contribute a large
sum of money to the "Columbian Exhibition," and at the same
time sanction its opening on Sunday, thereby causing many thous¬
ands of employees in and around it to work on that day; thus
abandoning before the assembled nations our sacred customs and,
disobeying the Divine Law, which requires that we not only
rest ourselves, but see that the poor and the stranqer within our
gates have rest one day in every seven.
Does the proposal seem reasonable?
But is it indeed true, that if closed on Sunday, the poor in and
around Chicago will not see the Exhibition?
I can hardly think so!
The Paris Exposition was said to have been most attractive
and beautiful at night. Will not this, too, be open at night?
and what will hinder the poor from attending then? They can
avail themselves also of several National holidays, and doubtless
many of the rich who employ them will not refuse them, for this
purpose, one day out of the six months- of the Exhibition's
duration, or one day in every month, or, if desirable, one day or
part of a day out of the six in every week, to enjoy this great
exhibit of the result of the many blessings with which the Cod
of our fathers has blessed us, during the past 400 years while
obedient to this, His law, rather than in disobedience to it, to
open the Exhibition on the one day in seven, which He has
reserved for His worship and rest to all, thereby making it a
monument to His dishonor and to our own inconsistency and
ingratitude before all the nations of the earth.
It has been said that above all impressive things seen at the
Paris Exposition the most impressive was the closing of the
departments of England and America on Sunday. They stood,
pre-eminent, though silent, witnesses of our national obedience
and wisdom.
Shall we forfeit this grand distinction?
Can Bishop " Potter," indeed, advise it?
And who else?
We are told that the Committee of Management wishes it.
Are they moved solely by sympathy for the poor?
Has it been said that they would, if allowed, open it FREE
to the poor on Sunday?
If it should he a dumb show on Sunday, as Bishop " Potter "
suggests, it would hardly be fair to charge for admission.
It may be that the owners of railroads running into Chicago
will support the Bishop's proposal, because, if allowed, it would
doubtless add, or appear to add, to their hard-earned profits ! !
It can hardly be doubted that the keepers of low lodging-
houses and places of entertainment, and every place of amuse¬
ment.and dram-shop in Chicago will endorse the Bishop's pro¬
posal.
And, of course, Col. Robert Ingersoll, and all who acknowl¬
edge his leadership.
And who else?
Probably the owners of "Sunday" newspapers and a motley
throng of the lower orders of foreigners from all continental
countries and their immediate descendants, who have not yet
learned the value of the Anglo-Saxon Sabbath; and, doubtless,
many capitalists—iron and railroad "barons" and other Ameri¬
cans—who live, or have lived, abroad in luxurious ease, earned
by the sweat of the laborers' brow at home, and there, learned to
see in this "Continental Sunday" a new line of approach by
which they may attack the laboring man's divinely provided
stronghold and only effectual defense against "seven day's work
for six day's pay," and bring him under the worst, the abject
slavery of a life of work without cessation, shut out from the
knowledge of God, without which freedom is only another name
for license.
Having now demonstrated, as I think, from a practical stand¬
point, the unwisdom of the change proposed by Bishop " Potter,"
let me say here, that his imputation of Puritanical asceticism, or
austerity, to the present American custom of Sabbath observance
seems to be without justification.
It is doubtful if those customs continue to be observed—except
by a very few—even among the people of " New England "—the
comparatively narrow territory where the "Blue" Laws of
Connecticut were once respected.
It is not, therefore, the Puritanical Sabbath that I wish to
8
defend, but the Scriptural, Anglo-Saxon observance, which, with
some exceptions, now obtains, and has obtained, over the greater
part of this country, ever since its colonization, and for cen¬
turies, in " Great Britian " and in the North of Ireland.
Let us now examine the Scriptural authority upon which
Bishop "Potter"'" depends to sanction this relaxation of our
present custom of Sunday observance.
Bishop " Potter"' says: " There can be little doubt that while
the Christian first day, Sunday, took over from the Sabbath its
venerable conceptions of a rest day, with its scarcely less venera¬
ble traditions of religious worship, it dismissed on one hand that
earlier strictness that would not on the Sabbath day pull an ox
or an ass from the pit into which they had fallen, nor pluck an
ear of corn, even to satisfy the most urgent demands of hunger,
while on the other it imported into the day an element of glad¬
ness and festivity, which made the Sunday of primitive Chris¬
tianity in many respects not unlike our Christmas or Thanks¬
giving day."
The Bishop is in error as to his facts, for, our Lord, on the
the contrary, says that any " Pharasee " would not only pull his
ox or his ass out of a pit on the Sabbath Day, but lead him to
water, too.
It will be observed that the Bishop speaks of the command¬
ment to rest on the Sabbath as " a venerable conception," and
of its observance as a day for religious worship as " ' a' scarcely
less venerable tradition!"
If the Fourth Commandment be only a venerable conception,
why did Bishop "Potter" for so long read it to the people of
"Grace Church,"New York, as one of God's commandments?
Does he not now require it of the clergy of his Diocese?
Has it been stricken from the decalogue in the New Prayer
Book?
And, or, are all the Commandments omitted, as being like it,
only "venerable conceptions" and "traditions?"
Again, if the dedication of the Sabbath to the worship of God
be only a venerable tradition," why did the prophets lay such
stress upon its religious observance?
By religious, is not meant "ascetic or austere." None of them
enjoins any such observance; far from it. See Isiah, 58th
Chapter, 13 th and 14th Yerses, where the prophet expresses the
true spirit of Sabbath observance.
9
Bishop "Potter" intimates that religious observance of the
Sabbath has no better foundation than'" venerable tradition."
Here St. Peter and the Bishop disagree. St. Peter refers to
the prophets as " holy men of old, who spake as they were
moved by the ' Holy Ghost.' "
Which is right, the Bishop or St. Peter?
"I speak as to wise men; judge ye! "
But, if the prophets were not inspired of God, how shall we
account for the abundant fulfillment of the glorious promises
they attached to the right observance of the Sabbath, and of the
severe punishments threatened against those who profane it.
And why has the Anglo-Saxon race been so blessed and pros¬
pered, as we. have already seen, above all other nations, since the
keeping of the Christian Sabbath as a holy day, rather than a
holiday, became a national custom, and its observance as a day
of rest uniformly enforced by law?
Can Bishop " Potter " name any other adequate cause than the
blessing promised for obedience to this Divine Law, which gives
all men time to read their Bibles and rest and prepare their
hearts? so promoting the knowledge of, and obedience to, all the
Ten Commandments and by consequence to the social laws based
upon them.
Eeferring to the overwhelming sentiment that supports our
Sunday observance in this country, Bishop "Potter" says: "It
remains to be questioned." Is that sentiment sound and wise?
Let me say in reply: Wjien Bishop "Potter" has answered the
questions here asked, he should need no further answer. But,
if he demands more and will but listen to the story of the Ages,
he will hear an affirmative, beginning distant but distinct in the
early Christian centuries, first enforced by the decrees of "Con-
stantine," echoed and intensified by the laws of "Charlemange;''
but most effectually enforced in Britain, where "Ina," King of
Wessex, freed the slave whose master required him to work on
Sunday, and heavily fined his master besides; he also enslaved the
freeman who worked on Sunday. Gathering strength from the
experience of multiplied generations, blessed through its right ob¬
servance, it rolled down the Ages, proclaiming, trumpet-tongued,
the wisdom of a stated day of rest and worship. Best to all, to
the serf and to the freedman; rest to every man, on# very hill
and in every valley of Christendom.
10
This divine edict lias been most uniformly obeyed in Christian
Britain, where Priest-craft and Human-greed were never able,
for long, to smother the sound of: this, our Creator's merciful
proclamation of universal liberty among Anglo-Saxon peoples.
Railroad, telegraph, postoffice and Sunday newspaper em¬
ployees in America, are the only slaves; they seem to have been
left outside the covenant. Are the wonderful facilities with
which the Almighty has blessed us above our forefathers in all
these things a sufficient excuse for depriving them of the bene¬
fits of His gracious proclamation, which makes every man free
for one day in every seven? The result of a practical test of
the two customs of Sabbath observance and non-observance,
under conditions favorable to the latter, may be seen in Ireland.
In the quiet hours of the Christian Sabbath religiously kept,
the men of Scotland, poor as well as rich, became familiar with
their Bibles, and there learned lessons of self-denial, love of
country and trust in Cod, that have made her barren hill-sides
and rugged mountains, the mother of a mighty race, whose sons
have been eminent among the wise and great in every land.
And England and America! what shall be said of them, under
the same tutelage and customs? Does not every nook and cran-
ney of the world acknowledge the beneficence of their works, and
extol the power and wisdom of the Anglo-Saxon race?
A colony of these Bible-taught, Sabbath-keeping, Scotchmen,
some three centuries ago, emigrated to Ireland, settling in the
province of "Ulster/' the least fertile, and as to climate, the
most inhospitable quarter of Ireland.
Here they were, from time to time, joined by a few English¬
men and French Huguenots.
They continued to observe their Sabbaths, as in Scotland, and
it needs but to compare the condition of that province and peo¬
ple, with that of the three provinces of the fertile South, where,
except at early mass, the day has been largely given up to—what
I suppose Bishop Potter may mean by recreation, as distinct
from mere amusement, viz: Athletic exercises, foot-ball, horse-
racing, fox-hunting and the like. This comparison honestly
made will, I think, prove a practical and distinctly affirmative
answer to Bishop "Potter's" query.
The people of Ulster are as prosperous, as progressive and as
contented as can be found in any part of the world. They have,
11
m proportion to numbers, given us many great men to illustrate
their country's name and promote her honor and advancement
as any other part of the British Empire.
The people of the other three provinces, on the contrary, are
the synonym of chronic indolence, discontent and turmoil.
Want frequently threatens, and gaunt famine has repeatedly
claimed her victims from among them by thousands.
Bishop "Potter" intimates that our "Lord" relaxed the Old
Testament law of the Sabbath; but Christ himself says not.
Not by even "a jot or tittle"—see Mat. 5th Ch., 17, 18 and 10
Verses, where he says: "I am not come to destroy the law or the
Prophets, but to fulfill."
Bishop "Potter" says that "a true picture of the Sunday ob¬
servance of the first Christian centuries may, by anticipation, be
found in the New Testament, where Christ, on a Sabbath Day,
heals a paralytic, and on another, dines with a Pharasee."
.{There is nothing in the Old Testament, nor in the Anglo-Saxon
custom contrary to either of these.
But Christ admonishes His host (though the Bishop omits to
mention it) as to whom he should invite to his Sabbath Day din¬
ners, viz: The lame, the maimed and the blind. With such
guests, only the most Pharasaic puritan would object to a Sunday
dinner party.
The Bishop, too, omits to mention, as part of this picture, our
Lord's constant attendance at worship on the Sabbath Day,
though it is a marked feature, both of His life on earth and of
the lives of His disciples.
There is no mention of the observance of the Lord's day in the
New Testament, but in connection with works of charity or
worship, nor any evidence of its use as a day of secular festivity, ^
except where St. Paul rebukes the abuse of it byACbnhtEians^^
excessive indulgence in food and wine, when they met to "break
bread" on that day. It appears, then, that the example and
precepts of our Lord and His Disciples, recorded in the New
Testament, neither relaxed the law of the Old Testament nor
favored anything which would be a relaxation of the Anglo-
Saxon Sabbath—observance of to-day.
As to Sunday travel: Christ, though he did not enjoin it,
evidently expected his disciples to restrict themselves to a "Sab¬
bath- day's journey," at least until the fall of Jerusalem and de-
12
struction of the Temple; for, why else did he instruct them to
pray that their flight from Jerusalem might not be on the Sab¬
bath Day?
But some will say, "Oh, it will never do to so restrict us now,
for if railroads and street cars should be stopped, how could the
Rev. Mr. Smugg reach.Smnggletown'to hold service on Sunday?"
But, might it not be that the good people of Smuggletown would
be quite as well without the services of Mr. Smugg, who hab¬
itually breaks the Fourth Commandment by contributing to make
railroad men work on the Christian Sabbath, yet, with unblush¬
ing inconsistency, reads to his congregation the Fourth, as one of
the commandments of which our Lord says: "He that breaks
the least, is guilty of all?"
The study of 1st Samuel, 15 ch. and 21st and 22d vs., is com¬
mended to these objectors, where, in answer to Samuel's reproof,
Saul said: "The people took of the best of the cattle to sacri¬
fice to thy God in Gilgal." And Samuel said: "Behold! to<
obey, is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams."
The example of these Sunday travelling clergy is often used
to enforce their arguments, by railroad men and other advocates
of Sunday travel, and effectively too; for most of us have been
brought up to think that what a clergyman does can't be wrong.
It is true that the contemporary Hebrew disciples of Christ con¬
tinued to keep the seventh day as their Sabbath up to the fall of
Jerusalem, and probably until the time of "Constantine, the
Great," when it was made legal for all,—slaves, as well as free¬
men—to rest on Sunday.
Previously the Israelitish slave could, under the Roman law,
rest only on the seventh day; and, resting on the seventh, obedi¬
ence to the Fourth Commandment required that they should
work on the first day.
"Six days shalt thou labor," says the commandment.
But among converts to Christianity, other than Hebrew^,
except slaves; was not the Lord's day observed as a day of rest
and worship?
As we have seen already, there is, in the New Testament,
nothing to show the contrary, and the probabilities are all in
favor of it. Indeed, we know that the "Ebionites," and proba¬
bly others, kept both days sacred, f
t See Encyclopedia Liritaiiiea, Article Sunday.
1 O
IO
It would seem, then, that there is no Scriptural foundation
upon which Bishop "Potter" can base hi# movement for relaxation
of our present Sunday usages, unless it be found in the passages
which he misquotes from the "Colossians," 2d ch. and 16 vs., as
showing how large the Christian's freedom is, in that matter, un¬
der the Gospel dispensation."
So large, indeed, that, if the passage really applies to the Sab¬
bath of rest given by God to Adam at the beginning, and conse¬
quently obligatory upon all his descendants, and not to, only the
Israelitish Sabbaths and holy days of the Ceremonial law which
were of temporary and limited 'obligation, then must we conelude
either that St. Paul was not inspired in this utterance, or else
that both Church and State, for fifteen hundred years, have
been tyranical in requiring the Christian observance of Sunday.
It matters not how salutary the result, they had no right to
require it of any man.
Let us see to which of these Sabbaths the text does apply.
Turning to the passage in King James' version, it reads thus:
"Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a
holy day, or cf the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." The
revised version reads, "A Sabbath day."
Either of these when read in connection with the eight pre¬
ceding verses of the respective versions in which they appear—
all of which, see Bishop Patrick's and Clark's commentaries—
manifestly refer to the observance of the Ceremonial or Levitical
law—make it plain, I think, that "the Sabbath days," or "a Sab¬
bath day," here referred to, are the Levitical or Ceremonial Sab¬
baths, in which the Israelites were commanded to do no servile
work; and not at all, to the Sabbath instituted of God at the
beginning, and consequently of perpetual obligation upon all the
descendants of Adam, and observed by the Israelites before the
laws of the Decalogue were given to Moses at Mt. Sinai; in which
it is distinguished from the other nine laws by being preceded
by the word "remember," showing that it was of previous obli¬
gation, and doubtless kept by their ancestors from the beginning.
St. Paul, therefore, does not, I think, in this passage, refer to the
Sabbath of rest, which we are repeatedly told was to be a "sign
forever" between God and IIis%people, and which is so, even to
this day—Sunday haying been substituted for it by tlye undi--
yided Chprph,
14
Upon this day it was commanded that not only no servile
work, but no manner of work should be done except, of course,
those of necessity and mercy, and of religious obligation.
Bishop "Potter," in his quotation, lays great weight on these
two words, "The Sabbath," yiviny them in italics, and his omis¬
sion of the word "day" as it appears in the King James' version,
would make it seem to all, but careful readers to give color to the
broad meaning which he attaches to it, tho general acceptance of
which would nullify the Fourth Comniandrhent, and all the others,
as a consequence.
Upon what authority does he omit the word "days,'' or else,
change "a Sabbath day," as in the revised version, into "the Sab¬
bath"? And why were not his readers notified of this deviation
fronqtlie received text?
This seems to need explanation!
Bishop "Potter" does not question the authority of the undivided
Church, under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, to sub¬
stitute for the day kept in commemoration of the first creation,
the day honored by the completion of that cognate, but more
gracious work—whereby it was made possible for man, Gfod's
noblest work, to become a new creature in Christ Jesus.
But, if any Seventh Hay Baptist, or any other, doubt this
authority, let him consider that the Israelites, as they moved
westward from Eden (their Sabbath beginning at sun-down),
could not possibly keep the identical day that their brethren did
who remained there; and that the Jew living, say, at "Honolulu"
to-day does not keep the day kept by his brethren at Jerusalem,
but a day more nearly identical with the Christian Sabbath.
And further, that if the Jew at "Honolulu" takes ship for, say,
"Tokio," crossing the 180th degree of longitude, on his Sabbath
morning, lie will find the Christians 011 board keeping the same
day with him as the Christian Sabbath, for, within the time
needed to cross a yiven tine, the seventh day becomes the first day
of the weeh!
If the common consent of mankind can, for secular puposes
at an imaginary line on the Earth's surface, thus change the
Jewish Sabbath into the Christian, and vice versa, or make them
synchronous, why not the undivided Church, upon such weighty
pause, for religious purposes?
T© Cod, the omnipresent, all longitudes are alike; one day is
15
as another; and by Him we are told "the Sabbath was made for
man."
But why do some, quote this gracious truth as if the Lord had
added the words, To desecrate?
J NO. S. FAIRLY.