be expected to subscribe to resolutions requiring them to advocate the sacredness of a day which they did not observe and in whose sanctity they did not believe, and to join in efforts to enforce its observance upon themselves and others. This fact being evident to some others of the delegates, an effort was immediately made to have the resolutions so interpreted as to harmonize them with the much-emphasized idea that the federation was not in any way to interfere with the perfect freedom of any of the churches composing it. This of course was impossible; but the attempt was made by the presentation of an amendment to the resolutions. A delegate obtained the floor and said:

"I rise to offer an amendment to the resolutions which I presume was inadvertently omitted in the committee. It is this: That nothing in these resolutions is to be understood as interfering with the convictions, rights, and privileges of those brethren who religiously and conscientiously observe the seventh day instead of the first day of the week."

The Chair requested that the resolution be presented in writing, in doing which the movers took occasion to so word it as to reduce it to the mildest possible form. As thus changed, the resolution read:—

"Resolved, That in these resolutions there is no intention to interfere with the convictions of those brethren represented with ourselves in this council, who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the day of rest and worship."

All reference to the "rights and privileges" of seventh-day observers, and all reference to any such people outside the federation, had been omitted, and the council was asked by this resolution simply to affirm with respect to the matter of Sabbath observance its own express declaration that the federation had no design of interfering with the perfect liberty of any of the component churches. No sooner was the read

The Federal Council of Churches in Session at the La Salle Hotel, Chicago, December, 1912

DEBATE OVER THE RESOLUTION

333

ing of the resolution finished than Bishop Neely (Methodist)

was on his feet.

said:

He

"I regret very much that this resolution has been presented. The people referred to in it. do not believe in the Lord's day. They believe in some other day. These resolutions emphasize the Lord's day. We must stand for the Lord's day and not weaken what we say. We must decide on one day as a Sabbath or the whole purpose goes for nought. If we make a formal consent to another day, how can we hope to bring about proper observance of the first day of the week in our mission fields and in places where there is little disposition to observe it in our own country? I hope this resolution will be voted. down." (Applause.)

Rev. Wayland Hoyt, D. D., a Baptist clergyman of Philadelphia, arose as the representative of those favoring the resolution. He said:

"I earnestly hope that this resolution will pass. Let us remember that the brethren of the Seventh-day Baptists are just as much represented in this council as are any others. If we are going to preserve brotherhood we are not going to clash because of the conscientious convictions of brethren associated with us in this council of churches. I do not sympathize with them in their belief, but I respect them for their willingness to stand firm and true to what they believe, and for the

fact that they are willing to sacrifice. While I am in full harmony with the spirit of the resolution already submitted, I believe we ought never to adopt such statements as will even seem to conflict with the convictions of brethren equally represented with us on this floor. This federation will be more and more acknowledged throughout the churches, and it is absolutely necessary that we be thoroughly fair with one another, and thoroughly brotherly with each other in all our relations. I believe that God looks smilingly upon this desire to be absolutely fair and just and brotherly to all represented in this federation of churches. I earnestly hope this resolution will pass."

Rev. A. E. Main, Seventh-day Baptist, dean of Alfred Theological Seminary, Alfred, N. Y., arose at this point and made an earnest plea for religious freedom. He said:—

"We know that we represent the smallest body in this council, and on that account we are grateful for your recognition of us and your invitation to unite with you as being evangelical and Christian, believing in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his Son, and having no other hope of salvation except through his atonement. We have heard with delight the appeals from this platform in behalf of religious freedom; and shall it be that in this council which has heard these grand pleas made, and in this city of brotherly love, where a Seventhday Baptist presided at a session of the Continental Congress, you will refuse to say that we shall be free in the exercise of our convictions when we have stood shoulder to shoulder with you in this movement? Let our answer be a federated union in the belief of the principles of Christ as the world's Redeemer. Let it be the voice of this council that the eighteen millions of communicants shall keep step, and the time will come when the forces of sin and Satan will be thwarted and vanquished. It is the power of the church united that is to break down the power of sin and Satan.

"I say again, shall we be divided because of the conscientious convictions of those who believe that the seventh day rather than the first day of the week should be observed as a day of rest and worship? or shall we all be united in the Saviour of the world?"

But no voice in the council echoed this plea for religious