proposal by reformers such as McLeod and Hartley, therefore, were attempts to explainaway an obvious defeat. They knew that the rejection of the circuit system was wellthought-out and carefully considered.
Despite the rejection of the circuit system, however, the reformers continued their promotion of progressive evangelical causes. One such issue that had broad appealthroughout the denomination was sabbatarianism. When the General Conference firstconsidered the issue in 1856, its emphasis was on the personal responsibility of theindividual to ensure the observance of the Sabbath. However, for the first time they alsorecognized the role of government in preventing the secularization of the Sabbath. “Agovernment without a Sabbath,” the Conference concluded, “cannot be more religiousthan an individual without one.” The Conference regretted “exceedingly” that “the lawsfor the better observance of the Lord’s-day are not more rigidly enforced, and thatexamples for the violation of these laws are sometimes found among those whose dutyit is to execute them.”
In 1859 the Conference expressed its approval of the actions of the government, particularly George Connell, the Postmaster General. Connell, aMethodist from Woodstock who regularly contributed to the Free Christian BaptistGeneral Conference fund, was singled out by the Conference for his efforts in “stoppingSunday labor in that department over which he presides.”
Ironically, it was the veryinstruments of progress that the reformers championed, such as railways and faster,more comfortable boats, that made it easier for people to travel, and thus increasedtheir opportunities for visiting and travelling on Sunday. Likewise, as printing pressesbecame more widespread, and publishing less expensive, so too did the opportunitiesfor people to spend Sundays reading “trashy literature” instead of the Bible.In fact, the new conditions of capitalism - the growth of business combined withimproved transportation and communication - imposed increasing strains upon thechurches in dealing with the problem of Sabbath desecration. As with temperance,however, the churches found allies for Sabbath observance in businessmen whosought to secure greater order within the competitive system. Lobbying for Sabbathobservance also represented an effort to blunt the edge of capitalist rivalry by providingat least one day of rest in seven. Its promotion secured, therefore, the support of powerful economic interests.
Reformers like Rev. Parsons saw the “physical andmental exhaustion” that resulted from “push[ing] the affairs of a busy week up to thevery portals of the Sabbath” as detrimental to “the preparation requisite for theenjoyment of the blessings of the sanctuary.”
To the capitalists in their congregations,like Fredericton lumber merchant and politician John Pickard, it was bad for business.
Spiritual and economic interests were thus intertwined.
It was another indication of theincreasing infusion of the values of mainstream evangelicalism into Free ChristianBaptist practice and belief.The failure of the reformers yet again to implement a circuit system, however,combined with the continued general lack of support for education and ministerialtraining, led to a number of editorials in the Religious Intelligencer pleading with FreeChristian Baptists to continue their support of those aspects of the reform agendaalready in place, and to change their minds on the others. One in particular stands out