The International Sunday Congress.
By J. Faulkumier
It is known that there exists an international federation for Sunday-keeping, having its headquarters at Geneva. This society sums up as follows its object, which “has been and will remain the same:” “To remind everyone of this declaration of the Holy Scriptures, ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.’” With the object of giving its work a new impetus, the federation organized in Paris, under the patronage of the French Government, an international congress for the weekly rest from the hygienic and social standpoint. This congress334was convened within the precincts of the exhibition from September 24 to 28. Some may perhaps think it strange that the congress should have been organized with the sole object of showing the hygienic and social benefits of an eminently religious institution. It will, perhaps, be asked whether the observance of the fourth commandment will have made great progress when the world shall have been convinced that the weekly rest-day has very material hygienic and social advantages. To this it is answered that we must make a distinction between the physical and religious rest; and, although the religious observance is much to be preferred, the physical rest itself is an unmixed blessing. The objector may ask whether, if this distinction be correct, the weekly rest, separated from its religious, which is its main, character, may still prove a beneficent institution; if it is not probable, rather, that this regular day of leisure, devoid of its religious associations, will become an occasion of dissipation and demoralization; if this is not indeed a fact of which every week gives us renewed demonstration. It must be confessed that these objections have much weight, and that, far from answering them, the congress has, on the contrary, confirmed them. I have before me the eleven resolutions voted by the congress on this twofold question, “The weekly rest from a social and hygienic standpoint.” In these eleven propositions, the argument drawn from the moral nature of man, from his morality, from his moral progress, occurs no less than seven times. Now what is this moral argument if it is not a religious argument? What is moral progress without religion, unless the members of the congress be advocates of a system of morals independent of religion, which we will not suppose? This sevenfold reiteration of the moral argument is an admission of the essentially religious character of the institution. On this point an American delegate strikingly said in the congress: “The declaration that the civil institution of a rest-day is distinct from the religious institution, for myself as well as for others, is not true.” The ecclesiastical aims of those who agitate this question manifested itself in several ways at the congress. The most striking instance, perhaps, was in the seven resolutions voted on the “weekly rest-day and the railroads.” These resolutions urge the suppression of labor on the railroads—the time being seven times specified—on Sundays and holy days. Thus it is seen that the ultimate object is to secure the State enforcement not only of Sunday-keeping, but of church holy days as well. This brings us far from the weekly rest on the hygienic basis. The question of Sunday laws was dealt with largely in the congress. As has been seen, the weekly rest is essentially a religious institution, and its hygienic and social benefits are inseparable from its religious character. Thus we would have civil laws enforcing religious observances, which would constitute an infringement of the sacred rights of conscience in a matter between each individual and his Creator. This objection was recognized by advocates of Sunday laws, and an attempt was made to meet it by very feeble and illogical arguments. We were glad, however, to see in the congress a calm but firm protest against State intervention in the Sunday question. This intervention some said would constitute an immense injury. They did not want, even in order to secure what they considered a great blessing, to surrender their Christian liberty into the hands of the State. Once started on this course, where would the State bring us? and how could it be stopped if it went too far? Much better, they said, to do the work ourselves, than to accept a disastrous intervention.—J. Faulkumier, in Present Truth, London, England.