Untitled article by G. E. Fifield

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 7, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 31

More about the “Civil Sabbath.”

By G. E. Fifield

THE argument for the “civil Sabbath” rests on the false distinction made between the spiritual intent of the Sabbatic institution, and the physical, social, and intellectual good derived from it. It is said that “God gave the Sabbath for a religious purpose—for the spiritual good of his children, and because it pleases him to have them meet and worship him—and with this of course the civil law can have nothing to do; but as it is discovered by experience that a great physical, social, and intellectual good, to the people, is derived from keeping the Sabbath, therefore the State may enforce such Sabbath keeping for civil reasons.”

This argument rests first, upon the distinction made between the divine and human intent of the Sabbath; but secondly, it rests upon the assumption that the government is the proper guardian of the physical and social good of its subjects.

Regarding this assumption, it is only necessary here to remark, that the moment the government commits itself to such a guardianship, there is no logical stopping place this side of a complete supervision of the eating, bathing, sleeping, and dressing of all its subjects.

To say nothing of the expense and inconvenience of running such a government, and of the intolerable interference of the government officials with the sacred privacy of family life, it has been proven by experience, that such paternal guardianship on the part of the government, tends directly to produce, on the part of the people, a corresponding childish dependence. Thus, by keeping the mass of the people in perpetual childhood, and throwing all the care and responsibility of their welfare on a few persons, the distance, between the governing and the governed, is perpetually widened, and the tendency is directly toward monarchy and despotism. It need not be said, that nothing could be more utterly subversive of all the principles of democracy and freedom than this.

Our Sunday laws in the States are relics of a barbarous past. And the clamor of the National Deformers, and the anti-American Sabbath Union, for national Sunday laws, is the asking of our Nation to commit itself to a theory of government which logically includes all the despotism and oppression so terribly illustrated by the bloody past. But, now for this distinction between the spiritual interest and the physical and social good of the Sabbath.

Mr. L. C. Inglis, in his paper, read at the Washington Convention, of the American Sabbath Union, declared that, “practically this is a distinction without a difference.”

Thus the very foundation of their whole “civil Sabbath” theory was declared false, by one of their own speakers on their own platform; and as the distinction is false, it is therefore admitted that all “civil Sabbath” legislation is in reality religious legislation.

Perhaps the fallacy of this distinction may be best proven by showing that it would apply equally well to all the other commandments in the decalogue; and that as the law contains the whole duty of man (Eccl. 12:13), therefore, by the same method of reasoning, all religious and moral duties could be enforced by law, for civil reasons. Take the first commandment for illustration: “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”

It is well known that most terrible wars, and untold misery, have been inflicted by the nations upon themselves and one another, because of different gods or different views of the same God. In fact, very much of the war and bloodshed of the past is traceable to the violation of the first commandment.

The very reason God gave that first commandment, was, not that he had a desire to be worshiped, but that by teaching all men to look up to the one God and Creator as their father, he might unite them all into one peaceful family of brothers and sisters, instead of having the world divided into hostile sects and nations.

Why not, then, for civil reasons, that is, for the welfare and peace of the State, establish the worship of the one God, and carefully describe by law the character of this God, and state definitely what shall pertain to his worship? In other words, why not establish a national religion at once, and enforce it?

Take the second commandment as another illustration. From violating the first commandment, men have been led onward to the violation of the second, and all the others of the ten.

Why not, then, for civil reasons prohibit all image worship, and all violation of any other of the commandments? for the same principle is involved throughout. This is the very way people have always reasoned when they have established State religions.

“Well,” says one, “why is not the reasoning good? If all this good will come from a unity of faith and practice, why not enforce such unity?” Simply because it cannot be done; it is utterly beyond the power of the State. The State might as well legislate to enforce an eclipse of the moon once a week.

In the Middle Ages, they attempted to enforce such a unity of faith and practice. They compelled whole tribes to be baptized, and to receive the eucharist. No one will, to-day, claim that those poor unfortunates really partook of the eucharist, far less that they experienced any of that union of feeling that comes from a real participation in that sacred ordinance.

Later, victorious Christian (?) kings

drove hoards of the conquered barbarians through the rivers of their blood-stained lands to baptize them, and yet they were unbaptized still, as all must admit who have any true idea of baptism.

A glimmer of this truth seemed to dawn upon the minds of the bigoted Spaniards, who, after compelling the Moors to be baptized, decided that they were still non-Christian (i. e. unbaptized) dogs, and that they must therefore be exterminated.

This distinction between the spiritual intent, and the civil benefit of the law of God, rests on a false and arbitrary idea of God’s government. It assumes that the pleasure of God is to domineer over his creatures, and if in obedience to such arbitrary rules, there comes any benefit to the people, well and good. On the contrary, the highest pleasure of God, is the pleasure and welfare of all his creatures. There is nothing arbitrary in all God’s government. A thing is not right or wrong simply because God said so; but God says so because it is so.

There are certain principles, which in the very nature of things, in all the universe of God, must tend to the happiness of all intelligent beings, and there are other principles which tend to their misery. Of the first, God said, “Thou shalt,” and of the second, “Thou shalt not.” Thus, all God’s law rests in his love for his creatures, and in his desire for their happiness and well-being; but this law can not be enforced by the civil power, and any attempt to thus enforce it upon the people, tends, and in all history has tended, to their misery and ill-being, and is, therefore, utterly subversive of the designs of God’s law and government.

By this it is seen that the same argument that upholds the so-called “civil Sunday,” would carry the nation to any lengths into the iniquitous labyrinths of religious legislation and persecution.

G. E. FIFIELD.