p. 1 | Untitled article

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 17, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 11

Sunday Laws Religious.

In an article in Our Day for January, 1891, Rev. W. F. Crafts said:—

It is significant that the American Secular Union, instead of condemning all Sabbath laws, asks only for the “repeal and prevention of all laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution, other than an economic one justified by physiological and other secular reasons.” As there are no Sunday laws that enforce its religious observance, this “plank” “nailed on the fog,” is waste timber.

The words, “There are no Sunday laws that enforce its religious observance,” which we have italicised, are not in form a denial that there are “laws enforcing Sunday as a religious institution;” but we will not charge Mr. Crafts with making a show of denying a thing, while designedly not doing so. Though not saying it in so many words, he must be understood from the connection as intending to deny that there are in this country “laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution.” A denial, however, is one thing; and the proof, quite another. And in this case, the proof in support of Mr. Crafts’ denial is not only not forthcoming, but the facts prove exactly the contrary.

To enforce “the observance of Sunday as a religious institution,” can mean neither more nor less than enforcing the observance of it because it is a religious institution; and further, that the observance required must in some degree be in keeping with the supposed character of the day. That all this is true of the Sunday laws now upon the statute books of the several States is the object of this article to show.

That the Sunday laws of the older States are derived largely from English statutes, will not be denied; and that the newer States have modeled their Sunday laws after the Sunday laws of the older States is equally true. It follows, that to learn the real character of Sunday legislation, we must go to the source whence it is derived. We have at hand, however, only a single English case (Bloxsome vs. Williams, 5 D. & R. 82), decided in 1824, in which the judge said: “The object of the statute is to prevent persons keeping open shop and disregarding the decency of the Lord’s Day.” In New York in 1811, Judge Kent said of the requirement to keep Sunday, that “the statute has for over a century recognized the sanctity of the obligation, and punished its violators.” In 1834, another New York judge (Boynton vs. Page, 12 Wend. N. Y. 57), referred to “the public order and solemnity of the day.” In 1859, we are assured (Campbell vs. International Soc., 4 Bos. N. Y. 298) that the statute of New York “explicitly recognizes the first day of the week as holy time; and thus it has brought us back to the full, enlarged and absolute rule of interdiction which we find prevailed in the earliest laws of Christian States.” Even as recently as 1882 (12 Abb. N. C. 455 N. Y.) we find this significant question: “Is it not obvious that by reason of keeping a store open for business, a temptation is presented to those who have no regard for Sunday, as holy time, to violate the law?”

The Pennsylvania Reports furnish numerous similar cases; for instance, we find (Jeandelle’s case, 3 Phil. 509) a judge declaring that “the day is clothed with peculiar sanctity;” while another jurist in the same State (Eyre’s case, 1 S. & R. 347) declares that “Sabbath-breaking is a violation of a divine as well as a human law.” In still another case (Johnston’s, 22 Pa. 102) the judge said: “The learned counsel for the plaintiff has entered largely into the question of the origin and sanction of the Christian Sabbath. It may not be essential, but it is far from being irrelevant, to