Untitled article by C. P. B.

Untitled article

C. P. B.

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

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 11

the decision of the present case, to sustain the divine authority of its institution." "It is set apart by divine command and human legislation as a day of rest." "We have no right to give up this institution. It has come down to us with the most solemn sanctions, both of God and man, and if we do not appreciate it, we are at least bound to preserve it."

Concerning two Kentucky statutes it is observed (Moore vs. Hagan, 2 Duv. 437) that "one applied exclusively to Sunday as sacred, and the other to holidays as secular;" while in the same case the object of the Sunday law is declared to be "to aid in securing it [Sunday] against desecration."

In Iowa, one of the newer States, it has been held (Davis vs. Fish, 1 Green 40) that Sunday is "sacred, set apart for rest." In North Carolina it is declared (Ricketts' case, 74 N. C. 184) that "all religious and moral codes permit works of necessity and mercy on their sacred days;" and in Georgia, it is held (Weldon's case, 62 Ga. 449) that in that State, "as in England, Sunday is a holy day. The code denominates it the Lord's day, and as the Lord's day all courts and magistrates are to consider it." This list might be greatly extended, but it is not necessary; the proposition under discussion is that "we have no laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution." The supreme courts of several of the States themselves being the judges, we have such laws.

But one question remains to be settled, namely, have we laws which require an observance of Sunday in keeping with the supposed sacred character of the day? Again let the courts answer. In Georgia it has been held (44 Ga. 204) that the power to legislate in regard to Sunday "is a very high prerogative, and is supported by the principle involved in the preservation of morals and duties of the citizens upon the Lord's day;" while in Ohio it is said (Wright, Ohio 754) in the case of a deed executed upon Sunday, that "both parties partook of the sin of violating the Sabbath."

Ringgold, author of "Legal Aspects of the First Day of the Week," cites a comparatively recent English case in which it was said "the statute, in express terms, provides that every person shall apply himself to the observation of the Lord's day publicly and privately; so that private, as well as public conduct, was expressly within its contemplation." Upon this, Mr. Ringgold remarks that "there is no lack of American authorities which recognize the legal consistency of the English view, and adopt the same reasoning. In support of this he cites cases in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. In Massachusetts it has been held that "all arguments drawn from the Jewish law respecting the Sabbath are out of place, except so far as any provisions of that law may have been recognized and promulgated by our Saviour, or by legislative authority of our own commonwealth." "We are," says the Court, "far from questioning the religious obligation which all Christians are under to separate to religious uses the first day of the week, since the legislative power has exacted the observance of it as such." In Pennsylvania (Waff's case, 3 S. & R. 48), it is declared that "it is of the utmost importance that they [the people] be reminded of their religious duties at stated intervals;" and in Tennessee we have this opinion (2 Yerg. 31): "It is correct, as advanced by the defendant's counsel, that no worldly labor or business ought to be carried on on the Sabbath day. It is, at least, unseemly, subversive of good morals, and as it appears to me, not in union with the principles of our holy religion." And again; "The object of the law was to prevent the desecration of the day, which by our law is dedicated to the duties of religion." 1 Swan 413.

Have we indeed no laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution? What answer must honest men give to the question? C. P. B.