Untitled article by W. A. Blakely

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · June 2, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 22

Sunday Closing of the World’s Fair

By W. A. Blakely

Not a Question of Sunday

Sacredness.

BECAUSE those who are clamoring for the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday, are actuated by religious zeal in favor of the sacredness of the day, they, judging their opponents from their own point of view, seem to think that all who are opposed to Sunday closing, are enemies of the Sunday institution itself. But this is by no means the case. The question of the sacredness of Sunday does not affect the question in the remotest degree. If the Sunday institution was clothed with all the sacredness that divinity could bestow, still it would be entirely beyond the legitimate province of the Directorate of the Columbian Exposition, to close by law a single door on the first day of the week, for that reason.

The true basis for opposition to Sunday closing is precisely the same as would be taken by Christians generally to compulsory baptism, under the direction of a law of those in charge of the Fair. “It is none of the Directors’ business,” would be the very sensible and indignant exclamation, “whether the people making exhibitions at the Fair are baptized or not. They are delegated with power to direct the Fair,—not to direct the religion of those who take part in the Fair.” If compulsory baptism were proposed, the question to decide would not be whether baptism was or was not a binding ordinance, or a spurious institution, or any kindred question. It would simply be, Have the Directors of the Columbian Exposition been delegated any power by the American people to regulate the religious observances of the World’s Fair exhibitors in 1893?

If they have been clothed with such power they have the unquestionable right to enforce baptism; but if they have not been delegated such power, then they have no right whatever to interfere with the question of religion “in any way, shape, or manner,” but must leave the question, whether a man will obey God or disobey God, to the Supreme Being to settle, in his own good time and manner, with each individual himself.

This is the Christian basis of opposition to closing the World’s Fair by any law of the Directorate in charge. I say “closing by law,” because I am most decidedly not opposed to closing the World’s Fair on Sunday, if such closing be the voluntary acts of the several exhibitors, prompted by

a religious or any other laudable motive. I think such action would be a move that would show a remarkably advanced state of religion and morality. But, on the other hand, if the amount of religion and morality of the exhibitors is measured by the amount of law which supports it, it is a shame and a disgrace to American civilization and American Christianity.

A law to compel the opening of the Fair on Sunday should be just as much condemned as a law to close the Fair on Sunday. The Directors have no authority in religion whatever, either pro or con.

Ignoring all of this fundamental doctrine, however, which is one of the great principles of the American political system, the Sunday advocates demand that their holy day shall not be dishonored, and that the gates must close on that day; that the “American Sabbath” must be preserved!

But do they not know that if they base their arguments on the holiness of the day, that their arguments will be examined; and that argument will be met with argument? This, it seems, has already been verified. The Catholic Record, of September 17, 1891, says, editorially:—

The discussion on closing the World’s Fair on Sunday has brought into promiscuous use the word “Sabbath.” The Sabbath was the Jewish day of rest, and is still so observed by Jews who adhere strictly to the religion of their fathers. The Christian day of rest in English speaking countries is called Sunday, or the Lord’s day. The first appellation will do, and the second is very good. There is no need of a third name, and it is an absurd misnomer on the part of Christians to call it “the Sabbath.” It is a matter of wonderment to us to see Catholic clergymen use the word Sabbath for Sunday. We protest earnestly against this Protestant mode of speech. It does not look well for Catholics to knuckle to such Protestant fantastic notions.

But Protestants are consistent in calling their day of rest “Sabbath,” for they have scriptural ground for keeping the Sabbath, and none at all for observing Sunday. Sunday is founded, not on Scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no Scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday, and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday.

We, therefore, can’t see what business our Protestant friends have to call for the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday. What does it matter to them whether or not a Catholic institution is violated? We don’t know whether or not the Commission before which the petition is pending knows its business; but, if it does, it will have no trouble in reaching a decision. It will call on the petitioners for proof that the observance of Sunday is prescribed in the Scriptures; and as no proof will be forthcoming, what will remain but to dismiss the petition?

The Sabbath Recorder, a prominent journal of the American Seventh-day Baptists, also speaking editorially upon the Sunday-closing discussion, said in its issue of September 24:—

We may look for one result from the discussion of this question—the people will be pretty thoroughly instructed in regard to the fact that Sunday as a Sabbath is not found in the Bible, and is entirely an extra-Bible thing. The time is at hand when he who attempts to combat the change-of-Sabbath theory, or the theory that Sunday has any biblical claim for recognition as a Sabbath-day, will be fighting windmills. It can truly be said that the time is at hand when no intelligent Christian will try to defend Sunday-keeping on either ground.

These are the historical facts and arguments that are elicited by the demands of the Sunday advocates for the closing of the World’s Fair on the first day of the week. If they assert that that day is sacred, it is but natural that their opponents should bring to light what the Bible and history have to say upon that point. Hence, although the sacredness of the day has no real bearing on whether or not the Fair should be closed on Sunday, yet, the repeated demands for closing the Fair that the “Sabbath” may not be desecrated, will inevitably give publicity to the question as to whether Sunday is, or ever was, a day set apart by divine authority for religious worship. Whatever may be the results of such a discussion, the Sunday-law agitators can rightly blame only themselves for the outcome.

The better way would be to act justly, and let every exhibitor follow the dictates of his own conscience. Let the Sabbatarian close his exhibit on Saturday, but compel no one else to do so; let the observer of Sunday close his exhibit on Sunday, but compel no one else to do so; let any one of a different mind close his exhibit on any other day that he may choose, but do not compel any one of a different mind to do so. This is justice; this is democracy; and this should be the policy that should govern the managers of the great Columbian Exposition in 1893.

W. A. BLAKELY.