Untitled article by M. G. HUFFMAN

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 23, 1893

Sunday Legislation in Maine.

By M. G. HUFFMAN

It seems that Sunday legislation is in the very air. Such work is going on in every direction, Maine not excepted, notwithstanding she has hitherto prided herself on her liberality, and boasted of her constitution, which guarantees to every man the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. But in Maine, as well as elsewhere, the ministers realized that something must be done, as they were losing their power with the people to get their attendance at church. Hence a union committee was appointed for inter-denominational effort to secure better Sunday legislation. Of that committee, Rev. Mr. Wharff, of Rockland, Professor Denio, of Bangor Theological Seminary, Rev. E. T. Adams, of Winthrop, Mr. Purrington, of Augusta, and Rev. W. S. McIntire, of Biddeford, met in Lewiston to map out plans of procedure. As the result of that meeting, there were three thousand five hundred circular letters sent out containing this blank form of petition:—

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Maine:

We, the undersigned, citizens of [ ] in the State of Maine, respectfully petition your honorable body to enact such laws as will prohibit Sunday excursions by railroad companies and steamboats, and properly regulate Sunday traffic.

These blanks were sent to pastors and church people all over the State of Maine, asking them to procure signatures thereto; and in addition to sending out the petition the committee voted to request the pastor of each church in Maine to preach a sermon some Sunday in December on the subject of Sabbath observance. Thus the Sunday question has been greatly agitated throughout the State of Maine since Dec. 1, 1892.

A bill was presented to the legislature early in the present session, asking that laws be enacted to prohibit railroad and steamboat excursions, and to properly regulate Sunday traffic. The bill was referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs, before which a hearing was granted February 7. Ministers of the various denominations were well represented, and pleaded earnestly in behalf of the bill, claiming that it was the poor laboring man they were endeavoring to throw the protecting arm of the law around. Professor Denio, the principal speaker in defense of the bill, said in his closing remarks:—

Give us a law to protect Sunday and the Church will do the rest.

The word “rest” revealed the evil motive behind the whole movement, notwithstanding he tried to conceal it by claiming it was the poor laboring man whom he wished to see protected. If there be any query in the minds of any of the readers as to what the word “rest” means, let them go to Tennessee, and behold those who have procured a law to protect Sunday, dragging Christians to jail and compelling them to work upon the public highway by the side of criminals, all because they dare to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

The bill was defeated. The committee voted unanimously to give the petitioners

leave to withdraw—which meant death to the whole thing, at least so far as this bill was concerned.

While it is true they were defeated in this bill, the spirit behind this Sunday movement is by no means dead. This defeat has made the churches all the more determined. They are now discussing the matter more vigorously than ever before, and doubtless two years hence will bring more influence to bear upon our representative men. They are already denouncing with pen and voice the legislature at Augusta for so far forgetting their position as to treat such a measure with laughter and ridicule. It is being heralded far and wide by the press to-day that the Maine legislature laughs at a bill aiming to suppress violation of the Sabbath. And doubtless many honest men and women are thus led to believe, who have not investigated for themselves, that our representative men have forgotten their position when they treat with indifference religious measures which are brought before them by the ministers in whom many of the people have implicit confidence, and think that their pastors know and understand the relation that the Church and State ought to sustain to each other.

It is not my purpose to attempt to discuss the question as to whether Sunday is or is not the Sabbath, but the vital question is, What ought our State government to do about it? And what is true of this State is true of every other State in the Union, and of the United States as well. Religious legislation is opposed to the constitution of our State, as well as to the natural right of every citizen of this our commonwealth.

The constitution of Maine forbids the establishment of any religion by law; hence, if our legislators should have passed the Sunday bill, they would have violated the constitution of Maine, and thus would have stepped beyond their jurisdiction. What right has any legislature to meddle with religious matters, anyway? Such things should be left where they belong—to the family and the Church. There should be an absolute separation of State and Church. The union of the Church and State in the past has been fraught with peril. What we want is a free Church and a free State. The union of Church and State has always worked to the utmost disadvantage. Christ said, when asked whether or not it was right to pay tribute to Cæsar: “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Thus he separated Church and State, and who will dare put together the things which he has so distinctly separated?

Do you not see that if the Maine legislature had passed the proposed Sunday bill it would have violated the principles of true Christianity as taught by Christ himself, as well as the constitution of Maine? For just as soon as any State attempts to legislate in behalf of religion it is meddling with that which it has no right, and when any legislature does by law establish any phase of religion it has formed an unholy union with the Church, and to the extent that it legislates, just to that extent it has established a State religion. Therefore is it not doing injustice to thus accuse our representative men of forgetting their position because they refuse to meddle with the Sunday question?

The representatives are elected by the people to attend to matters pertaining wholly to Cæsar and his subjects, and not to things that pertain to God and his people. God’s people are not of this world. It is true they are in the world, and should, so long as they are in the world, obey the laws of Cæsar,—that is, if Cæsar does not go beyond his jurisdiction and pass laws which will abridge the rights and suppress the conscience of a people whose citizenship is of another country. If Cæsar does do that which he has no right,—make laws which will in themselves conflict with the right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience—then I say that it is the duty of the citizen to maintain his allegiance to God, although he may meet a fate similar to Daniel, and the three Hebrew worthies.

If ministers have been called of God and ordained by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel, then is it not their duty to give themselves wholly to the preaching of that gospel, and leave our legislators to attend to matters pertaining to that which is civil? We read that the “gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Hence, would it not be more consistent with the profession of those who claim to have been called to the ministry, to give heed to the injunction of Christ, and go and preach the gospel to the railroad and steamboat men and get them to believe it if they can, than to clamor for laws to compel them to believe and obey it?

What is all this clamoring for a Sunday law for, anyway? We have now upon the Maine statute books law enough, if put in force, to stop railroad and steamboat excursions, and regulate all Sunday traffic. Here it is:—

Whoever on the Lord’s day keeps open his shop, workhouse, warehouse, or place of business; travels, or does any work, labor, or business, on that day, except works of necessity or charity; uses any sport, game or recreation; or is present at any dancing, public diversion, show, or entertainment, encouraging the same, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten dollars.

Would it not be well for those who are laboring so industriously for a Sunday law to protect the laboring man, as they claim, to see that the laws now upon our statute books are enforced before asking that any more be enacted? In the face of the fact that we now have such strenuous Sunday laws upon our statute books, we are forced to the conclusion that it is not so much a law to protect either Sunday or the laboring man that is wanted, but a law to compel. M. G. HUFFMAN.