L. A. S by L. A. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Aug 17, 1905

L. A. S

By L. A. S.

In a defense of Sunday legislation the United Presbyterian says:— The purpose of law . . . is not to make men good, but to protect society in its rights, and to punish those who have no regard for the convictions of the majority. The purpose of a Sabbath law is not to make men religious, but to protect an institution which God has established, and which inheres in the very nature of man.

This is a sample of the loose reasoning which so naturally goes with an attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable.

The purpose of law is truly “to protect society in its rights,” but in the very next sentence the Presbyterian says that the intent of the Sabbath law is “to protect [not rights, but] an institution.” There is a vast difference between the two. That is just the trouble with the Sunday law. It is designed to protect an institution, and to protect it, if need be, at the expense of human rights. There is no right of man more necessary and more sacred than the right to labor, for it is upon labor that life itself depends. The Sunday law invades this right; and it forbids labor for the sole reason that labor is contrary to the religious aspect of the day.

The Sabbath is truly “an institution which God has established;” but that this institution is protected by protecting Sunday is pure assumption. God, the author of the Sabbath, has nowhere said so.

This institution which God has established, moreover, can not be protected by the laws of men, but rests upon the law of God himself. He has established it by his own law, and only as that law is kept is the Sabbath truly observed. But the law of God can not be kept by any but those who have experienced conversion; for it is written, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7. No human law can enforce the law of God.

Neither is it evident that the Sabbath institution “inheres in the very nature of man.” If it did, it would naturally assert itself in the practises of men, just as pride, the necessity of eating and sleeping, and other things which inhere in human nature, assert themselves; and no law in its behalf would be necessary. The keeping of the Sabbath, and of all God’s commandments, inheres in the divine nature, but there is not one of God’s laws or institutions that inheres in the carnal nature. The Sabbath is of no use to any one whose heart is at enmity with God’s Sabbath law. This is self-evident; and therefore a human Sabbath law can be considered of use only upon the assumption that people can be made Christians by law. There is only one law that can change the sinner into a Christian, and that is “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” Rom. 8:2.

The purpose of law, as before stated, is to protect people in the enjoyment of their rights; but Sunday laws assume to protect one right—the right of rest—by invading another—the right to labor. This can not be done. In no right are people more entitled to the protection of law than in the right to work,—to do that which is necessary to provide a living for themselves and those dependent on them. Sunday laws do, beyond question, invade this right. They assume, on the other hand, to protect rights, but this is only an assumption, the real truth being, as the Presbyterian stated, that their purpose is to “protect an institution.” An institution which can be protected only at the expense of human rights is certainly not one which God has instituted, and by the same token it is an institution which has no right to exist at all. If either God-given, inalienable rights or an institution must be sacrificed, let it be the institution.