Sunday Law by M. E. Cornell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 17, 1870

Sunday Law.

By M. E. Cornell

For years' we have been looking forward to the creation of a more general sentiment in favor of a universal Sunday law; a law which would make no provision for those who conscientiously, and scripturally, observe the Bible Sabbath. We have expected this, because the sure word of prophecy seemed to point in this direction. That we have not followed cunningly devised fables in this regard, it would seem must now be evident to all. Scarcely a week passes but that we hear of some leading voice, either political or religious, being raised in favor of Sunday legislation.

Leading clergymen in the principal cities are taking a bold stand for the movement, and it is already hinted, that an effort will be made at the approaching World's Evangelical Alliance, to effect a concert of sentiment and action on the question.

Whereas a few years ago, the clergy scouted the idea that such a law could be created in this land of religious freedom and toleration, now they openly claim that such a law is an absolute necessity, and in some instances they are bold enough to attempt to intimidate us by a reminder that such a law may soon be made. They wonder that we are not startled by the prospect of it. Many of them appear to be just now waking up to the subject, seeming not to realize that we have too long expected it, to be taken by surprise.

The event which we have for years seen by faith, is now so near that it begins to be visible even to those who walk only by sight. But if any are still inclined to doubt that such a move would be favored by men of high standing, let them read carefully the following from a work recently published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, entitled “The Sabbath by Charles Elliott, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North West, Chicago, Ill.”

“It is strange how any one, with the facts before him, and with the opportunity of observation, can oppose legislation requiring the orderly and decent observance of the Sabbath. But it is said all men do not observe the same day as the Sabbath. The Jews and a few professing Christians observe Saturday. Mohammedans keep Friday. Hence, if the State enjoin the observance of any particular day, it does not respect the rights of conscience; and if it visit with penalty the infraction of its ordinance, it violates these rights.

“The objection, if admitted, would lead to this absurd conclusion, that the State must not legislate with reference to any moral or religious institution concerning the moral and religious character of which men differ in opinion. Some consider polygamy to be right. Must the State, then, decline to legislate concerning marriage? The Thugs of India believe murder to be right. Should any of them emigrate to our shores, ought our government, out of respect to their opinion, to repeal the law against murder? *

“We are a Christian nation, and our legislation should be in harmony with the principles of Christianity. These principles, so far as they relate directly to legislation, are contained in the decalogue, every law of which is of binding authority and cannot be set aside.

“But does not the fourth commandment of the decalogue enjoin the observance of the seventh day as a Sabbath—the very day observed as such by the Jews and some Christians? It does. But nearly all Christendom believes, for sufficient reasons, that the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ, was changed from the seventh day of the week to the first; and that this change is to continue until the end of the world. Those who keep the seventh day do not violate any positive command, but they do not conform to the example of the apostles and of the primitive church. That example nearly all Christians consider binding; hence they feel it to be a duty to abstain from all secular employments on the first day of the week, and to spend it as a day of holy rest. Consequently they are excluded from all public works and service that require a violation of the Christian Sabbath, and denied an equality of rights with Jews and infidels. Should such a thing exist in a Christian land?

“But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath and ignoring the Jewish? The answer is, We are not a Jewish, but a Christian nation; therefore, our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case.”

M. E. CORNELL.

Boston, April 27.