Temperance, and Sunday Observance.
By A. Graham, D. D.
LIKE that of temperance, the Sunday question is gaining great prominence and is becoming greatly mixed up with the political questions of the times. The prohibition of the debasing traffic in intoxicating liquors is a necessity and comes legitimately within the scope of politics, and it is to be regretted that in many States the Sunday question has been linked to the temperance issue. We regard this move as an extremely unfortunate one, as it can only indefinitely postpone the time of the triumph of temperance principles, if it does not bring speedy and permanent defeat. The temperance question, in which all classes of our citizens, white and black, Jew and Christian, Protestant and Catholic are alike interested, should be brought before the American people disconnected from party politics and entirely free from any religious question. There are thousands upon thousands of American citizens, including those of every religious and political creed, who favor prohibitory legislation on the temperance question, but who do not favor the forced observance of Sunday, or any other day, by civil law. Notwithstanding this fact, temperance leaders in many of the States are, unwisely, as we think, combining the two questions, and we have fears as to the result of the experiment. The writer, with others, has devoted years of hard labor to the upbuilding of a popular temperance sentiment in the South, and he is as unflagging as ever in his zeal for that good cause, and would have every temperance man at this particular time, devote his energies to the one great question—prohibition. We do not propose to discuss, in this article, whether the first day or the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath. It matters not which of the two days is linked to the temperance question; the result must be the same. We are not in favor of combining these two questions, not only because of the injury it will most certainly work to the cause of temperance, but we oppose it on the ground that to enforce the observance of any religious rite, or Sabbath, by legislative enactment, is, at once, incompatible with the spirit of our free institutions, and antagonistic to the foundation principles of our Government. Those who have it in their hearts to favor such a law should not find fault with the part that Rome played in ages past. It has been argued that this is a "Christian nation," and that in a free country like this, where Christianity is the religion of the people, and the Bible is the standard of faith accepted by all classes, it should legislate on such matters. This is precisely the position Rome took hundreds of years ago, and it is to be hoped that "free America" will refuse to follow in the footprints of old Rome. And we are not ready to admit that this is a Christian nation. It never has been; it never will be. True, Christianity is the dominant religion in this country; still, this nation is far, very far, from being a Christian nation. Here the government rests upon the people, and its character and power are determined by their votes. As citizens, it would be well always to act in harmony with religious principles and convictions, but, because it is right to adhere to religious principles it does not follow that it is right to enforce, by civil law, the observance of any particular day as a Sabbath, or any religious rite. And we would as soon legislate as to the doctrines the people must believe, as to legislate in regard to the Sabbath they must keep. There is as much consistency in the one as in the other. It is true that the perpetuity of our Government depends upon the character, the intelligence, and the religious principles of its citizens, and these are determined by the institutions fostered, such as our churches, universities, colleges, etc., but no certain class has any right to force the acceptance of their religious ideas, whether right or wrong. The leaders of the Sunday movement say that it is not the question whether men shall be forced to be religious on that day, but whether there shall be any Sabbath at all. It is presumed that there can be no Sabbath unless its observance is enforced by law. This is fallacious, for, in the absence of such a law, both Christians and Jews, all, could observe as a Sabbath either the first or the seventh day as they might please, and that, too, without molestation. It follows, legitimately, that no such law is necessary. And the first-day keepers have no more right to be protected from the noise of the seventh-day keepers who work on the first day, than the seventh-day keepers have to be protected from the noise of the first-day keepers who work on the seventh day. A law enacted by the keepers of the first day compelling those who keep the seventh day to cease from labor and rest on Sunday would be decidedly wrong—tyrannical. We believe that every person should have the privilege of keeping holy any day he or she may please, without the slightest interference from the civil authorities, and, in this particular, amenable only to our Father above, to whom all must render an account at the coming Judgment. Man, fallible man, never has received authority to compel obedience to the laws of Jehovah, nor to inflict penalties upon those who violate them. No nation, no ecclesiastical organization, no, not even the church of Christ, should arrogate to itself this right. We are aware of the fact that our position will be severely criticised by hundreds—perhaps thousands—of Bible Banner readers, but we assure all that we have prayerfully investigated the question, and have an earnest desire to be and to do right. Our position, we think, is in harmony with the words of our Redeemer, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matt. 7: 12. May the blessings of God rest upon us all, and the love of Jesus dwell richly, and in saving power in all our hearts.—A. Graham, D. D., in Bible Banner.