p. 30 | Religious Liberty Notes by K. C. R.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 4, 1907

Religious Liberty Notes

By K. C. R.

ELDER J. S. WIGHTMAN, in replying to an article by one Dr. Pierce on the ten commandments, says in part as follows, in the Daily Standard, of Watertown, N. Y., bearing date of March 6, 1907:—

“Nowhere have the Scriptures abolished the seventh-day Sabbath, nor supplanted it by any other day, as every well-informed person must admit. It is a singular, as well as a significant fact—that Christians—Christians, recollect—were keeping Saturday, the seventh day of the week, at the time of the Council of Laodicea, 364 A. D., and it was found to be a very difficult task to switch them from the observance of the original sacred and holy day, even by decrees of synods and councils aided by the various fines and punishments of civil power. The Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10 could not possibly be any other than Sabbath, the seventh day. It was Sylvester, bishop of Rome, who last conferred the imposing title of ‘Lord’s day’ upon the first day of the week, or Sun’s day, as it was then called. Dr. Pierce states that one day in seven is all that is required by the commandment,—one day in seven,—and, therefore, as must follow, to conscientiously observe any day would be quite sufficient; then why demand legislation to enforce upon the people a particular day called Sunday? And how can ‘rest’ enforced by the state be separated from ‘religious observance’ when it happens to be a religious day upon which the ‘rest’ is enjoined? Realizing the danger to our free institutions, it was Richard M. Johnson, chairman of the committee on post roads, who, in an adverse report upon the demand that the mails be no longer carried on Sunday, as far back as 1830, said:—

“If Congress shall, by the authority of law, sanction the measure recommended, it would constitute a legislative decision of a religious controversy, in which even Christians themselves are at issue. . . . Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion, and it has been regarded as the proper business of the government to protect all and determine for none.”

“Thus wisely, in a lengthy and memorable document, did the statesmen of our earlier times, with true principles of liberality and Christianity, refuse to decide a religious controversy or legislate in favor of any particular faith or tenet of faith.

“When Congress and the States shall in anywise endeavor to determine whether Sunday or Saturday, the seventh day or the first day, or any other day, is a religious institution, and enforce its religious observance, it is high time for some one to demur to the arrangement and the work of legislators enforcing religious observances! As Mr. Spurgeon well said, ‘Let Sabbath observance be by force of conviction, and not by force of policemen; let true religion triumph by the power of God in men’s hearts, and not by the power of fines and punishments.’ With a simple plea for the right to follow the dictates of one’s own conscience, I am,

“Respectfully yours.”

Three Sunday bills have already been introduced into the present session of the New York Legislature. Two of these bills were introduced into the Assembly, one was a bill to permit the playing of baseball on Sunday by amateurs, the other to permit Sunday fishing. The third bill was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Page, and reads as follows: “All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting the works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health, or comfort of the community, and the transportation of freight by common carriers.”

The introduction of these measures into the New York Legislature affords an admirable opportunity to present the true principles of religious liberty.

K. C. R.