The New York Sabbath Union Convention
By K. C. R.
The New York Branch of the American Sabbath Union held its annual convention at Elmira, N. Y., Oct. 27-31, 1906. The convention was held in the evening, except Sunday and Wednesday, the first and the last days of the session. The last day was devoted to regular convention work, involving the receiving of reports from a few of those in attendance, and the reading of papers upon different phases of so-called Sabbath (Sunday) reform. A report was given of the Sunday-law crusade which has been carried on in Elmira during the past summer by the civic committee, composed of the clergymen of Elmira. The chief thing emphasized throughout the report was the fact that the ministerial force in Elmira had succeeded in bringing such an influence to bear upon the city officials that a quiet Sunday was the result. A spirit of triumph seemed to pervade the assembly because they had been so successful in intimidating the city authorities, and bringing them to time. A paper was read by one of the Elmira delegates, setting forth in a clear-cut way the moral effects of the Elmira closing crusade. The following are some of the statements made by the speaker:—
“It has revived the meaning of the word ‘sacred.’” “It has emphasized the fact that we believe in the pre-eminence of moral influence.” “It has taught the community that the ministry stands for something.” “It has lifted the ministers out of the position that they formerly held.” There are two lessons which are plainly taught from these statements concerning the moral phase of Sunday legislation in Elmira: First, that the enforcement of Sunday laws is a panacea for everything evil and immoral; second, that it is not the civil feature of the Sabbath that the American Sabbath Union desires to secure, but rather the moral or religious phase. Opportunity was given to those present to ask questions bearing upon the work of the association. One question was sent in, as to what authority Sunday observance rested upon. The chairman evidently suspected that the question was asked by some one who was not in sympathy with the work of their union, and in a gruff manner and with an intolerant spirit, he said: “Come over on our side and save trouble.” This statement, although very brief, was very expressive of what they expect the end will be for those who do not accept and coincide with their so-called reform ideas. Dr. Martin D. Kneeland, of Boston, the secretary of the New England Sabbath Protective League, gave an enthusiastic address, in which he told of the work they were doing in New England, in the interests of Sunday legislation. He said that New England had as strong a Sabbath association as there is in the United States. He told with pride that the late Senator Hoar served as the president of the New England Sabbath Protective League until his decease, and that Honorable John D. Long, LL. D., had succeeded him as president of the association. It is easy for those who understand the nature and object of this association and other similar ones, to see why they should secure such prominent statesmen as the late Senator Hoar and the Honorable John D. Long as presidents. They well understand that by having such men occupy the office, it secures to their movement great prestige and influence, as it is nothing short of a religious-political organization, and they understand, too, that they will be much more successful in attaining the object for which they are seeking, if they can only secure the mantle of the state over their work, and thus hide its religious character. Dr. Kneeland stated that he had had interviews with President Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor, John Mitchell, and other prominent labor leaders, concerning the question of securing Sunday, by civil enactment, as a day of rest for the laboring man, and that they all expressed themselves as being very much in favor of the movement. That the churches of this country should seek the protection and support of the great federated labor organizations is not a surprise to those who have studied this question, for it is of little concern to those who are seeking the power of the state in matters of religion from what source they obtain their support, if they can only get it. It has been long expected that this would be a part of their program. The New York Independent has outlined what the end of such an alliance would mean: “No one can watch the recent development of trade-unionism, with all its unquestioned value and importance, and not be impressed by the rapidity with which it is tending to become a dogmatic religion, surcharged with bigotry, fanaticism, and superstition. The unions have erected Sunday into a sabbath of the faithful. The trade-unions embrace possibly two and a half million members. If they are all to become dogmatic religionists, the days of persecution ‘for the faithful’ are not over.” Such a movement certainly must appeal to every thoughtful man and woman as a very significant one, when we consider the tremendous pressure that will be brought to bear on congressmen and State legislators, when Protestant Federated Churches and Associations, the Federated Roman Catholic Societies, and the Federated Labor Organizations all unite together as one. Perhaps one of the most interesting features to others than the delegates in the convention was the reading of a paper by Ex-Judge Charles R. Pratt, of Elmira, on the judicial phase of Sunday laws. It was nearing the close of the afternoon session when the judge was called upon to present his paper. In the sessions preceding his address the Sabbath (Sunday) reform idea had been emphasized by all the speakers, and everything seemed to be moving along in a way that was very pleasing and satisfactory21to them; but when the paper was presented by Judge Pratt, it was very evident from the deathlike stillness that pervaded the room during the reading of it, and the absence of any applause (which was painfully conspicuous as he read), that it was not in harmony with the ideas that had been set forth. Much of the paper that he presented was in flagrant contradiction of the ideas of the American Sabbath Union, both as to the authority for Sunday observance and as to the right of the state to legislate upon it, only as a civil matter. Believing that it will be of interest to the reader, I will herewith quote a few extracts from the paper, containing some thirteen pages of type-written matter. In a statement concerning the absence of any authority for Sunday-keeping, he says:—
“The Christian Sunday, or Lord’s day, is not a substitute for the Jewish Sabbath, but it is an entirely independent but analogous institution. It has no divine sanction. It grew up gradually among the early Christians as an appropriate occasion on which to meet together and celebrate the event which distinguished their cult from others. Hessey, in one of the Bampton lectures, shows that up to the end of the fifth century, and even later, the two days were not considered to have any relation to each other. It was finally worked into the church calendar as the chief of its holy days, and is one of the very many holy days of the original church accepted by the Protestant denominations. . . . There is no claim, I suppose, of any divine installation of the Christian Sunday. Whether a usage or custom growing up among a small and insignificant portion of the world’s population were divinely authorized or inspired to bind all mankind for all time, the average lay citizen is, I think, at liberty to question. . . . Those who are most eager for the enactment of strict Sunday laws and most strenuous and aggressive in their efforts to enforce them are inspired by genuine belief in the sacred character of the day. It is well to bear in mind, therefore, that it is impossible, in the present age, in a cosmopolitan community to secure the general observance of any law or rule of conduct on account of any claimed divine or supernatural sanction.” The judge, in speaking on the object of civil government, said: “Government exists to protect the person and property of its citizens. It can not as a rule invade the rights of an individual or person except to enforce the rights of another individual or person.” He further speaks concerning the duty of the state to preserve the rights of others, as follows:—
“Any law which goes beyond that principle, which undertakes to abolish rights, the exercise of which does not involve an infringement of the rights of others, or to limit the exercise of rights beyond what is necessary to provide for the public welfare and the general security, can not be included in the police power of the government. It is a governmental usurpation, and violates the principles of abstract justice, as they have been developed under our republican institutions. . . . Sunday, as a religious institution, can receive no legal recognition. It is manifest that the religious liberty of the Jew or of the infidel would be violated by a compulsory observance of Sunday as a religious institution. Sunday laws, so far as they require a religious observance of the day, are unconstitutional, and can not be enforced. If these laws can be sustained at all, they must be supported by some other unobjectionable reasons.” “You can not enforce puritanical laws except in a puritanical community. You can not compel a man to rest unless he wishes to. You can not make a man virtuous or pious by concurrent resolutions. But you can prevent others from interfering with the rest to which he is entitled, and you can secure to him the uninterrupted observance of any form of religious worship or moral and spiritual refreshment desired, leaving to others to do otherwise, so long as neither interferes with the other.” The reader can easily imagine the effect that these statements from the paper of the judge would produce upon an assembly gathered for the purpose of advocating principles which were diametrically opposed to both the Bible and the fundamental law of this country. The New York Conference religious liberty secretary and his wife, Elder and Mrs. J. S. Wightman, were on the ground in Elmira before this convention convened, and made arrangements for several public meetings to be held, where the principles of religious liberty could be discussed in contrast with the principles of the American Sabbath Union, which are designed to invade the rights of conscience, and subvert the principles of religious freedom. They succeeded in securing a good hall in the center of the city, where two lectures were held, and later the city hall was secured, where another lecture was given, setting forth the principles of religious liberty as enunciated by Christ, and as taught by our forefathers and incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. These addresses were quite fully reported. The papers of the city were exceedingly liberal in the main in publishing the articles bearing upon this question. The mayor of the city, and other prominent citizens, were very pronounced in their views on the side of the principles believed and advocated by Seventh-day Adventists on the question, and on the total separation between church and state. It is evident that the principles which were presented on this question, both from the platform and from the press, have stirred the city of Elmira as it never was stirred before on a question of this character; and we hope that it will result in rallying to the standard of religious and civil freedom every loyal citizen of that city, that even those who have been on the wrong side of this question may see their error, and take their stand on the side of right and justice.