Sunday Laws and “Full Liberty of Conscience”
THE real attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward religious liberty, and the inconsistency in which the English government will be involved if it yields to the present demand for a strict Sunday law in that country, are shown by a recent experience in Malta, and the official correspondence growing out of it. The situation is so well stated in an editorial in the Present Truth (London) that we quote the whole article:— Last May a Protestant mission or conference was conducted in Malta by the Rev. J. McNeill, who secured for his meeting the use of the Theater Royal, a government building. The Roman Catholic archbishop in Malta protested loudly against the action of the governor in granting the use of the theater, and demanded that the permission be withdrawn. After some correspondence the governor yielded for the sake of peace, and the conference was prematurely discontinued. The home government, however, has been considering the matter further, and on August 15, Lord Elgin wrote to the governor of Malta that their attention had been directed to the general question of the treatment of different religious denominations in Malta, and that “the only basis which His Majesty’s government can admit for the settlement of the question is that all denominations should be treated with perfect equality.” In Malta until now, only the Catholics have been permitted to perform religious ceremonies in public, but as this restraint upon certain religious bodies is inconsistent with perfect liberty, in future all denominations will be alike free to hold public services, provided that “they are bona fide religious ceremonies, and not in the nature of demonstrations intended to give offense.” Lord Elgin also announces that an addition to the present instructions for the governor of Malta will shortly be promulgated, in the following terms:— “It being our intention that all persons inhabiting our said island should have full liberty of conscience and the free exercise of their respective modes of religious worship, we do hereby require our said governor and commander-in-chief to permit all persons within our said island to have such liberty and to exercise their respective modes of religious worship, provided they be contented with a quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the same, not giving offense or scandal to the government.” It is well that the government has thus placed upon record its position in the matter of religious liberty, because there are soon to be placed before it proposals for the abridgment of such liberty, and it may become necessary to remind the government that what is a “fundamental principle of religious liberty” in Malta, notwithstanding the demands of the Roman Catholics, is equally fundamental to liberty in England, notwithstanding the demands of Catholics and Protestants combined. An agitation is now being worked up in behalf of a plea for Sunday legislation, and the government will be asked to say that all alike shall refrain from labor on Sunday, under heavy penalties. Such a law would be very acceptable to the majority of the religious denominations. But there are Christians who believe that God has not changed his commandment, and that the seventh day is still the Sabbath. They rest on the seventh day and labor on the first. Ought the government to show favor to one section of the religious community, at the expense of another? If it does so, it will not be adhering to the principle which it has laid down for its guidance in Malta, “that all persons . . . should have full liberty of conscience and the free exercise of their respective modes of religious worship.” If a strict Sunday law is passed, the Sabbath-keeper will be hindered from working on the first day of the week, or will do it at the risk of punishment. In other words, the law will fine him one sixth of his weekly earnings for being a Sabbath-keeper. This would not be “perfect equality” for “all denominations.” The government can not enforce Sunday observance and remain true to the principles laid down in Lord Elgin’s letter. The denominations that are calling for stricter Sunday legislation will say, of course, that they do not wish to oppress any, but are acting in the interests of the people at large. So said the Roman Catholic archbishop of Malta. It was the people that he was thinking of when he demanded the discontinuance of the Protestant services. He held that he alone, as the head of the church in Malta,4was qualified to say what was harmful to his flock, and what was not. But the government has decided that even his zealous concern for the flock must give way to the common right to religious freedom. And the same answer is the only consistent one to give to those who clamor for Sunday legislation. The Jew is as much entitled as the Christian to religious liberty. The Seventh-day Adventist ought no more to be fined a sixth of his wages for being a Sabbath-keeper than the member of any other denomination who observes the Sunday ought to be fined. The observer of the seventh day should be free to do any honest work that he can find to do on the first day. No true follower of Christ will attempt to interfere with such right, for perfect religious equality is not less fundamental to Christianity than it is to British liberty. The principles here enunciated apply everywhere. It is impossible for any government to pass Sunday laws or enact any religious legislation and still grant ‘full liberty of conscience’ to all in matters of belief. The only just course is for civil rulers to recognize the fact that their legitimate sphere of action lies wholly outside of the field of religion, as shown by the teaching of the Author of religious liberty: ‘Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ On this platform only is religious liberty assured.