The Sunday Law Agitation.
By W. N. Glenn
Not long since, the pastor of a church in Oakland, Cal., delivered a discourse on the "Sabbath Question." Some of his frank admissions, as compared with the demands of Sunday law advocates, place that class in a rather anomalous position. But such considerations have very little weight in a fanatical clamor; a law is wanted, whether there be any reason for it or not. The speaker said that the Sabbath (Sunday) question is rapidly coming to the front in California; that it has been trodden under foot and remanded to the rear; but it cannot be kept in the rear, because it is the very foundation of good society. God has raised it up, and it cannot, by man, be put down with impunity. All over the State there is a restlessness, not merely among religious people, but among people who have respect for good society. There is a feeling that a mistake has been made in putting down our Sabbath (referring to the repeal of the Sunday law), and that "the State should send after her Sabbath and bring it back." Now, if the foregoing asseverations be true, the query arises, Wherefore so much effort on the part of the Ministerial Union of San Francisco and Oakland, and appeals to all the pastors in the State, to agitate the subject, in order to "create a sentiment"? If there already exists such a "restlessness" not only amongst religious people, but amongst all lovers of good society, to have the Sunday observed, wherein lies the urgent necessity of "creating a sentiment" in its favor? Why is it not observed? It would seem, from the positions above assumed, that the people are very anxious to do their religious duty with regard to Sunday, but cannot until there be a law enacted compelling them to do so. Surely such a state of affairs would be "restlessness" indeed. But the speaker gravely claimed that the position of those who sought a Sunday law is not one of coercion, but of protection; and, furthermore, that it was not protection for the day, but for themselves. He admitted that "the day is not holy, nor better than any other day; only as we set it apart for holy use;" and argued that God's requirement was a seventh part of time. Another query: If the Sunday law agitators do not want coercion, wherefore a penal law? There is a law already in force which gives ample protection to religious worship. But their action only a little more than two years ago, just before the repeal of the Sunday law, shows how much sincerity there is in that plea. Their determined aim then was to arrest and punish every one who did not close his business on Sundays, whether he interfered with any other person's privilege or not. At that time, their practical definition of "protection" was coercion to the full extent of the law, upon every class that the law would reach, without exception. That this is still the covert idea, was manifested in the language of the minister's prayer, on the occasion hereinbefore mentioned, that we might have a restoration of the Sunday law, "and even a more stringent one." The admission that "the day is not holy, nor better than any other day," comes in strange contrast with the assertion that God has raised it up. We have on record but one account of God having set apart a day for a weekly Sabbath, and on that occasion he made the day holy—better than any of the other days; he "sanctified" it, he "hallowed" it, he "blessed" it. But the peculiarity of the Sunday is that it is no "better than any other day, only as we set it apart for a holy use." According to this logic, God has raised up an unhallowed day in opposition to his own "hallowed" and "sanctified" one, and calls upon man to compel himself, by a human law, to observe it. Verily man has "sought out many inventions." "Who hath required this at your hands?" It was also claimed that "a large proportion of the people" want to be protected in the privileges of the Sabbath (Sunday); and the patriotic declaration was made that the poor man shall have a right to his Sabbath, and the State that denies that right is an oppressor. In this glow of sympathetic eloquence, the speaker made the exaggerated statement that the workingmen of California are in a state of worse slavery than ever existed in the Southern States. From this imaginary state of affairs, it was argued that "we must have certain laws;" and in a community of five persons two of them have inherent rights which must be protected against the opposition of the three. "Must have law." "Shall have right to the Sabbath" (Sunday). Mark these expressions. When the claims of the seventh day—the Sabbath of the Lord—are presented, these Sunday preachers are shocked at the idea of law. They claim that God abolished his law and his Sabbath because they were "burdensome," a "yoke of bondage," etc., which no man could bear. What shall we say, then, that God failed in his effort to establish a Sabbath and a Sabbath law, and was obliged to delegate man to accomplish the purpose? God forbid! "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" "God requires the seventh part of time." "The day is not holy." Mark these expressions also, for in them lies a specimen of man's justice. God plainly specified which seventh part he required, namely, the seventh day. Under the Sunday law, as history and experience has shown, that seventh part of time must be on the first day of the week, although the day be not holy. The advocates of this law claim that they do not want to coerce any one, but if any man wants to keep a seventh part of time upon the day that God appointed, he must do so at a cost of another seventh part in deference to an opposition institution. "No man can serve two masters." Again, if two persons in a community of five want to keep Sunday, the other three must do so too. But if the three want to observe the Sabbath of the Lord, they must pay tribute of another day for the "protection" of their two Sunday-keeping neighbors. "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?" The speaker congratulated Californians on the growing favor toward Sunday observance in the State, and said that "time must elapse before we can have our Sabbath as highly respected as it is in other States; but we have made good progress." He then added: "It is hard to be patient; but we must wait, but not long." Wait for what? for the sentiment of the people to fully develop, which was represented as fairly gushing throughout the State in one grand demand for Sunday observance? No, not for that; for in another strain he sharply reprimanded his own people for their abuse of the day, and that, too, right here in Oakland, where it was admitted that "we have perfect quiet" so far as opposition is concerned. And judging from the tone of his appeal for their reformation in respect to the "very foundation of good society," the anticipated good time would seem to be a good way off, if approaching by that route. In fact these two positions of the speaker are decidedly hard to harmonize. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the matter regarding which "it is hard to be patient," and for which we are not long to wait, is the "more stringent law" for which prayer was so earnestly offered. Just where lies the harm of treating as other days a day that is confessedly not holy, nor better than any other, is a problem which is at present hard to solve; but we may expect more light on the subject when the State shall "send after her Sabbath and bring it back." That event will supply a want that has been keenly felt in this State, namely, a pretext for Sunday-keeping.