Civil Laws vs. the Law of Jehovah.
By A. K. White
A DISCIPLE minister, in a speech before the Legislature of Kentucky, Feb. 26, 1884, ostensibly in behalf of a Sunday law (legal rest-day) for Louisville, makes the usual plea of stores, shops, saloons, and theaters open every Sunday, corrupting the youth and disturbing public worship; and heartless individuals and corporations depriving the laborer of his much-needed "hebdomadal rest," etc. The argument is well calculated to mislead any who are not informed in the premises, but to those who have heard these arguments for some time, and understand their import, the effort shows prima facie an intent to prepare the minds of the people for the great National Reform movement. The "Sabbath reform" has no doubt made its way into the Bluegrass State, and this "defender of the word" grounds his legitimate weapon (the sword of the Spirit) and clamors for civil law. The true animus of the effort is made apparent in the following, from the Christian Standard of March 15:— "But we do not, upon our religious belief, ask that the civil law sanction Sunday observance. For then the Jew, believing that the letter of the fourth commandment is the only divine warrant for a rest-day, might with equal propriety demand that the seventh, rather than the first day of the week, be observed. And if a majority of the citizens of any State were Jews, or Sabbatarians, I see nothing in our State or national law to prevent their election of a Legislature that would enact a Sabbath rather than a Sunday law. Christians would then be compelled to acquiesce, at whatever inconvenience, as the Jew must do now in the establishment of a rest-day not sacred to them." It is very convenient, just now, to have the Jew in the land, over whose shoulders to whip the Sabbath-keeper who demands the right to worship God according to the Bible. We now have, before the Kentucky Legislature, the curious anomaly of a minister of a denomination claiming "the Bible and the Bible alone" as a rule of faith and practice, petitioning for a civil law in favor of a rest-day not enjoined in holy writ, in derogation of the Bible Sabbath, and to the prejudice of Christians who are its advocates. I would inquire if this professed minister of the word considers it the manifestation of a Christian spirit, when he invokes the civil law to oppress the minority-Christian simply because there is nothing in the State or national organic law to prevent it. Nothing short of absolute coercion will answer the end prayed for. He asserts that he does not ask it upon his religious belief, but that religion may derive incidental benefits therefrom, the same as might be derived from the granting of a charter of a new railway. The gauzy covering of such a plea fails to hide the effect of the legislation sought. The oppressive workings of such a law upon those who keep the Bible Sabbath (be they Jews or Christians), would be the same, whether procured through a plain declaration of intent or through the sophistry of an "incidental" plea. No amount of chicanery can conceal the fact that this is a religious question. If not, why compel the Sabbatarian to observe the first day of the week, thus obliging him to keep two days? Hear him further: "Even now, in many of our cities, religious assemblies are so disturbed that public worship is almost impracticable." How is this? Sabbatarians find no difficulty in worshiping, with all the business of large cities in full blast around them. They do not ask for civil law to compel others to observe the Sabbath, they only ask to be allowed the same rights of conscience as their fellow-men, as guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land. If the law of God will not compel men to keep his Sabbath, they do not invoke the interference of human law.