The “Pacific” and the Sunday Law.
By Alonzo T. Jones
The Pacific, of February 4, is out with a defense of the positions of the Congregational Club, which we discussed in the SIGNS of January 22. In defense of the efforts for the re-enactment of the penal Sunday law in California, it attempts the usual distinction between the civil and the religious aspect of the day, and with the usual degree of success. It says:— “Nothing needs to be made plainer than the distinction between civil Sunday and Christian Sunday.” It is true that, under the circumstances, nothing needs to be made plainer, but it is a fact that no one who claims such a distinction has ever succeeded in making it plain. Most assuredly it is not made plain in the address of the Ministerial Union. In that there is no hint of a “civil Sunday,” but of a religious one solely. We quote:— “The friends of the Christian Sabbath are deeply pained in witnessing the high-handed and defiant desecration of all that is sacred and righteous in this holy day. It is hostile to our religion.” Will the Pacific please take this passage and point out the distinction in it between the civil Sunday and the Christian Sunday? Or will the Pacific take the complete address, as printed in its own columns, and show in it any such distinction at all? In view of these terms, “desecration,” “sacred,” “righteous,” “holy day,” “hostile to our religion,” as used in the address, the plea of the Pacific that the Sunday law is to be “in the interest of such ends” as “health,” “good order,” “the freedom and stability of the commonwealth,” etc., is most lame and impotent. “The fourth commandment, which designates one day of the seven as specially dedicated to God, remains in our Bible, and we propose to recognize its authority and its wisdom.” Yes, they are going to recognize the authority of the fourth commandment, by violating it at every opportunity. They propose to recognize its wisdom by totally disregarding it. See:— “But it is an undeniable fact that that weekly day, in the Christian Church, came to be observed on Sunday rather than Saturday. This was brought about by no express law. It was a spontaneous tribute.” Here is a plain admission that the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of Saturday; but with “no express law,” by simply “spontaneous tribute,” the Christian church disregards the day enjoined by the commandment, and substitutes Sunday instead. They will break the commandment of God, and then mend the matter by their own merit! They will commit sin and then atone for it by their own “voluntary tribute”! And in this way they propose to recognize the authority of the fourth commandment! Dear Pacific, when you get your penal Sunday law, will you allow us to recognize its authority in this way? If you will we shall be glad. Further, if such is your idea of proper recognition of the law of God, will you please point to a person in this wide world who does not “recognize” its authority? In our discussion of this subject before, we said: “Nothing can be duty toward God, that has not been commanded by God,” because of the words of Christ, “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say . . . we have done that which was our duty.” And, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” We stated that, as man can do no more than his duty, and as the commandments of God contain his whole duty, therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded. The Pacific notes this argument and says:— “The voluntary tribute of grateful hearts to the Redeemer is obedience to command. For gratitude to the Saviour is certainly a duty.” Yes, gratitude to the Saviour is undoubtedly a duty. But we wish to inquire by what principle of righteousness it can be that one duty can do away with another. How is it that gratitude to our Saviour can supplant obedience to our Creator? Is it true that we must disobey God in order to obey Christ? that we must dishonor the Father in order to honor the Son? Is gratitude to Christ, and his salvation from sin, best displayed in contempt of God, and his law by which is the knowledge of sin? But this is not all; these people are not content to thus show their own “gratitude;” they want to compel everybody else to show their gratitude in the same way. If they would content themselves with showing their “gratitude” in their own way, and allow others equal liberty, we should not have so much cause of complaint; but when they propose to compel us by fine and imprisonment to show our gratitude in their way, then we most decidedly object. ALONZO T. JONES.