Sunday Laws in Chicago

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 7, 1871

Sunday Laws in Chicago.

The following extract from a letter published in the New York Times of Sept. 23, shows how the Sunday question is viewed in Chicago, from whence the letter emanates:

There is a quiet movement on foot, in the hands of some leading business men, lawyers, etc., in the city politics, to bring out a ticket which shall represent the element of our society which is opposed to the saloon rule, to the repeal of the Sunday laws, and generally to the systematic effort which is making to break down our religious institutions and observances. To make the issue distinct and emphatic, it is proposed to run some representative man for Mayor. Rev. Dr. Evarts, pastor of the First Baptist Church, who has always been outspoken on the question involved; Dr. N. S. Davis (Methodist), a distinguished and able advocate of the temperance reform and one of our ablest and most popular physicians; and Col. C. G. Hammond (Congregationalist), late Superintendent of the Pacific Railroad, and one of our best men, are most talked of for Mayor, and one of the three will undoubtedly head the ticket.

The temperance men are taking the lead in the movement, and have been holding meetings for the past two months, with a view of waking up public sentiment. But it will be a general uprising of the better classes against the rule of the saloons and German infidelity.

It appears that in most of our large cities, the foreign element, Germans, Danes, Norwegians, French, &c., view the Sunday as a day of recreation and pleasure, and therefore they oppose the Sunday laws as oppressive.

It is also a fact that a few, who love the law of God, and wish to celebrate the true Sabbath of Jehovah, are, from principle, opposed to elevating the Sunday above the genuine and ancient Sabbath of the Lord.

Here, then, are two classes of people who oppose this counterfeit Sabbath; one from interest and selfish considerations, the other from conscientious reasons and motives, and from principles of right.

Sunday-keepers in presuming upon the supposed justice of their claims, and ignoring the claims of both the classes above alluded to, are madly rushing on to their own ruin, and are establishing a precedent, which may probably, nay will certainly, result in a union of church and State, and in the end will result in a systematic course of religious persecution, probably more sanguinary in its purpose than any previous persecution in the history of the church, because it strikes at an old and established institution of Jehovah.

Doctors of divinity and laymen, politicians and statesmen, and people at large, will generally see but the surface of this subject until it is too late to retrace their steps. Led on by the spirit of intolerance, the nation will be fired with the spirit of persecution before they are aware of it, and great evil will ensue.

We do not say this from feelings of dread; for we are assured that persecution would now, as formerly, only purify the church, and draw its members nearer to God. Neither do we justify the crowd of foreigners, who hail the Sunday as a day of mirth and bacchanalian revel, and a time of general festivity; yet we would ask if it will better the case to use force in a question like this? Is it right for the government to decide whether I shall or shall not observe the Sunday? Might it not as properly say that I shall or shall not be baptized, and also prescribe the mode? Might not government as properly say what church I shall join, and what shall be my creed? Nay, does it not, in selecting for me a day of rest, thus form for me a creed upon the most important part of my form of doctrine?

This is, indeed, a subject worthy of discussion, when a nation is about to arise in its strength to maintain an institution so doubtful in its origin as the Sunday. We advise our countrymen to look well before them ere they take this terrible leap in the dark.

JOS. CLARKE.