Plain Facts on the Sunday Question.
By W.
AMONG the letters on the Sunday question, published in the St. Louis Republican of July 4, is one from a Catholic priest, D. S. Phelan, of St. Louis, which states the facts relative to the Sunday in such plain language that we reproduce it entire. We earnestly invite all Protestants to give it a careful perusal:— “St. Louis, July 3.—EDITOR REPUBLICAN: I have been asked my views on the question of Sunday observance. I have no views. It is a matter of positive law. Dogmas of faith and canons of discipline are grave and stubborn things; views are trifles light as air. The Sunday is an institution of the church. The attempt to identify it with the Jewish Sabbath, or to make it heir to its rights and ceremonies is futile and absurd. The ceremonial law of Moses is abrogated—buried in the same grave with the synagogue. The Lord’s day is the creation of the church in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in the week would seem to be of divine origin. When the church set apart the first day of the week for public worship, she enacted that all her children who reached the years of discretion should first hear mass, and secondly abstain from servile works on that day. This is positive law, and any man’s views contrary to this enactment are treasonable. The mass is the one great sacrifice of the new law, and all the faithful are obliged to assist at it on the Lord’s day. Sunday is likewise a day of rest—made so by the church’s enactment. She says we may not do any work on that day which is of servile or ordinary wage-earning character.” “But how about games and amusements on the Lord’s day? ‘What saith the law?’ The church does not condemn them, although she encourages the faithful to works of piety and prayer. She knows the world too well to impose a burden on men they cannot bear. She is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for all Christians to spend the whole of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour.” “Why do our separated brethren lay so much stress in observing this Sunday ordinance of the Catholic Church? They are more Catholic than the Catholic Church. But they are Catholic only on Sunday. On Friday they are pagans. Why do they eat meat on the latter day? The church, who presented the method of Sunday observance, forbids the use of flesh meat on Friday. Why, too, do they not observe the laws of the Lenten season? They emanate from the same authority which fixed the time and method of the weekly public worship. The Pharisees were in the habit of higgling about trifles, while they neglected the weightier things of the Mosaic law. Our separated brethren are in the same predicament. They take the Sunday from the church, and make it the scare-crow of Christendom, while they throw away the Friday abstinence, and the Lenten fast, not to speak of the annual confession and communion.” The only thing in the above that we would criticise is the implication that by the abrogation of the ceremonial law the Sabbath was also abolished. The fourth commandment had in it nothing of a ceremonial nature, consequently it was not affected by the blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances. So when “the church” set apart the Sunday as a demi-semi-holy day, there were two weekly days of worship claiming man’s allegiance: one given by man himself; the other, the original Sabbath which God gave to man. We wish now to call the reader’s special attention to the following points in the letter of “Father” Phelan:— 1. “The Sunday is an institution of the church.” It has no connection with the Sabbath, and derives none of its “authority” from the command enjoining the observance of what is termed the “Jewish Sabbath.” 2. “The Lord’s day [an erroneous title for Sunday] is the creation of the church, in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in455the week would seem to be of divine origin.” But why should it “seem” that the obligation to observe one day in the week is of divine origin? If the Sabbath commandment be abolished along with the ceremonial law, the obligation to observe one day in the week must also be gone; for the fourth commandment is the only place where such obligation is expressed. But if there is now obligation to observe one day in the week, and that of divine origin, it must be derived from the fourth commandment, which specifies particularly which day of the week shall be observed. Note this point: Our Catholic friend distinguishes between the obligation that is of “divine origin,” and the “obligation” which originated in the “church.” This is as it should be. The observance of one day in the week is enjoined by the Creator, in the fourth commandment; the setting apart of the first day, instead of the seventh “according to the commandment,” rests solely on the authority of man. There is nothing divine about it. 3. The same power that set apart the Sunday also originated the mass; and the Sunday was set apart solely for the celebration of this mummery. Notice: The church “is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for all Christians to spend the whole of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour.” Outside of that hour, the people may engage in anything except servile work. Thus the only essential thing about Sunday is the mass. If professed Protestants want to know how to keep Sunday, why do they not go to the only source of authority on that subject? The remainder of the letter speaks for itself. We commend to all Protestants the questions which it contains. If they are determined to follow, and even to exceed, the Catholic ordinance concerning Sunday, why not be consistent, and attend mass on that day, abstain from meat on Friday, and go to confession? But if they are determined to be Protestants indeed, the way is plain. We do not acknowledge the Pope’s authority, and the only treason that we know of in matters pertaining to morals, is disobedience to the commandments of God.