Sunday's Troubled Friends.
By Editor
IN the whole round of religious dogmas there is nothing upon which the religious world is so well agreed as the observance of Sunday. And there is nothing upon which they so thoroughly or widely disagree as upon their reasons for observing it. At first view it might be supposed that this disagreement would prove a disturbing or weakening element in their efforts to obtain a law for its universal observance; but that is not the case. This disagreement about the reason for observing Sunday is because there is no rule nor obligation concerning it found in the Bible; no reason for observing it can be drawn from the Bible. And the fact that there is no Bible law requiring the keeping of Sunday makes them all the more clamorous for a human law which shall compel men to keep it. Could they find a Sunday law in the Bible, they would rest more upon that, and less upon a human law. Religious persecutions have generally been more in the cause of church opinions or traditions than of plain Bible truths. There are some who are so little acquainted with137the current literature of this subject that they accuse us of denying the force of the testimony which they can produce in behalf of Sunday; and some, who know better, are so swayed by their prejudices and their feelings as to call us "uncharitable" when we say that they are all in confusion on the subject,—in a condition well represented by the word "Babylon." But on this point we do not have to make assertions; they furnish the testimony ready to our hands. The following report is copied from a San Francisco Chronicle of last month. It is a specimen, but by no means a rare one:— "At the meeting of the Ministerial Union yesterday morning Rev. Dr. McLean presented the subject of Sunday law and desired to have an expression of opinion on the part of the members of the union as to the feasibility of attempting to secure the re-enactment of the late Sunday law of the Penal Code, or one similar to it. He said he appeared as chairman of a committee, appointed by the Pastors’ Union of Oakland, to confer with the Ministerial Union and take such action in the matter as might be thought advisable. The four other members of the committee were present and would speak for themselves. For himself he would say that while he felt deeply the necessity of a law for the protection of Sunday from desecration, he had serious and increasing fears that such was the present condition of political parties and such the state of public opinion on the subject, that any effort made at this time to secure the passage of such a law as was needed would prove fruitless. But this was certain, at least, that the subject ought to be presented by the pastors in their pulpits, and the public conscience brought up to that point where such a law could be enacted and enforced. The other members of the committee expressed their views, most of them in favor of immediate and vigorous action for the re-enactment of the Sunday law and hopeful of its success. Several members of the union followed with brief remarks, chiefly in favor of entering upon an immediate agitation of the subject, looking to the enactment of a penal Sunday law by this Legislature, and, on motion, a committee of five was appointed from as many different denominations to act at once in the matter, preparing petitions to send through the State, and also a draft of such a law as was desired. This committee is composed of Rev. Dr. McLean (Congregational), Rev. Dr. M. M. Gibson (Presbyterian), Rev. Dr. Sinex (Methodist), Rev. Dr. Gray (Baptist), and Rev. Mr. Githens (Episcopal). "In the afternoon the Congregational Club held its usual monthly meeting. The discussion turned on the same general subject, but took a theological turn, the principal point being the ground upon which Sunday observance should be based. Rev. Mr. Macy, of the Green-street church, opened the proceedings with a paper in which he based the observance of Sunday strictly on Scripture authority, treating it as the legitimate successor of the Sabbath and made binding by the fourth commandment. "Several of the clergy who followed differed with him widely. Rev. Professor Mooar, of Oakland, said he did not rest the observance of Sunday upon any positive command. The observance was a voluntary tribute, on the part of Christians, to the memory of Jesus and his resurrection. If there had been a transfer of Sabbath obligations from the seventh day to the first, it would have been so stated, plainly, somewhere in the New Testament. "Rev. John Kimball agreed with Dr. Mooar, and so did Rev. Dr. Sexton, of London, England, a visitor to the club. He said it was an historical fact that the early Christians were wont to go from their Sunday meetings to their ordinary labors. "Rev. Professor Dwinelle took a different view, and said the observance of one-seventh of the time, or one day in seven, was a cosmic law and of imperative obligation. "Rev. Joseph Rowell said he agreed with Dr. Mooar and thought that Justin Edwards, in his ‘Sabbath Manual,’ had unconsciously misquoted the Christian Fathers on this point. "Several other clergymen took part in the discussion, but no action was taken or resolution passed on the subject." We could easily deduce a fair system of truth from the statements of these ministers. 1. The observance of one day of the week is a cosmic law, and of imperative obligation. 2. There is no law or obligation expressed in the New Testament for the observance of Sunday. 3. They who keep Sunday do it as a "voluntary tribute" to the memory of certain historical facts. (This may remind the reader of what Paul says of "voluntary humility" and "will worship.") To confirm these statements it is said:— 4. "It is a historical fact that the early Christians went from their Sunday meetings to their ordinary labors." 5. Justin Edwards in his "Sabbath Manual" misquoted the Christian Fathers on this point. From these we necessarily deduce the following:— 6. This "cosmic law," this "imperative obligation," is expressed in an imperative manner in the fourth commandment, given by the voice of Jehovah himself. It is not out of place to remind Dr. Mooar, and those who agree with him, that a voluntary gift to the Lord of that which he does not require, is not a sufficient ground for setting aside an important obligation, an institution which he does require. It is generally argued that the requirement of the new institution set aside the old; but if there is no new sabbath instituted in the Scriptures, and no change from one to another, by what authority is the commandment of God set aside? We think it is not at all out of place, at this time, to adopt the words of the psalmist: "It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law." Ps. 119:126.