The farther we get from the origin of things in human affairs, the more likely are they to become obscure and their meaning lost. This is true respecting the Constitution of the United States. Most of our state codes are blemished with Sunday-observance laws, some of them remnants of old colonial times, brought over from the Dark Ages. They have been in existence contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and contrary, invariably so, to the constitutions of the states where they exist. They have been upheld in the states solely through religious education and prejudice. For the last few years, notably during the last three years, attempts to revive and amend them have been frequent and increasing. Men seek to persuade themselves that they are perfectly proper and not antagonistic to the rights which the Constitution sought to guard. Not so did earlier statesmen look upon the matter. In the winter of 1828-9 petitions poured in to Congress from religious bodies in various parts of the country, asking that post-offices and post roads should be closed on Sunday.
A Senate committee rendered a report on the subject, Jan. 19, 1829, which report was adopted. Among many other striking principles which the Senate indorsed is the following:
“What other nations call religious tolerance, we call religious rights. They are not exercised by virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights of which government can not deprive any portions of its citizens however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.”
In the next year the same matter was brought before the House of Representatives. Referring to the religious classes, the report which was adopted by that body said:
“Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion, and it has been regarded as the proper business of government to protect all and determine for none. But the attempt is now made to bring a greater uniformity, at least in practice, and as argument has failed, the government has been called upon to interpose its authority to settle the controversy.”
“Congress acts under a Constitution of delegated and limited powers. The committee looked in vain, to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercise. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains, is one that prohibits a religious test, and another which declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” “If Congress shall by the authority of the law sanction the measure recommended, it would constitute a legislative decision of a religious controversy in which even Christians themselves are at issue.”
Referring to the office of the Legislature, the same report declares:
“In our representative character our individual character is lost; the individual acts for himself; the Representative for his constituents. He is chosen to represent their political and not their religious views; to guard the rights of men, not to respect the rights of conscience.”
“A Jewish monarch by grasping the holy censor lost both his scepter and his freedom. A destiny as little to be envied may be the lot of the American people who hold the sovereignty of power; if they, in the person of their Representative, shall attempt to unite, in the remotest degree, church and state.”
“If the measure recommended should be adopted, it would be difficult for human sagacity to foresee how rapid would be the succession, or how numerous the train of measures which follow, involving the dearest rights of all—the rights of conscience.”
Copyright, 1908, Harris & Ewing. R. A. Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior. (See note of last week.)
There is much more along the same line. We would that our representatives to Congress and legislators would study some of these basic documents of the great Republic. The Sunday law is vicious in that it turns directly from the true basis of civil government. We are told the majority has the right to rule, but the majority has no rights whatever as regards conscience. If the majority has a right to rule in religious matters or in religious controversies in America, they have in India. What rights could the Christian exercise in that idolatrous land? Or what rights could they have in China? If the majority have the right to rule in religious things in America, it would be just as true as regards the world; and the idolators of the world are in the vast majority.
It is not the business of government to legislate for the many. The many can always protect themselves. The true business of civil government is to protect the few, the weak, the individual. If the individual is protected, all are protected. No greater fallacy was ever introduced in political argument than that government should legislate for the greatest good to the greatest number. It is not the business of the government to consider the rights of the greatest number, but the rights of the few, the feeble, the weak, and if those rights are guarded, there will be no difficulty with the mass, because the mass is made up of the individuals.
If Sunday is worth anything religiously and morally, there is that within the nature of the institution which will commend itself to men. If it has not that within itself which is worthy, let it die; and so with the seventh day of the week. If there is not enough of God’s life within any institution, let it die. It needs no support, demands no support, is entitled to no support from the state.
There is more in this matter than that of a day. There is the great principle of authority—authority in religious matters, authority in civil government. Woe be to that government that puts itself in the place of God and legislates upon the religious differences of its subjects. By that very thing it takes itself out from the true basic principles of government. It weakens its own foundations, and is bound, sooner or later, to go to wreck under the clamor of those who would seek to benefit classes, religious or otherwise.
Greater woe still to that church which has so little faith in God, so little conviction of its own duty, so little grasp of the Gospel power, that it is willing to bow at the feet of the civil functionaries and ask for legislation to uphold its dogmas.
Woe be to that Christianity or to that religionist who is not willing to grant to all others the right which he claims for himself. As soon as he assumes to dictate to others, he puts himself in the place of God; that was the very origin of Satan himself, and that principle carried out in human life or character will develop the same things in the human that were developed in Lucifer, the light-bearer of God.
God has given us warning concerning all these things in His word, and in the great facts of history. Will America heed the warning?
