SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CONNECTICUT
The Congregationalist Conference of Connecticut is endeavoring to strengthen the existing Sunday law of that State, by broadening the application of the law and increasing the penalty for its violation. A bill drafted by a committee of the conference was introduced in the Legislature, and the joint Judiciary Committees of the two houses appointed a hearing on March 16, when the friends and opponents of the measure were given an opportunity to discuss its provisions. A half dozen or more ministers spoke in its favor, and then Elders G. E. Fifield and C. H. Edwards (Seventh-day Adventists) and others spoke against it. From Elder Fifield’s report in the New England Gleaner we take the following:— “It was shown that the Sabbath of the Lord does not depend for its existence upon any human enactments, but upon the laws of Jehovah, and his spiritual power over the consciences of men. . . . It was proved that the bill proposed sought to make people ‘conscientiously’ observe one day, and therefore it sought that of earthly power which only the divine power could accomplish. It was pointed out that such a law would compel the courts to render decisions on man’s conscientious convictions, and therefore arrogate to themselves a prerogative which belonged only to God. The bill was shown to be in direct conflict with the guarantees of liberty in the State constitution, and also with the principles of true Americanism as laid down by the fathers of the republic, and at one time recognized in the supreme courts of some of the States. The danger of such a religious combination for political purposes as was here represented was pointed out. The whole movement was shown to be a denial of the power of the living God, and a revival of the worship of those lifeless creeds once personified by images, which, having no power to care for themselves or their worshipers, must be themselves protected by law. “A lawyer, evidently an agnostic, followed with a most telling speech, full of truth and of the most biting sarcasm. He said that the history of religious legislation in the State ran thus: ‘First, “You must go to my church, or I will imprison you, or hang you, or banish you.” When that had grown unpopular, secondly, “You must go to some church, or I will imprison you or fine you.” And, thirdly now, since even that is unpopular, “If you don’t go to some church, you shan’t go anywhere else, or do anything else.”’ He told the preachers that, as the preceding speaker had shown, it was because they did not live the life of Christ, or do the works of Christ, but sought thus to force men, that they had lost their power over the masses.” “Then Elder Edwards followed with a ringing speech, which closed with the presentation of the fact that the Sunday institution, which they were trying to bolster up by these pagan methods, was only a pagan fraud anyhow, and so worthy of the means used in its support. The preachers sat as if stupefied through it all, or one by one, as if pricked in their hearts, silently disappeared.” Modern “Christian” Teaching.—
The teaching of Christ was:— “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” Luke 6:27, 28. “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matt. 26:52. The example of Christ was:— “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed his cause to Him that judgeth righteously.” 1 Peter 2:23, margin. But Henry M. Turner, bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, editor of the Missionary Voice, in a late issue, referring to the lynchings of Johnson and Joiner on suspicion, thus addresses his people:— “Let every negro in this country with a spark of manhood in him supply his house with one, two, or three guns, or with a seven or a sixteen shooter, and we advise him to keep them loaded and ready for immediate use, and when his domicile is invaded by bloody lynchers or any mob by day or night, Sabbath or week day, turn loose your missiles of death, and blow your fiendish invaders into a thousand giblets. “We have had it in our mind to say this for over seven years, but on account of our Episcopal status we hesitated to express ourselves thus, fearing it would meet the disapproval of the House of Bishops; but their approval or disapproval has done nothing to stop the fiendish murderers who stalk abroad and are exterminating my race, so we have now said it, and hereafter we shall speak it, preach it, tell it, and write it. “Again we say, Get guns, negroes, get guns, and may God give you good aim when you shoot.” Surely the teaching of the bishop is not the Christianity of Christ; but what different is it from that which we hear from every quarter, demanding a “Christian” crusade against the Turk? We have no appeal to make for the Turk, nor for those who hate any race on earth; but we have a plea to make for Christianity, that of our Lord; and we know from his teaching and his life that it is better to put our cause in his hands than it is to depend on the arm of flesh, whether our own or the great powers of earth. The latter may help us a little here, but never hereafter; all eternity is for God and those who trust him. The majority plea is a favorite argument of those who advocate Sunday laws. This argument is based on the fact that many more people observe Sunday as a sabbath than observe the seventh day. This is a flimsy attempt to create the impression that the sentiment of the masses favors Sunday laws. Even if the majority of the people were so disposed, and had a right to enforce religious rites upon the minority, the District of Columbia Sunday Bill, which has been so persistently urged upon Congress by petitions from all parts of the country, would be a notable exception. It is a fact that Sunday laws are advocated only by religious people, and by such other individuals as hope to gain by having the favor of that class. From this point of view it is a significant fact that, according to the census of 1890, only five per cent. of the adult males of the District of Columbia were church-members; only fifteen per cent. attended church regularly, and only twenty-five per cent. attended church at all. And if there were anything like a unanimous voice in favor of such a law even among this minority, it would be a condition not found anywhere else in the country.