SENATORIAL ENDORSEMENT OF SUNDAY.
By W. N. G.
At a recent meeting in Washington, D. C., held in the interest of a stricter observance of Sunday, Senator Sherman, in attempting to advance the claims of the institution, incidentally emphasized its human origin and its dependence upon the human arm for support. This is what he is reported to have said:— “It is an inheritance from our forefathers, which should be cherished as a part of the institutions of our government.” Senator Sherman is a man of great influence in the Senate, and, apart from purely partisan issues, that influence extends to men of all parties in Congress. When such men as he, who are not otherwise recognized as zealous religionists, take hold of the Sunday institution with a view to cherishing it as “a part of the institutions of our government,” it is an indication that to fall in with the movement is deemed a sagacious political policy. And we may confidently expect that many of the lesser political lights in that great law-making body will take their cue from the experienced senator’s action. But this principle in political expediency will not end with Sunday legislation. Having committed themselves to the recognition of Sunday (the so-called Christian sabbath), as “a part of the institutions of our government,” these politicians are logically committed to the rest of the National Reform policy, which is “to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ, and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” If the men who endorse the Sunday institution as “a part of the institutions of our government”9are consistent, they will of course carry out the rest of the program as fast as the demand is made by the forces that have demanded and secured the Sunday recognition. Baptism, the Lord’s supper, and the ordinance of feet washing are Christian laws. Sprinkling, auricular confession, the adoration of saints, the support of parochial schools (of all denominations), foreign and domestic mission work, the observance of Lent, of Easter, of Good Friday, and the entire calendar of church holidays, come under the category of so-called “Christian institutions” and “usages.” These are as much entitled to recognition as is the observance of Sunday. They are backed by the same authority, and rest upon the same basis, namely, the decrees of the Church of Rome indorsed by such other churches as choose to adopt them. So, when Congress commits the government to the legal recognition of Sunday observance, it has no logical excuse for refusing to recognize any or all other church institutions as “a part of the institutions of our government.” Having taken the first step, are we not justified in expecting further progress in the same line, especially as the pressure in that direction is constantly increasing? W. N. G.