THE SUNDAY QUESTION IN NEW YORK.
By W. N. G.
The Examiner, the leading organ of the Baptist denomination, publishes and indorses a sermon by Rev. Wm. R. Huntington, D.D., of Grace Episcopal Church, New York City, on the subject “Ought Cities to Make Sunday Laws?” It was called out by the effort on the part of the liquor interests of that city to make the municipality an exception in the execution of the state Sunday law, the effort being based on the plea of “home rule for cities.” The theory is laid down that such laws should come from the state as the supreme authority; that “only the people in their sovereign, that is to say, in their supreme authority, can take in hand great moral law, and say, Thus or thus it shall be modified.” The admission that “a great moral law” may be “modified” at all by human authority is a significant position for Protestants to assume, and especially for Baptists. But the precedent having been set by the Roman Church in the modification of the fourth commandment to make it apply to the first day of the week, the acceptance of this precedent by Protestants opens the way for further Protestant assumption in this line. Yet Dr. Huntington, while admitting that human authority may modify moral law, draws the line at any less authority than that of the people in a state capacity. Another striking fact, from a Protestant standpoint, is that this sermon is being circulated as a political document in the state election campaign, in which the Sunday issue is a prominent feature. Thus the leading Baptist organ, in its indorsement of Dr. Huntington’s position, squarely assumes that the Sunday question is a political one, to be settled by state authority. The sermon purports to be a plea for the preservation of the “ancient landmark,” a “venerable social institute known as the weekly rest.” It says:— “To preserve ancient landmarks is far easier than to restore them when once wiped out or battered down, and those to whom a threatened fabric is dear can save themselves much future trouble by a little present vigilance.” This would sound far better as an argument for the preservation of the religious liberty which our Federal Constitution nominally guarantees, than in support of a “modified” moral law enforcing Sunday observance. But the sermon contains a very frank and manifest statement of the Sunday issue in New York, which applies with equal force to the whole country. It is as follows:— “That the issue has become very badly obscured there can be no manner of doubt. Some are under the impression, naturally enough, but most erroneously that it is the so-called ‘temperance question’ with which we are called to deal. Others are persuaded that the principle at stake is the all-important one of the supremacy of law, the duty of the sworn officers of the state to enforce the state’s decree.” “It is evident, when we look facts in the face, that it is not the temperance question which is now at stake, for no one can pretend that even the complete suppression of the sale of intoxicants, if confined to a single day of the week, would settle that. Temperance legislation, if it would be properly so called, must aim at covering all days.” “No, the question really at the fore is the Sunday question. An attack is making upon the immunities of the weekly rest, as those immunities have been defined by usage and by public law. It so happens that in this particular case the hostile movement has sprung up in the quarter known as ‘the liquor interest,’ and that is what is confusing people’s minds; but there are other points of the compass from which the assault might just as naturally have come. The simple truth of the matter is that Sunday is all the while in the position of a beleaguered fortress. Now on this side, now on that, the batteries flash. Both of the twin giants of selfishness, the gaunt one who swears by money, and the bloated one who swears by pleasure, are confederate against those sacred walls, and the names of their followers is Legion. ‘Many there be,’ cried the besieged, ‘that fight against us, O thou most Highest; yet are there those who undismayed keep on saying quietly to themselves, “God is in the midst of her, therefore shall she not be removed; God shall help her, and that right early.”’” That “the issue has become very badly obscured” is true in more than one sense, and in more localities than New York. If Dr. Huntington’s position against “home rule for cities” in the matter of Sunday laws is sustained by Sunday advocates at large, then what about the local Sunday ordinances of cities and counties where there is no general state Sunday law? Would not these local ordinances logically be ruled out? Will not the rule work both ways? Or is the “issue” so “badly obscured” that in cities whose residents want a Sunday law the people may properly act in the matter without the authority of the state, but those who do not want it should have such a law made for them by the state, because of their incapacity to act in matters pertaining to moral law? Verily, “the issue has become very badly obscured,” and, notwithstanding Dr. Huntington’s lucid statement of fact above quoted, his conclusion from that premise is not well taken. If indeed God were “in the midst” of the Sunday “fortress,” why should not Sunday devotees be “undismayed,” and rest secure in the thought that “therefore shall she not be removed”? People who really believe that God is “in the midst” of the measures or institutions which they have espoused, have no occasion to be otherwise than “undismayed.” This is the position that observers of the seventh day assume, and they can well rest there, for no one can dispute that God is in the midst of the fourth commandment, which says distinctly that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Therefore those who keep the day, knowing that it is undisputedly an institution of God’s planting, and not a mere “social institute,” never ask for human laws to enforce its demands. They do not believe that the decrees of man can add anything to the ability of the Almighty to enforce his law. What his own Holy Spirit can not accomplish by appeal to the human heart, the puny arm of man can not do by any weak attempt of his devising. “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” Notwithstanding appearances would indicate that the true Sabbath is about to be annihilated by the “sovereignty” of the people in their state and national capacity, those who are loyal to the “ancient landmark,” which the Lord himself planted in his unchangeable law, have all confidence that “God is in the midst of her, therefore shall she not be removed; God shall help her, and that right early.” From the standpoint of the seventh-day Sabbath we can heartily indorse these words of Dr. Huntington:— “To say that Christ annulled the Rest-day, and, while sanctioning the other nine-tenths of the Decalogue, treated this one-tenth as if it had never been, is to hazard an assertion incapable of proof.” And to this we may add that, to say that Christ indorses a change in that Rest-day commandment, after positively stating that “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law,” is also “to hazard an assertion incapable of proof.” W. N. G.