COOK, INGERSOLL, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
By William H. Littlejohn
Thus steadily and surely the movement goes forward. Associations are being organized and multitudes are being added monthly to its friends. Right here, also, is the time when and the place where the appearance of Robert Ingersoll and Joseph Cook becomes important. The former, as we have seen, is destined to largely augment the infidel element of the country. This element, under the lead of such men as Mr. Abbot, the editor of the Index, has already found organization in a political party which swears eternal resistance to all which the Christian amendment party seek to inaugurate. The point in the issue of the latter party which they themselves say is coming to the front and every day assuming more and more importance, is the Sunday question. It is with reference to this question, also, that the wide-spread influence of Joseph Cook is especially to be felt in the near future. That, in some respects, he is an intellectual giant, few will deny. That his adhesion when publicly given to the legalized Sunday movement will carry with it great weight, and serve to consolidate wonderfully the Christian sentiment of the country, there is no room for doubt. Practically, therefore, all the personal influence which he has gained by his courageous defense of Christianity from a philosophical stand-point in Boston is now passed over to the account of the Sunday reform party. From this time forward he may be set down as a strong and earnest advocate of compulsory rest upon the first day of the week. In a recent Boston lecture we have the following from his lips:— “There can be no diffusion of conscientiousness adequate to protect society from danger, under free suffrage, unless a day is set apart for the periodical moral and religious instruction of the masses. Sabbath laws are justified in a republic by the right of self-preservation. . . An important distinction exists between Sunday observance as a religious ordinance and as a civil institution. American courts, while enforcing the Sunday laws, disclaim interference with religion. They base the laws on various secular grounds, among which are the right of all classes to rest, so far as practicable, on one day in seven; the right to undisturbed worship on the day set apart for this purpose by the great majority of the people; the decent respect which should be paid to the institutions of the people; the value to the State of the weekly rest-day, as a means of that popular intelligence and morality on which free institutions depend for their maintenance.” The supreme court of New York, in sustaining one of the Sunday laws, says:— “The act complained of here compels no religious observance, and offenses against it are punishable not as sins against God, but as injuries to and having a malignant influence upon society. It rests upon the same foundation as a multitude of other laws upon our statute-book, such as those against gambling, lotteries, keeping disorderly houses, polygamy, horse-racing.” “The action of the State as to Sunday laws proceeds upon the principle that the liberty of rest for each depends on a law of rest for all. . . . I hold that when our fathers on Clark Island yonder rested their first Sabbath day they were setting a good example, not only for the church, but for the factories and railways and every industrial establishment of America. Until we have enough of their spirit to enable us to keep the day of rest without any substantial infraction, we shall not be safe in this country, as our fathers were safe, without bolted doors.” It might be said, in addition to the above, that his name is mentioned in the weekly Tribune of recent date in connection with that of many other distinguished clergymen who are expected to attend and participate in a religious convention which is to be held in Boston and Springfield, Mass., in the interest of Sunday observance. So far as Mr. Cook’s views, as quoted above, relate to the enforcement of Sunday observance purely on the ground of rest from labor as a matter of public policy, without reference to the sanctity of the day, we have not at present the space to give it the examination which it deserves. Suffice it to say here, however, that it is not original with him, and while it might perhaps be termed “sharp,” it can hardly be said to be ingenious. It will captivate many minds and lead thousands to do a thing from a stand-point of secular policy which they would not dare to do from that of religious toleration. Nevertheless there is in it a lack of that outspoken sincerity which truly great minds always admire, and which, in the long run, furnishes the safer course of action. Mr. Cook, it seems to us, well knows, as do those before him who have used this line of argument, that it is a mere make-shift. Not one out of ten of those individuals have at heart such convictions of the necessity of a day of weekly rest from toil, as disconnected from any religious consideration, that they would be willing to expend any definite amount of labor to secure that fancied boon. Suppose, for example, that the day proposed by the law were Wednesday, instead of Sunday; who does not know that, were such the case, the persons in question would not only lose all interest in the issue, but would suddenly become its bitter opponents. It is not, therefore, when rightly understood, merely a day of rest that they want. Sunday rest is what they require. Not because Sunday is any better adapted by nature for that purpose than are Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, or, in fact, any other day of the week; but simply because it is their design to secure a partial recognition of the sacredness of the first day of the week by statutory provision. This done they hope to be able to compel, through the courts, at least a partial regard for what they claim to be the Sabbath as they could not otherwise do. The line of argument, also, which in this way they will be able to present in favor of the enactments which they desire, will carry with it a degree of plausibility which is wholly wanting in that which they make from the Bible stand-point. Thousands are disgusted with the utter failure which every man has made who has ever attempted to place the Sunday Sabbath on the basis of the fourth commandment. Even in the case of Mr. Cook himself, they cannot fail to discover there the terrible limp of the logic of a man, who, though a giant in handling other themes, appears as though shorn of the locks of his strength when he lays hold of the pillars of God’s creation Sabbatic institution. They will readily discover that all which he has said has been answered a thousand times most successfully by men possessing not one-tenth of his real intellectual capacity. Nevertheless, lacking the moral courage to carry out their own conviction in humble obedience on the one hand, and, on the other, fearing to venture the enforcement of a legalized Sunday as holy time against those who observe the Lord’s Sabbath—lest peradventure they be found fighting against God—they will gladly accept the compromised position, and in the near future will be ranked among those who would compel regard for the definite first day of the week simply as a day of rest. Thousands of others in the meanwhile—wooed into the snares which the great enemy of God’s law has woven for their feet in these last times by the magical oratory and the potent name of Joseph Cook on the one hand, and on the other, compelled in that direction by their fear and hatred of deistical opponents like Ingersoll and his followers—will be numbered with those who at the coming of our Lord will be found persecuting the remnant church who are keeping the commandments of God, and who have the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12; 12:17). W. H. LITTLEJOHN.