The Twofold Basis of Sunday Laws
OUR Sunday-law friends are continually asserting that the Sunday law is not a piece of religious legislation, not at all; it is all in the interests of labor, etc. Just now they are exalting to the skies a judge in Kansas City, Mo., Mr. William H. Wallace by name, who has made himself famous in the enforcement of Sunday observance. How does he regard Sunday laws? Let him answer; we quote from the “Christian Statesman” of February: “Upon the two doctrines that the constitution of man requires and the Word of God commands one day in seven as a day of rest are grounded the Sunday statutes of the several states of the Union. With rarest exceptions our judicial decisions, whose name is legion, rest on precisely the same foundation. Ministers and priests could not have pronounced the Sabbath more sacred than have the judges. Sunday laws have been declared constitutional by practically every state in the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Brewer rendering the opinion, has decided that we are a religious people, and that Christianity is part of our law.” The above is a frank statement by a Sunday-law advocate and judge, printed in the premier Sunday-law journal of America. This basis is worth brief examination before we build on it. The Chinese Nation Disprove It.
1. Man doubtless requires physical rest, but it yet has to be determined that he would not live just as long if he worked every day. The Chinese have been for centuries a sabbathless nation, but they compare favorably in longevity with Western peoples. But granting the whole contention that man needs a day of rest, should the civil law enforce it? Man needs to wear healthful clothing; should the government prescribe it, provide it, and enforce the wearing of it? Man needs proper wholesome food; should the government prescribe his bill of fare? Man needs to exercise, labor, as well as rest; should the government enforce labor? That would perpetuate slavery. What is the difference between that and the enforcement of idleness? But physical labor is rest to some men. To him who has been shut within the confines of factory or office during six days, no rest is so sweet, so interesting, so helpful, as to work in his garden, fix up his premises, with wife and children about him or in mind. Another who has worked at hard physical labor would prefer to attend church perhaps, perhaps a ball game, perhaps sleeping, visiting, a good dinner. Others prefer to go out of the city into the country. A dozen classes of men would prefer a dozen different modes of resting, all of which would demand exercise prohibited by the civil Sunday law. Of course under the law they would be prosecuted as criminals, while their neighbors, who were no better citizens, and perhaps a thousand times worse in the sight of God, rest from physical labor, and go to some kind of meeting, are considered good citizens. No just Sunday-observance law was ever enacted. There can be no just Sunday law in the nature of the case, whatever courts may say. All courts, thank God, have not regarded them as just and constitutional. 2. “God does command a weekly day of rest, to be kept holy unto Him.” But that is no reason why it should be enforced by man. God commands all men to repent and be baptized; should the civil law enforce it? God commands in the same law which enjoins the Sabbath, “Thou shalt not covet;” should the state seek to enforce it? There are many things God commands; should the state enforce them all? That would be to put the state in the place of God. It has been well said that no government ever persecuted but for infractions of what it was pleased to term the law of God. God’s “law is spiritual,” and no civil power can enforce a spiritual law. Again: “God commands one day in seven as a day of rest.” He does, but He has not left it to man or governments to decide as to what day of the seven is to be kept. He is a God of order, and to prevent confusion He chose the one day of the septenary cycle around which, above all others, clustered the great facts of creation setting forth His eternal power and Godhead, and He made that a sign between Himself and His people forever. Gen. 2: 2, 3; Ex. 31: 17; Eze. 20: 20. What right has man to choose a day upon which God did not rest, which He did not bless, which He did not sanctify or set apart, and put that day into statute law and enforce it as of God? Can the counterfeit ever become genuine? Can the false ever become true? Once more: God’s command to man is, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it HOLY;” not to make it holy, but to keep holy what God has made holy. Only a holy man can keep a holy day holy; and God only can make both day and man holy. What unholy presumption it then becomes for government to put itself in the place of God and seek to do what it never can do. It is not God’s day which needs the legislation; it will survive whatever man may do; and the counterfeit which man is seeking to put in its place shall perish despite the combined effort of all the Legislatures and courts of the world. “Every plant,” says Jesus, “which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”