THE LOGIC AND OBJECT OF SUNDAY-LAWS.
By M. C. W.
G. E. Good, D.D., of Woodland, has an article in the Herald of Truth of August 21 and 28, in which he argues for a legal-Sabbath, which will not discriminate between citizens. Among other things less worthy of note, he says:— "When the whole tendency of this labor problem, as now carried on, tends to injure the individual, the home and the country at large, it seems to be time that the laws of the land regulated the matter. If there was a strong, clear, well-arranged law that made the breaking of it a misdemeanor, and punishable by fine or imprisonment, so that all business would cease one day in seven, then all classes would be treated in an impartial manner. No one could honestly complain. No one could feel that he or his occupation was singled out and made a special object of legislation." In another place he says: "A law that discriminates against its citizens is not just." And this is true. We will refer to it later on. Just now let us notice some points in the above quotation. By "this labor problem," Dr. Good means laboring on Sunday. He says that it "tends to injure the individual, the home, and the country at large," therefore government ought to make a law prohibiting it. Possibly; but let us see how government control would work on this ground. We will use his own argument only differently applied. Man's constitution needs rest. Ten hours of hard work out of the twenty-four is all he constantly can perform with safety. Government, therefore, ought to prohibit more than ten hours' work a day, because it "tends to injure the individual." Certain kinds of food, the use of tobacco, and tea and coffee, are very hurtful to many; therefore, because they "tend to injure the individual," they ought to be prohibited by law. Certain kinds of clothing, and certain garments, like the tight, high-heeled shoes, and corsets, "tend to injure the individual," and therefore government ought by a "strong, clear, well-arranged law" make the continued use of these things "a misdemeanor, and punishable by fine or imprisonment." As these things are hurtful to the father and mother, they strike directly at the foundation of the "home." The father who spends too many hours in labor, or by the use of wrong articles of food, or by bad habits, injures his health, or the mother who breaks down her constitution by strong nerve tonics, or the wearing of improper clothing,—these cannot do their duty by their children, in training them for their home or country. These things, these habits, "tend to injure the individual, the home, and the country," therefore the government ought to prohibit them by "a strong, clear, well-arranged law," the violation of which was "punishable with fine or imprisonment." The father and mother who sin against God in covetousness, and hatred, and backbiting, are doing that which injures the individual, home, and country, therefore it ought to be prohibited by "a strong, clear, well-arranged law." The above simple illustrations will enable the reader to see the absurdity of a Sunday law on such grounds. There would in such case be no end of government interference. It would be Russian laws duplicated. "But, of course," someone says, "the government would not make laws regulating our food, private habits, and clothes we wear." Probably not; but it would be equally right for the government so to do; "for," says Dr. G., "when men have no more principle than to wrong themselves, and oblige others to do so, it is time the State stepped in and enforced the laws of man's nature, and the laws of right to others." The Sunday law is no more just than laws would be which regulate man's time on other days, and prescribe his food and clothing. It is simply meddling tyranny. If a law were passed prohibiting all labor one day in seven (Sunday), "then," says Mr. G., "all classes would be treated in an impartial manner." All who desired to keep Sunday would be, but no more. Dr. Good evidently believes in impartiality or equality for—the Sunday-keepers. The man who believed in no day, the Jews who keep the seventh day, the two bodies of seventh-day Christians who had rested one day, would be discriminated against. The latter classes have kept one day for conscience' sake, and the majority compel them to keep another. Such a law imposes upon them a tax of one-sixth of their time, or sixteen and two-thirds per cent. of their income, on account of their religion, for which it grants them no privileges whatever. According to Dr. G., such a law "is not just," yet he pleads for it. The day he wants is told in the following words:— "Ninety-nine-hundredths of the people of the nation believe in a rest day in seven, and that it should be the day called Sunday." And of course the majority ought to decide! The great majority of Christians hold sprinkling as baptism; therefore immersion is wrong, and ought to be prohibited! But Baptists would repudiate this with all their soul. And then follows this precious bit of wise dogmatism: "There can be no sound, logical reason for keeping any other day as a day of rest." To us the reason given by the all-wise God is sufficient. Jehovah says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." And God gives his reasons in Ex. 20:8-11. Mr. Good may not call them "sound" or "logical," but the lover of God's truth will. It is of interest to note the reason why the Rev. G. E. Good, D.D., wants this legal day of rest. He says:— "When there are no saloons to go to, on this rest day, no opera house open, no dance hall to seduce them, no trotting course, no baseball game, nothing that tends to debase the moral natures of men and women, the classes who would go to such places would eventually gravitate toward the churches, the Sunday-schools, and the home, for mutual benefit and comfort." And if they would not gravitate toward the churches, there should be "a strong, clear, well-arranged law" compelling it, with penalty of "fine or imprisonment" for its violation. It cannot be hidden. The law is demanded for religion, and that for a certain class, the Sunday-keeper. Labor of all could be arranged for the good of all and the injury of none, without a Sunday law; but that would never suit the Sunday-keeper. His closing paragraph refers to the Bible as being in "the same line." God rested on the seventh day and commanded it to Israel, he says, and they are blessed and prospered when they strictly observed it. Exactly; but will modern Israel be blessed and prospered when they choose a counterfeit day, and try to enforce it by carnal means? But governments of earth have no right to enforce any religious institution on any ground. They can553protect the worshiper; let them leave alone his worship. Woe worth the day to our land when the desires of Sunday-law advocates are realized. We have given the strongest points in Dr. Good's article. It is like all the other Sunday-law arguments. They have no basis in truth or justice.