A PROOF THAT IS NOT PROOF.
THE Literary Northwest discusses in its current issue one of the live questions of the day, namely, the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, in a symposium of four articles. The third is entitled, "Close the Fair on Sunday," and is written by Mrs. Harriet G. Walker. There is one point which we wish to notice, not that it is worthy, but it shows the fallacy of the scriptural arguments put forth for Sunday. Thus the writer begins:— It is a well-established principle in law practice that one complete proof is as good as many, and that a case is in nowise strengthened by multiplication of evidence bearing upon one point. . . . Acting upon this principle, I might, seemingly with entire safety, rest my case upon the first proposition, that the World's Columbian Exposition ought and should by right be closed upon the sabbath [Sunday], because it is God's command to all the children of men to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." This is Mrs. Walker's "one complete proof," but what is it?—It is a command of God to keep another day entirely, for another reason. The only thing in the whole Sabbath law in common with Sunday is the one word "day." Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Lord. It never was, never has been, is not, nor ever can be. God never hallowed it, never commanded man to keep it holy, and man can never keep holy what God has not made holy. No divine being ever rested on Sunday, or ever blessed Sunday, or ever set it apart for rest or worship. Those who read Sunday into the fourth commandment most decidedly assume to change God's law. They thus usurp his authority. Mrs. Walker's Scripture proof (she brings none other) is absolutely no proof at all. Evidently, however, it is the best she knows. Poor Sunday! it must carry by force what it cannot prove by either Scripture or logic. "CONSIDERATE!" "BROAD-MINDED!" "RIGHT!"
THE Advance, a leading Congregationalist paper of Chicago, and one of the chief advocates of Sunday laws, says in its issue of December 1, in speaking of the act of Congress in closing the World's Fair on Sunday:— The action of Congress last season was considerate, broad-minded, and right. It was a decision worthy of our American history, and worthy of the American people to-day. The firm and consistent adherence to it will prove a transcendent benefit to the nation itself and as well to other nations. 1. Was it "considerate"? Let us see. Webster defines "considerate" to mean "mindful of the rights, claims, and feelings of others." Let us judge this by the golden rule. That declares:— "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This is "considerate;" it is regardful of the rights, claims, and feelings of others. But we have in this country only about twenty million professed Christians, including Roman Catholics, Universalists, Unitarians, etc., out of a population of over sixty million. Of these it is perfectly safe to say that the greater part of the Catholic Church and many in some of the other churches would follow the lead of such men as Cardinal Gibbons and Bishop Potter, who desire the Fair opened. The majority of those who have been invited to come from other countries would desire an open Fair on Sunday. Yet the minority presume to say that the majority have no right to open the Fair, and this, says the Advance, is "considerate." Is it? 2. The broad-mindedness of this action must be judged by the results which will logically and inevitably flow from it. By its action Congress departed from the principles of liberty embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and took the first step in religious legislation; for the action of Congress relative to closing the Fair on Sunday146was distinctively religious legislation. Is not Sunday a religious institution? Is it not an institution of the church? Was it not at the request, behest, yea, demand, of the church that the action was taken? Was not the fourth commandment of the Decalogue read as one of the chief arguments as to why the bill should pass? Of course, the interpretation put upon that commandment in applying it to Sunday is a perversion of the law of God, but the fact remains that the Sunday bill was based upon a theological interpretation of a divine command and the demand of the church that that interpretation, so far as the World's Fair is concerned, shall be enforced by law. This is the first step. Beyond all this lies those logically to follow: Congress must either brave church opinion and risk church patronage and confess its folly by repealing the law, or it must stubbornly go on yielding to greater and still greater demands till the entire republic is bound about with iron-clad Sunday laws and religious obligations enforced by civil statute. For the church will not rest till she is dominant in political affairs. She demands that this nation, decided by the Supreme Court to be "Christian," shall be ruled by "Christians," and by that class alone which holds to the absolute necessity of Sunday laws. All this will logically, inevitably follow unless the government dares to undo its inconsiderate, narrow-minded doing,—a step which is not at all probable in view of the character of modern politicians, and the strength numerically of the Sunday religionists. Other steps being taken with more rigid and farther-reaching Sunday laws to follow, those who now oppose these laws will be divided into two classes: (1) Those whose convictions of right are subject to expediency, and who will yield to the law to save persecution, and act as though they believed in the day; and (2) those whose convictions of duty to God will not permit them to yield to the unrighteous law, and who will thereby suffer its penalty. Thus a class of hypocrites on the one hand and a class of persecuted, honest, God-fearing men and women on the other, will be developed from this first step by Congress. Every unscrupulous politician will profess the greatest devotion to the Sunday shibboleth that he may win the religious vote. Political corruption is sure to follow. This is the "broad-mindedness" of the action. 3. It is "right." Is it? This can best be judged by a consideration of the Sunday itself, the methods used to promote it, the ethics of the act of those who voted for it, and the results sure to follow. a. The Sunday itself is a usurper. It professes to be the Sabbath of the Lord, or the Lord's day; but its friends can give not one "Thus saith the Lord" that such is the case. There is absolutely no Bible evidence for the sacredness of the day. Every command for a Sabbath, every reference to Sabbath observance in the Holy Scriptures, has reference to an entirely different day, set apart for another reason than that alleged for Sunday. That it has been held by the good of many generations as the Sabbath has no bearing on the case. Many a counterfeit bill has passed through the hands of many an honest man, but the sincerity of the man did not make the bill genuine. It remained counterfeit, and when detected by authority is always rejected as bad and rendered worthless. But the Sunday-law friends not only wish to confirm the claim that Sunday is the Sabbath, but they wish to force others who recognize the counterfeit, to regard it as the genuine. Is it right? They thus not only wish to foist upon the world counterfeit religious institutions of the church, but they put themselves in the place of God, and say that it shall be observed as God's law. In the first place they have no right to enforce any obligations of the true religion, but they go farther, and seek to compel the observance of a counterfeit as the genuine of God, putting themselves in God's place to establish a lie. Is it right? b. The methods used by the friends of the Sunday to promote this Sunday-law business need not be dwelt upon. In their matter of argument, they have crossed and recrossed themselves. They have demanded only a "civil" Sabbath, and the next moment it is a religious Sabbath. They have persistently misrepresented those who have been opposed to them, and refused to even concede their opponents a right to demur. By their manner of obtaining petitions for Sunday laws, they have multiplied numbers in ways which would do justice to the worst political repeaters, and Sunday in its origin, its history, and its nature is worthy of all such methods. Adherence to such an institution begets just such methods to defend it, but are they right? And did Congress do right in indorsing them? c. The ethics of voting for it. To say nothing of the State's right question involved in the matter by which the Congress of the United States attempted to control the territory of a sovereign State, the act of itself is in direct contravention to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States. Congressmen are sworn to uphold the Constitution, the charter of the liberties of the people. The Constitution declares in its first amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But that is just what this Sunday-closing act does do. Sunday is a religious institution; it is put forward by religionists as a vital part of their religion, a foundation stone; it is one of the very few things on which the majority of Christendom are agreed; and the church has demanded that this constituent, vital part shall be enforced by law, and Congress has acceded, and established to that extent the religion of those who hold Sunday as the religion of the nation. Is it right? d. The results sure to flow from such a step. These have been considered to some extent under the broadmindedness of the act of Sunday closing. They were manifest to a mild extent some years ago in Arkansas, where a number of good Christians were jailed for working on Sunday. Mark! their work disturbed no one; others worked who were not molested, but those who bore the penalty of the law as criminals were those who did not believe in the counterfeit Sabbath, but did observe the genuine. They acted as free Americans had a right to do in making their opinions known; therefore the persecution by the majority. We have had similar results during the past two years in the commonwealth of Tennessee. Men have been persecuted for working on Sunday, for which act the only evidence obtainable was the honest confession of the accused and the reluctant testimony of friends and neighbors. Railways and many other enterprises and men were allowed to use Sunday as deemed best, but they were not arrested. Those persecuted were those who did not believe in the counterfeit; and, like honest adherents of Christ and his word, warned other people against the error. Hence their suffering. This is only the beginning. Religious bigots now are no better than religious bigots were in the Dark Ages. All these results are the evil fruit of the evil seed sowing seen in this act of Congress. Are these results good? Was the action right? It was most unworthy of that part of American history which clusters around the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The men who then made American history would have protested against it with their lives if need be. It may, as our contemporary says, be "worthy of some of the American people to-day." Thank God, some are not so blinded by sophistry and tradition and popularity as to fall down and worship. No greater curse, no worse misstep, ever befell the nation, and its effects will be a baleful evil, which will curse all the nations of the earth. Is it right? Is it in harmony with the Golden Rule? Is it Christlike?