THE DEVOTED SUNDAY KEEPERS.
By Editor
THE "GREAT MORAL VICTORY."
ONE special reason why Sunday laws are desired is to compel Sunday keepers to keep Sunday. During the early part of the summer much was said in religious papers about the great moral victory of the Sunday closing at the World's Fair. The fact was that there was no moral victory about it. Some were induced to cover their exhibits, and strong pressure was brought to compel it. The railroad fare kept up during the larger part of the season, and the people did not care to pay large railway fares and full admission fee to see a half show. We said so at the time; the last five Sundays of the Fair demonstrated it, and now the Sunday national reformers have admitted it. Read the following extracts from an article by Rev. J. W. Foster, one of the old-time National Reform secretaries, in the Christian Statesman of November 4:— There are in the United States 2,000,000 working men who uniformly trample underfoot the sabbath laws of this country. To them the message is addressed, "Submit yourselves to these sabbath laws, which have been enacted for the public good." They reply: "We would be glad, for the sake of ourselves, our families, our country, and our God, to rest every Lord's day. But our employers compel us to work on sabbath on pain of losing our position." Now, it must be said in candor that there is not much of the martyr spirit here. They did wrong in consenting to work on sabbath. They ought to have obeyed God and left the consequence with him. By the term "sabbath" Mr. Foster means Sunday. Italics throughout are ours. He continues:— But those who make sabbath work the condition of their being employed have the greater sin. Who are their employers?—They work for street-car companies, railroad companies, and for the United States Government in the mail service. But who is the principal?—We went to the president of a street-car company and asked him if he was responsible for the sabbath work of his company; he said: "I am only the servant of the directors. Personally, I believe in the sabbath and keep it faithfully." Then we went to the board of directors—the majority were church members. They said: "The churches do not regard it as wrong to run the cars on sabbath. They are a great convenience in getting to and from church. The public demand them and we meet the demand. Besides, we are only agents. The owners of the road require it to be run seven days in the week." We asked, "Who are the owners?" And they named the stockholders. All but three or four of these were church members. They said: "We do not regard ourselves as responsible for the sabbath desecration charged upon our road. Holding stock in a corporation does not make us responsible for the crimes of the body. Besides, the company was incorporated by the government; and if it is allowed to break the law, the government is responsible." Then we went to the government, and said: "This government compels half a million men to break our sabbath laws in the United States mail service. This government gives charters to street-car companies and railroad corporations, which deprive as many more of their sabbath rest and make them lawbreakers." The reply was: "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is based upon public sentiment. The people demand that the postal service, railroad service, and street cars be continued on sabbath. From that decree there is no appeal. Besides, we have been observing the churches. Their members use the street cars, railroad trains, and post office on sabbath. Their members do the mechanical part of this public work on sabbath. Their members are stockholders, officers, and directors of these sabbath-breaking corporations. And so we conclude that the churches one and all uphold the public verdict. If the churches would lift up a faithful testimony against this sabbath desecration, and exclude from her membership all who are personally, or by implication, guilty of the crime, then this public sabbath breaking would cease. But till the churches do their duty, it will go on." Then, after referring again to Sunday trains, street cars, Sunday papers, etc., Mr. Foster says:— I can see no hope until God comes in his judgments and makes these enterprises a financial loss to those interested in them. Mr. Foster then refers to slavery, and says that the churches are as slow in responding to Sunday laws as to the abolition of slavery, and quotes Senator Ingalls as saying that New England was not aroused to the evil of slavery "until it ceased to be profitable;" and this is what it is proposed to do—to make Sunday business of all kind unprofitable by the boycott, and then the church conscience will be aroused. Mr. Foster further says:— No wonder the public conscience did not respond to the message of the Abolitionists. To-day the church cannot be found that makes the holding of stock in sabbath-breaking corporations a matter of discipline. All the churches have become parties to this terrible sabbath desecration. Is it any wonder the public conscience is dead to the call of sabbath reformers? I suppose the "American conscience will never be alive to the immorality of sabbath-breaking corporations until it ceases to be profitable, and the country will not finally determine to put away this sabbath desecration until convinced that its continuance threatens not only their industrial independence but their national life." All of this for Sunday. The great mass of the people know that the day is in nowise sacred, is not the Sabbath. There can be no good conscience behind Sunday reform. The whole thing is based on a wrongly instructed religious sentiment, blind religious prejudice, and absolute selfishness. The ministers want the people to attend church, and so wish laws to prevent their doing anything else. The merchant, the shopkeeper, wants laws to compel men to close their places of business, because he wishes to close, and he does not want their competition on that day. Others have a sort of religious sentiment with reference to the day, because father or mother kept it; and all of these will be wonderfully stirred in conscience and will develop wonderful zeal in Sunday reform when Sunday opening or travel is rendered unprofitable. Who cannot see the selfishness of the whole Sunday "reform," from beginning to end? The unselfish man, the man with the Spirit of Christ, would never ask for a Sunday law, nor any religious law whatever. Seventh-day people have no trouble. They observe the seventh day. Why?—God commands it; Christ kept it. Unprofitable?—Yes, from a financial standpoint. Lose their places?—Yes, many of them. But Christ and his truth are more than all else. They may suffer, but they will not disobey God. But may we suggest that before our Sunday-law friends ask for further legislation it might be well to convert those who profess to regard the day, and then see what their example would do? In all soberness, what a spectacle to angels of God must be this "Christian nation" and these "Christian churches," which require civil laws to compel them to observe the "Christian sabbath"!! It is all contrary to the gospel of Christ.