ONE HAS SPOKEN by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jan 22, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 12.

ONE HAS SPOKEN.

By Editor

IN our issue of December 11, 1893, we referred to the fact that there were three men lying in jail in the State of Maryland for conscience' sake, the charges against them being "doing bodily labor on Sunday." We also stated that these men were made "criminals wholly on account of their religion," and we asked our religious contemporaries (Protestant—professedly) what they had to say of this persecution. But one reply has come to hand, that of the New York Observer (Presbyterian). That paper in its issue of December 28, after quoting that part of our note which called attention to the facts, says:—

Speaking for ourselves, as we are called upon by name to reply to the indictment, we would say that these men of Maryland are not made criminals on account of their religion. Were they prevented from worshiping God on Saturday, the day they regard as their Sabbath, they would be religious martyrs. They are, however, in a country that recognizes Sunday as a day when commercial pursuits and ordinary labor are unlawful. This attitude is the attitude assumed by a secular administration. Surely, the principle of rendering unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's covers the case. There is no religion manifested in chopping wood unnecessarily on Sunday. Neither plowing the field nor setting tomato plants can be regarded as a religious exercise, and so it was not their religion that brought them into trouble. It was really a lack of religious principle, which would make them sacrifice two days a week rather than offend the heathen about them who persist in making the first day of the week their Sabbath.

The above is straightforward. The Observer says in substance that these men were criminals and ought to have gone to jail, and that they were not criminals on account of their religion, and the reason for this latter conclusion is that they were not prevented from worshiping God on Saturday. In other words, the State has a perfect right to demand what it will in the way of homage to any institutions it may call its own, providing it does not prevent a man from rendering obedience to his own religious convictions. Let us see.

1. Sunday as a rest day is wholly a religious institution. Every law enjoining rest on Sunday has a religious basis, and is done in the interests of religion. It is outside of the sphere of civil government to legislate concerning such observances or institutions, and every soul within the jurisdiction of that government has not only the right to protest but to refuse to obey. The Sunday law of Maryland, expressly contrary to its Bill of Rights, is a religious law. It declares that "no person whatsoever shall work or do any bodily labor on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday;" and that persons shall not be permitted "to profane the Lord's day," certain articles shall not be given away "on the Sabbath day, commonly called Sunday," etc. The State has no more right to demand the observance of Sunday than it has to demand the observance of the Lord's Supper, or that all shall receive Christian baptism. It is outside of the sphere of the State.

2. The men imprisoned for working on Sunday believe, as most plainly declared in God's word, that the "seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," and the only Lord's day which the Bible recognizes. They believe this so much that they are willing to sacrifice the temporal advantages which would otherwise accrue, and meet the obloquy and scorn of those who reject what they hold sacred.

They also believe that, after having rendered to God the day he calls his own, they have the divine right to labor on the other six days, and no man nor government has the right to take it from them.

3. If their views of the word of God be correct in this respect, and that word is express and clear in its requirements, then Sunday is not the holy Sabbath. It is indeed a rival institution foisted on the church by the great apostasy, acknowledged by the Papal Church as her own offspring, and so admitted by many Protestants. It belongs not to the religion of freewill and love, but to the religion of hate and force and tyranny. In other words, it is a rival institution to the Sabbath of the Lord, and therefore cannot conscientiously be obeyed by those who so regard it. This is the case with the Maryland Sabbath-keepers. The Sunday is not a mere demand that they shall cease work, but it is a demand that they shall do homage to a religious institution which is a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord.

4. Not only this, but every Sunday law imposes a tax upon observers of the seventh day which it imposes on no other class, a tax which is no benefit to the State nor to any part of the community. Its sole effect is to compel homage to a religious institution, and thus do honor to those who hold to the institution. After observing the seventh day, the Lord gives him the right of working six days. The proper sphere of government is to protect man in that right, but under the Sunday law the State steps in and demands that he shall relinquish one-sixth of the time granted of God in which to labor, amounting to sixteen and two-thirds per cent. of his income, for the sole reason of paying his respects to a religious institution in which he does not believe, but which may happen to be considered holy by the majority. In all other respects the State recognizes him as a good citizen; and that State which makes and enforces statutes favoring one religious class and working injury or hardships to another, when both classes hold the same relation to the State in every other respect, is guilty of legislation in the interest of a particular religion, whatever may be the avowed object. The State is therefore responsible, and not the religion of the Sabbath-keeper, for the hardship would not come as a necessary result of such religion, but it does come in as a result of such class legislation. This cannot be denied.

5. The same logic which justifies Sunday laws would justify religious laws for the observance of the Mohammedan Friday or the Roman holy days; for if the majority have the right to demand the observance of Sunday, the majority, if Mohammedan, have the right to demand the observance of Friday and the secularization of Sunday. The Jews if in the majority could demand the observance of Saturday. But though in the majority the true people of God would never demand the observance of Sabbath, because their faith in God is sufficient to believe that he is able to care for those things which he has reserved to himself.

6. We have been told again and again by persons in various walks of life, and belonging to different religious denominations, that surely the Protestant churches are against these things. Well, the New York Observer has spoken, and its utterance is before our readers. How differently it sounds from that of the Presbytery of Hanover, Va., in 1776, addressed to the General Assembly. They said, among many other good things:—

Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion; and there is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but may be pleaded, with equal propriety, for establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who believe the Alcoran; or, if this be not true, it is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects which profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome. We beg leave farther to represent that religious establishments are highly injurious to the temporal interests of any community. . . . We would also humbly represent that the only proper objects of civil government are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence; the security of life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious, and encourage the virtuous, by wholesome laws, equally extended to every individual; but that the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the Universal Judge.

According to the Observer the Scotch Presbyterians were not justified in refusing to receive the liturgy of Charles I. in 1637. They should have submitted to it as a State law, rendering to Cæsar the things which Cæsar had proclaimed! Surely, they might have said their own prayers in their own way, either before or after the service of the king! And so the three young Hebrews were not forbidden to pray to God! The State of Babylon simply asked that they should bow down to the golden image; they could have prayed to God during all the time they were thus bowing! We do not believe this; but it seems to us that this is the logical sequence of the Observer's position.

We regret that Protestantism has become Roman in principle; yet we are glad to know it, for then we may meet the conflict and the outcome, which has been, is, and will be persecution for conscience' sake. We can in this, as have the liberty loving of all ages, whom Christ has made free, say now, as he will ever give grace to say in the future, "We ought to obey God rather than men."