THE SUNDAY-LAW SPIRIT by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 19, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 16.

THE SUNDAY-LAW SPIRIT.

By Editor

WHAT A "PROTESTANT" HAS TO SAY.

WITH all religious laws there is of necessity a persecuting spirit. It comes in the very nature of the case. Just as soon as men undertake by law and force to regulate the religious practices of others, they, by that very act, put themselves in the place of God, and, therefore, consider it not only their prerogative, but their solemn duty, to punish infractions of their will as they deem God would if in their place. They frame their laws after their conceptions of what God's law ought to be, and when they are told the simple fact that they are persecutors, they say that they are only executing righteous law, and that the persecuted are law breakers.

It is sufficient reply to this to say, in the words of Richard M. Johnson, in a report which the Senate of the United States in January, 1829, by adoption, made its own: "Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God." It was for transgressing a governmental decree that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were cast into the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar. It was for transgression of statute law that Daniel was thrown into the lions' den. It was for transgression of law that the Christian Sabbath keepers of Maryland were cast into prison. But in all cases the laws were wrong, because they attempted to regulate the conduct of the individual with respect to his duty to God.

As a sample of the spirit which goes with this religious legislation and its enforcement, we present an article clipped from the Centerville (Md.) Observer of January 25, and credited by the Observer to the Methodist Protestant. The Methodist Protestant quotes from the Independent what we have once before set before our readers (see SIGNS of January 29), and comments thereon, and the opinions of both papers are quoted by the Centerville Observer as follows:—

What Two Religious Papers Think of the Adventists.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES, a Seventh-day Adventist paper, wants to know what we think of the fact that these men should now be lying in jail in the Commonwealth of Maryland for "doing bodily labor on Sunday" in obedience to the dictates of their own conscience and their religious faith—one of them having been discovered plowing in his own field, a second setting out tomato plants in his own garden, and a third chopping wood at his own door. We answer that if it be true, as our contemporary tells us, that these were men who conscientiously observed the seventh day as their Sabbath, and who, in doing this work, disturbed nobody else, and were discovered at it only by persons spying out for the purposes of Inquisition, then it is an outrageous injustice, an offense against freedom of worship, and ought not to be allowed by the laws of a reputable State.—Independent.

Our contemporary, after a good many "if's," expresses its opinion rather strongly. If these ignorant fanatics who go about the country abusing people for observing Sunday, and who work on Sunday with a boldness and ostentation that is irritating to their neighbors, are permitted to go on, they will accomplish after a while all the evil that was anticipated in the Sunday opening of the World's Fair. If these men can obtrude their opinions upon the community, and violate sabbath laws at their discretion, then the Jews, who observe Saturday, can do the same. They can open their stores, shops, saloons, and business places, and that ends our orderly and quiet sabbath, for which Maryland has ever been noted. That will turn our fair city of Baltimore—the most orderly, law-abiding and sabbath-observing city in the nation—into the sabbath-breaking, theater-going, baseball-playing, whisky-drinking character that now disgraces Cincinnati, Chicago, New Orleans, and most other cities.

These men were arrested by the proper officers of the law. They were tried before a court of justice, whose three judges have won the admiration and respect of all the citizens of Maryland, without regard to party or sect, for their impartiality and acumen, and, after a trial, in which they were ably defended, they were found guilty of violating law, and were fined. They refused to pay the fine, and went to jail, where they are now posing as martyrs. Even in prison they seek to attract attention, are bold and defiant, and make themselves as obnoxious to the public conscience as possible.

We think that a dignified religious paper, that gave its great influence to the closing of the World's Fair, puts itself into a very anomalous and inconsistent position by hypothecating a case for these fanatical Adventists, and charging "outrageous injustice" and "offense against the freedom of worship," against a State so conservative, law abiding, and orderly as Maryland. And none are more so than the people of Queen Anne's, where the offense was committed, and where these silly, ignorant, and offensive law breakers are now in jail.—Methodist Protestant.

It would be well for the reader to candidly inquire:—

1. What Sabbath laws of God have the Adventists violated? and what Sunday laws of the State even, which are not violated every week by professed first-day keepers? And what right has any State to make any Sabbath laws whatsoever?

2. What is Protestantism? The name of the above paper, which justifies the iniquitous and unconstitutional law, and condemns those who "obtrude their opinions upon the community," is the "Methodist Protestant." It certainly advocates a very different kind of Protestantism from what was advocated by the Reformers; and does the name design to express this? The "protest" which gave to those who made it the name of Protestants, was presented at the second Diet of Spires, in 1529. In giving a digest of the principles of the protest, D'Aubigne, the great Protestant historian, says:—

The principles contained in this celebrated protest of the 19th April, 1529, constituted the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate, and the second is the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these two abuses, Protestantism sets up above the magistrate the power of conscience, and above the visible church the authority of the word of God. It declines, in the first place, the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles, "We must obey God rather than man." In presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ. . . . Protestantism rejected the authority of man solely to place Jesus Christ on the throne of the church, and his word in the pulpit.

We submit to our readers if the above from the Methodist Protestant is not based on the very principles which called out the Protest of Spires. The fact of a few men spending a few weeks in prison is of small importance; great principles are at stake. It is the mystery of God or the mystery of iniquity; it is liberty or tyranny.

That the Methodist Protestant is honest and sincere and terribly in earnest does not affect the issue. Saul, the persecutor, was honest; and Jesus said to his disciples: "They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16: 2. The reason why men will so persecute is stated in the next verse: "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." He who knows Jesus Christ, the mystery of God, will never persecute. He knows God so well that he is willing to leave all judgment to him, and he knows human nature too well to know that it can be made righteous by law.