SUNDAY observance in Canada was the subject of an article by Rev. John P. Gerrie, of Stratford, Ont., that recently appeared in a leading religious periodical published in the United States. We give the article place in order that our readers may be fully posted regarding a subject that is coming to the front the world over, showing the growing determination everywhere to supersede the "perpetual covenant" (Ex. 31:15-17) that God has established between Himself and His people, and to set up a man-made substitute. It is a movement that must be met in all lands by those who "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." The article is as follows:
The decision of the Privy Council of London, England, that the Ontario Lord's Day Act is unconstitutional turns renewed attention to the question of Sunday observance in Canada. For some time the matter has been pending, and the chief difference now is that the Province goes back to the law before confederation. This means that Sunday excursions and the running of electric cars will be allowed until further legislation may be secured, which will be with greater difficulty now that Dominion authorities must be dealt with. The more composite character of the House of Commons does not betoken the agreement on a question of this kind which might be expected from a provincial Legislature. The well-nigh unsuccessful, yet persistent, efforts of the Hon. John Charlton in Parliament gives further support to the conclusion. Measure after measure was introduced for a period of about ten years, but the reception has discouraged like effort during recent years.
And yet the Canadian Sunday is proverbial, and for good reasons. There is a general cessation of work throughout the Dominion. Agriculture, commerce, and almost every form of industry rests for this day. The Sunday newspaper is practically unknown, tho repeated attempts have been made in Montreal and Toronto to secure for it a foothold. It is true that there is a Toronto paper, which issues a Sunday edition, but this publication appears on Saturday and is not offered for sale on Sunday except, perhaps, on certain railway trains, and these trains are also greatly limited on that day, especially for passenger service. The street-car companies, too, have had great difficulty in obtaining a Sunday franchise. The question was submitted three times to the electors in Toronto. An adverse vote of 3,936 in 1892 was reduced to 1,003 in 1893, and changed to a favorable vote of 321 in 1897. Since then Sunday cars have been continuous, tho on a more limited scale than on other days. The result in Toronto has made no appreciable difference elsewhere, as there are many cities without the Sunday service. Nor have the evils generally feared from the innovation come upon Toronto, as the city, apart from the street-cars, maintains its usually quiet and orderly appearance.
The reasons for the observance of the day are varied, but the chiefest of all is an undoubted Sunday sentiment. Large sections of Canada have been settled chiefly by the Scotch, who brought with them their ancestral reverence for the day. A like attitude has been maintained by English and Irish settlers, while the accessions from other European countries have been too slow and meager to make any other influence in the land. Happily, too, there has been no vigorous Puritanical observance to cause any rebound on the part of succeeding generations. Credit, too, must be given to the churches, labor organizations, and other agencies for their continued efforts to retain the day as one of rest and privilege. Every year sees emphatic resolutions by the different denominations in their annual gatherings, while a common week day and Sunday are especially designated for services in the interests of the day. These services promise to become more general and will yet be producing larger results.
In this connection may be noted especially the work of the Lord's Day Alliance. This institution has grown until every province is regularly organized, while hundreds of branches are scattered up and down the land. At first one field secretary was engaged, but it was found necessary to appoint an associate secretary, and now both men are finding more work than they can reasonably undertake. The purposes of the alliance are set forth in the Ontario constitution as follows:
"The Alliance believes that the Lord's Day is a divine institution, and that the only sure foundation upon which the enjoyment of its benefits can rest is a strong conviction on the part of the people of its sacred character.
"It shall be the object of the Alliance, therefore, to preserve the Lord's Day in its integrity, and to secure to the whole community the right to its full enjoyments:
"(1) By informing the public mind concerning the dangers by which the Lord's Day is threatened, and arousing the public conscience to a sense of the paramount importance of its preservation in the interests alike of the domestic, the industrial, the national, and the religious, life of the people;
"(2) By uniting in a strong and effective organization the friends of the Lord's Day throughout the province;
"(3) By endeavoring to secure the faithful and impartial enforcement of laws intended for the preservation of the day of rest;
"(4) By endeavoring to secure such improved legislation as may be found necessary for the complete protection of the Lord's Day as a day of rest and opportunity for worship."
Exception may be taken to some of the terms and phraseology of this constitution, and possibly to some of the methods pursued, yet the Alliance has done a great service in maintaining the present rest and quiet of the Sunday. Their suits have, as a rule, been successful, tho here and there they have met with disappointment. A good work has been done in circulating literature and in arousing public interest on the great need of maintaining a day of rest.
Will the present Canadian Sunday continue? Many good people are apprehensive that it will not. They see encroachments on every side, and it must be admitted that there is not the old-time reverence for the day. The large in-coming tide of non-English-speaking people adds to the complexity of the situation. Many of these, as the Doukhobors, are scrupulous in their observance of the day, but many are not. It is unlikely, however, that the latter will be able to introduce in any degree the "Continental Sunday." Deterring influences will meet them in their new home, and if present conditions prevail the result will be more apparent on the rising generation than on the present settlers. The responsibility for the day as it is, therefore, rests, in large measure, on the people who have brought Canada thus far on her way, and there is reason to believe that the sturdy intelligence of the children of the pioneers will prove equal to their need.
There will, however, be a changing position in the arguments for the maintenance of the day. Many people uphold its sanctity, and contend that to take up any form of work, except that of necessity, is a violation of specific divine commandments. By a largely-increasing number of people these conclusions are no longer accepted. They find instead a strong and unassailable position in the broad humanitarian aspects of the day. They see it to be divine because of its humane and benign influences, and gratefully accept it in lieu of the Sabbath set apart for the Jew. Exponents of both views see the need of a well-observed Sunday for this formative and growing land. From the material, the moral, and the spiritual aspects, the arguments for a day of rest and privilege are alike conclusive, and may Canada ever retain her Sunday as one of the great bulwarks for a young nation's growth and prosperity.
The defenders of Sunday legislation often attempt to justify it by citing the fact that public holidays are set aside and established by law. The difficulty with the argument is that the two things are not parallel. But if Decoration or Memorial Day were a religious observance and institution, they would have a parallel case in a law that has recently been enacted by the Legislature of Nebraska. This measure "prohibits all manner of sports on Memorial Day," and is intended to prevent "the seizure of the holiday by youths and the unthinking for athletic sports and other diversions." In other words, it is a law to compel the observance of Memorial Day. But the parallel with Sunday legislation is not complete, for the reason that Decoration Day is not a religious institution and observance, but is a civic institution and observance, and therefore may be regulated by the civil law. But even here coercion may not be proper. Commenting on this measure, the Toledo Times says:
We regret very much to see this effort merely to seek to legislate an evil out of the human heart. This is not the right way to go at the matter. Until those who break the beautiful purpose of Decoration Day can be brought to see what they are doing, it is idle to attempt to coerce them to do what they ought to do voluntarily and gladly. The inevitable result of such a law will be to arouse a defiant antagonism against the day. There are many who will resent an effort to curtail what they consider a legitimate privilege of theirs. The law has utterly failed to protect Sunday, and it will utterly fail to protect Decoration Day. Such legislation, sumptuary or restrictive, not only generally fails wholly of its regulative purpose, but teaches people that laws may be violated with impunity, and is, therefore, stimulative of anarchy.
And if coercion and enforcement is not the right way to "go at the matter" with respect to a civic observance, how much less is it the right way to enforce a religious observance?
Chamber of Deputies, Paris, the scene of many heated debates over the separation of Church and State.
A Christian behind the Bars for Obedience to God's Word. See Preceding Page.
