SUNDAY ENFORCEMENT NEWS AND COMMENT.
By John D. Bradley
[From John D. Bradley, 60 New York Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C.] Sunday Agitation in Washington.
THE action, on December 12, of the association of Protestant clergymen in Washington in deciding that "the first Sunday of the coming year should be devoted to the discussion of the question of Sabbath observance in the city of Washington;" and that a campaign should be inaugurated against "the governmental practise of making certain employees work on Sunday;" and the indications that attempts are to be made to secure the passage at the present session of Congress of certain Sunday bills applying to the District of Columbia that were introduced at the last session and are now pending—these have called forth considerable activity on the part of Seventh-day Adventists, whose headquarters are now located in Washington and who are noted as opponents of religious legislation. The ministers of this denomination residing in Washington prepared an open letter to the clergy on the subject, and a mass-meeting was held for the purpose of discussing and protesting against the pending Sunday bills. Also, it is understood, steps are being taken to have petitions against the passage of these bills ready for presentation to Congress in case the measures come up for consideration. The open letter to the clergy, which filled three and one half newspaper columns, appeared in the Washington Post, of December 26, and was signed by fourteen "resident Seventh-day Adventist ministers of Washington," including the resident leaders of the denomination. The purpose of this letter was "to present from a Bible standpoint what to us appears to be the truth respecting the Sabbath question, and why both Sunday-keeping and Sunday legislation are wrong." The writers declared that they believed, with their brethren of other Protestant faiths, "thoroughly in the pressing need of a world-wide campaign in favor of better Sabbath observance;" but felt that there was need of caution to be sure "that all we do is Christian, and done in a Christian way." Asserting that they stood firmly with the Protestant clergymen, too, "on the solid rock of Protestant faith—'the Bible, and the Bible only,' as the rule of belief and action," the writers proceeded at length, and by the citation of many texts, to show "what our guide, the Bible, says on the Sabbath question." The thing shown was, of course, that the seventh day, and not the first day, of the week is the Biblical Sabbath. Following this it was stated how "the heathen Sunday" supplanted the real "Lord's Day" in the Christian church, thus entailing "a breach in the law of God," and that the papal church boasts of this change to-day as evidence of its spiritual authority. In this connection the origin of Sunday legislation was pointed out, but aside from this the following near the close of the letter was all that was said with regard to Sunday legislation: To-day nearly all the states of our Union contain laws honoring the Sunday, while the Lord's Day is constantly trampled underfoot, and made the busiest day of all the week. At the present moment two Sunday bills are pending before the lawmakers here at the seat of government. There is also a widespread movement among nearly all the religious bodies in favor of a universal Sunday law.
It is evident that the purpose of this letter was, not to discuss the question of Sunday legislation, but to present, on the basis of what was assumed to be a common authority, the case of the seventh-day Sabbath in opposition to the Sunday Sabbath. In view of the fact that the clergymen had simply announced a campaign in behalf of "Sabbath observance," and had given no specific indication that an appeal was to be made to the civil authorities, such a communication to them at this stage of the proceeding was, no doubt, the proper one on the part of those who wish to raise the issue as to the legitimacy of the Sunday-sabbath, and to whom the question as to which of two days shall be observed as the Sabbath, is of the utmost importance. Of course, that is a theological question; and yet, as the clergy are demanding legislation in behalf of the Sunday as a religious institution, the question of the legitimacy of the Sunday sabbath is a pertinent and proper one. The open letter of the Adventist ministers to the clergymen, a quite full abstract of which was published in the Washington Evening Star on the day that it appeared in the Post, elicited from the Post an editorial on the subject, headed "Sabbath and Sunday." At the outset the Post observed that "the controversy between the Sabbatarians and the observers of Sunday has been one of long standing," and that "there is a great deal to be said on both sides, with the probability that the most exhaustive argument will not result in changing the now established order of things." But it is added, "at the same time, the contention that Sunday is not the original day of rest specified in the Bible, is so well established as to be beyond further dispute; Sunday is a modern institution, comparatively speaking." After sketching the rise and establishment of Sunday observance, the Post concludes that "there is, therefore, very considerable ground for the doubt which many people express concerning the necessity of observing Sunday as a day of holiness." It is observed that "Blackstone went so far as to assert that a violation of a Sunday law was not Sabbath-breaking," and that upon the decree of Constantine "much of the Sunday legislation rests, not only as respects secular statutes, but also canonical and ecclesiastical law." The Post thinks, however, that there is wisdom in "setting apart, as Moses did, one day in the week for cessation from labor," tho "it does not make any material difference whether this day is the ancient Sabbath or the modern Sunday." And since the day customarily and generally so set apart (it is not to be understood that the Post means set apart by compulsory legislation) "is devoted to the inculcation of higher ideals" and is the day upon which "millions of people are urged to lead better lives, and are the subjects of earnest appeals, to which a very large proportion of them respond, with determination to renounce the ways of evil," the Post thinks it must be admitted that the world is benefited thereby, not only physically, but morally and spiritually, and concludes, therefore, that, "viewed from the most secular standpoint, Sunday is a praiseworthy institution, and there is not the slightest possibility that it will disappear from the world's calendar." But it recognizes that there is something to be on guard against in this matter by saying in conclusion: "The only danger is that those who observe Sunday will become intolerant of those who regard it more as a holiday than as a holy day. Against this intolerance those who appreciate the real value of Sunday must ever be on their guard." Current happenings demonstrate the timeliness of this admonition.