LAMB-LIKE VOICE by M. E. Cornell

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 11, 1858

LAMB-LIKE VOICE.

By M. E. Cornell

EXTRACTS FROM THE RECORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, CONCERNING SUNDAY LAWS.

"We must always keep in mind, that it is no part of the object of the act to enforce the observance of a religious duty. The act does not, to any extent, rest upon the ground that it is immoral or irreligious to labor on the Sabbath, (Sunday,) any more than upon any other day. It simply prescribes a day of rest, from motives of public policy and as a civil regulation; and as the prohibition itself is founded on principles of policy, upon the same principles, certain exceptions are made, among which are "works of necessity and charity." In saying this, I do not mean to intimate that religion prohibits works of necessity or charity on the Sabbath; but merely to show that the principles upon which our statute rests, are wholly secular; and that they are none the less so, because they may happen to concur with the dictates of religion. Thus the day of rest, prescribed by the statute, is the Christian Sabbath, yet so entirely does the act rest upon grounds of public policy, that, as was said in Bloom V. Richards, 2 O. S. R. 391, 392, it would be equally constitutional and obligatory, did it name any other day, and it derives none of its force from the fact that the day of rest is Sunday. For, as was also said in that case, no power, whatever, is possessed by the legislature over things spiritual, but only over things temporal; no power, whatever, to enforce the performance of religious duties, simply because they are religious—but only, within the limits of the constitution, to maintain justice and promote the public welfare."

"Unless then, we keep constantly in mind, that the act rests upon public policy alone, we will be in great danger of giving it a wrong construction; and instead of reading it in the light of the constitution, which prohibits all religious tests and preferences, find ourselves led away from its meaning by the influence of our own peculiar theological tenets."

"What is the object of the statute? We do not suppose that any part of its object was to punish persons for not observing the Sabbath, in a particular way; this would be persecution, and as the Legislature have no power under our constitution to pass such a law, it would be a nullity. How far then, can the Legislature go in this matter? No farther than to protect that portion of the community who observe the day as hallowed to religious exercises, from disturbance and annoyance."

"It is the glory of our country that the right of belief in any particular religious tenets—without molestation on account thereof, is granted to every one; but this principle can only be preserved by extending it equally to the unbeliever. It is the same great indivisible principle that alike protects humanity, the birth-right of the whole, which each with equal reason may claim, should he believe any religious creed whatever; or should he disbelieve the whole."

On the point of enforcing religious obligation by law, Judge Caldwell says:

"The pernicious and ruinous consequences of enforcing religious principle by legal enactment have been so well tested, and are so apparent, that any decision of the kind should not be regarded. Indeed, if I were to attempt to present the error into which I think the court have fallen in this decision, in its strongest light, I would do it by a reference to the action of the courts, and legislative bodies, not only in Europe, but in some parts of this country, in its early settlement, in attempting to enforce the observance of the Sabbath (Sunday) by law. It always has, and always will produce, a pharisaical and hypocritical observance of a religious duty, and creates a spirit of censorious bigotry, and tends powerfully to destroy every religious feeling of the heart."

The circumstances calling forth the above sentiments should here be mentioned. The Supreme Court pronounced a decision in regard to the violation of Sunday, which Judge Caldwell dissented from, claiming that it was unconstitutional. But subsequently the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court without a dissenting voice. The time has not yet come for the "mark of the beast" to be enforced, consequently they are yet restrained; although we see the spirit manifested more and more. The low muttering of the dragon-like speaker is heard; and it is ominous of the approaching Sunday decree, which prophecy shows must certainly come. The two-horned beast has a dragon's heart, and out of the abundance of that heart, his mouth will certainly speak. May these little workings of the dragon spirit admonish the remnant of commandment-keepers to be ready for the dreadful voice that is soon coming against them.

M. E. CORNELL. Republic, Ohio, Oct. 17th, 1858.