WE had the right to protest against the establishment of a national religion; an
Page 1
The American Sentinel
August 4, 1892
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 4, 1892
WE had the right to protest against the establishment of a national religion; and we have the right to protest against this national religion now that it is established. We had the right to disagree with the ecclesiastical combination which was bending every effort to secure the establishment of a national religion; and now that they have secured exactly what they have been demanding, we still have the same right to disagree with them. We had the right to dissent from the propositions, the doctrines, and the dogmas of this ecclesiastical combination, before the United States Government took their side of the controversy and championed their cause; and we have the same right still. In other words, we have the divine and everlasting right to dissent from any and every religious organization on earth; and when the Government joins a religious organization, then we have the same right still, and the right extends now to that of refusal of obedience to the Government itself, in so far as it is joined to the religious organization.
THE one great object of the grand movement to secure governmental recognition of religion was to secure legislation by which Sunday observance could be enforced throughout the Nation, backed up by national power and influence. We protested against their movement, and disputed their right, to use the governmental power for any such purpose. Now that they have secured it, we still dispute their right to use it. We had the right to dissent from their claim of right to use the Government for any such purpose; and we have still the right to dissent from their use of the governmental power for this purpose. We had the right to refuse to keep Sunday when it was required by the churches without the aid of the Government; and we have the same right to refuse to keep it when it is required by the churches with the aid of the Government. In other words, governmental aid of churches in enforcing their dogmas and ordinances can not take away any man's right of dissent from those dogmas and ordinances. The Government does wrong in aiding the churches; and men do right in dissenting from both churches and Government in the things wherein they are allied.
IN this act of closing the World's Fair on Sunday, Congress has distinctly taken sides in a religious controversy. Congress in this, and the Supreme Court in its decision, have committed the Government of the United States to the decision of a religious controversy. Neither the act of Congress nor the decision of the Supreme Court, will convince the Jew or the Christian who observes the seventh day, that Sunday should be observed. No234more will the National Reformers be able to convince these with the aid of the power which these acts give, to inflict pains and penalties upon dissenters. We disagreed with the National Reformers before; we disagree with them now. We denied before that Sunday should be observed; we deny now that it should be observed. We refused before to keep Sunday; we refuse now to keep Sunday. We rejected before, the National Reform claim of right to use the governmental power to compel anybody to keep Sunday; and although they have secured the use of the power, we reject now their right to use it.
ALL these years we have denied the right of Congress to legislate in behalf of Sunday or any other religious rite or institution. We denied this wholly upon principle. We protested against Sunday legislation because it is religious legislation. We would have protested equally if it had been proposed to legislate in behalf of any other religious day. We can appeal to the life of THE SENTINEL as clear evidence that this has always been the one prominent feature and reason of our protest against Sunday legislation. And as long as the question had maintained this standing only, so long would this have still been the prominent feature of our protest. Now, however, the question has changed; and the prominent feature of our protest changes accordingly. Congress has now legislated upon the subject. Congress has now decided and has committed the Government to the decision that Sunday is the Sabbath and shall be observed. And now we protest against it, not only because it is religious legislation, but above all, because it is not true. In this act Congress has committed itself and the Government to a falsehood.
SUNDAY is not the Sabbath. Sunday is not the Lord's day. Sunday is not in any sense a sacred day. As before stated, the chiefest advocates of this Sunday legislation admit in writing that there is no divine command for the observance of Sunday in any way. They know that the only authority for it is the authority of the church. And if they do not know, they, and everybody else who will look into the question, may learn that “the church” which is authority for Sunday sacredness is the Catholic Church, and that alone. And they may likewise know that professed Protestants who keep Sunday, are following the authority of the Catholic Church, and that alone, for there is no other authority for Sunday observance whether by church rulers or governmental statute. And Congress in requiring the observance of Sunday, is requiring submission and obedience to the authority of the Catholic Church, for there is no other authority for Sunday observance. It was therefore perfectly fitting that in the chief speech that was made in favor of the Sunday bill in the Senate (the speech of Senator Hawley of Connecticut), the chief place in the speech should be given to the views of Catholic archbishops upon the subject. But the authority of the Catholic Church is no authority at all; it is only usurpation and fraud, and its Sunday sacredness is a falsehood. Therefore it is that the Congress of the United States, in legislating in behalf of Sunday observance, has committed itself, and the Government of the United States, to a falsehood. And not only to a falsehood, but to a Papal falsehood. And we refuse to recognize it or yield any respect to it as either true or right.
THE Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, and Sunday is not the Sabbath. The seventh day is the Lord's day, and Sunday is not. The seventh day is the sacred day and the only sacred day, and Sunday is not at all a sacred day. For thus saith the Lord:—
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
“And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 2: 3.
This is the position and the protest of THE AMERICAN SENTINEL now and always.
A. T. J.
It was lack of power to convince the people that they ought to keep Sunday as the Sabbath, that caused the churches to demand the governmental power to aid in compelling the people to do this. Lacking the power to persuade the people, the churches resorted to power to compel the people to observe the ordinance of the Church. The religious controversy, as to whether Sunday is a sacred day or not, has been going on in the United States longer than has the movement to secure the recognition or declaration of the national Government that it is. Those who demand that Sunday shall be observed have admitted over and over again that there is no divine command for it. And the effort of these churches to secure the alliance and aid of the Government was only an effort to get the national Government to take their side of this controversy. They now have the Government committed to this. In the effort to gain this they have been boastful, and arrogant, and insolent, enough, in all conscience, as has been abundantly shown by their own words all these years. If any one is inclined to think they will be any less so, now that they have their wish, then the writer only wishes that that one could have sat where he did, in the gallery of the House, when the final vote was taken by which Congress committed the Government to their side of the controversy, and could have seen and heard their exultation.
WE knew it was coming. We knew it would be done. And this is why we so continuously and so earnestly protested, and warned the people, against it. We knew not exactly how this thing would be done; we only knew that it would be done; but we knew enough about the evil thing, to be able to recognize it when it should be done, by whatever way it might be done. We have protested against the doing of this great evil; and now we protest against the thing since it is done. We protest against the evil principle itself, and we protest and shall continue to protest against any and all the consequences of the principle.
ALL of this is now done by the United States Supreme Court decision of February 29, 1892, and by Congress, in the act closing the World's Fair on Sunday. In these two governmental actions there lies wrapped up, and only waiting for swift development, all that THE SENTINEL has been telling about, and warning against, these seven years.
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is in the seventh year of its publication. From the first number that was ever issued, it has been telling the people that in the national Government, though forbidden by the Constitution, there would be established a national religion; and that there would be national Sunday legislation at the demand of the churches.
Some Scraps of New England History.
The act of 1631 making membership in the church a test of citizenship had involved the Massachusetts theocrats in another dilemma. There was a considerable number of people who were not members of the churches, and because of unfitness could not be admitted. Even more than this, they did not want to be admitted. But as membership in the church was necessary to citizenship, and as they wanted to be, and deemed it their right to be, citizens, they took to organizing churches of their own. But the theocrats were not willing that power should slip through their fingers in any such way as this; they found not only a way to escape from the dilemma, but with that to make their power more absolute. In 1635 the following law was enacted:—
Forasmuch as it hath bene found by sad experience, that much trouble and disturbance hath happened both to the Church and civil State by the officers & members of some churches, wch have bene gathered. . . . in an vndue manner . . . it is . . . ordered that . . . this court doeth not, nor will hereafter approue of any such companyes of men as shall henceforth joyne in any pretended way of church fellowship, without they shall first acquaint the magistrates, & the elders of the great pte of the churches in this jurisdiction, with their intencions, and have approbacon herein. And further, it is ordered, that noe pson, being a member of any church which shall hereafter be gathered without the approbacon of the magistrates, & the greater pte of the said churches, shall be admitted to the freedome of this common-wealth.
Mrs. Hutchinson was condemned, but happily escaped with her life. A few days after her condemnation, the governor sent her a warrant banishing her from the territory of Massachusetts. At the solicitation of Roger Williams, she and her friends went to Narragansett Bay. Miantonomoh made them a present of the island of Rhode Island, where they settled.
In 1636 about a hundred people, under the leadership of Thomas Hooker, a minister second only to Cotton in the estimate of the colonists, removed from Massachusetts Colony to the valley of the Connecticut, and established there the towns of Springfield, Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield; and January 14, 1639, Springfield preferring to remain in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, the three remaining towns established a form of government under eleven “fundamental orders,” the preamble of which is as follows:—
Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the river of Connecticut and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public State or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into combination and confederation together, to maintain and pursue the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such laws, rules, orders, and decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed.
Order number four was to the effect that the governor should “be always a member of some approved congregation, and formerly of the magistracy within this jurisdiction.” The oath of office for the governor was as follows:—
I, . . . , being now chosen to be governor within this jurisdiction, for the year ensuing, and until a new be chosen, do swear by the great and dreadful name of the everliving God, to promote the public good and peace of the same, according to the best of my skill; as also will maintain all lawful privileges of this commonwealth; as also that all wholesome laws that are or shall be made by lawful authority here established, be duly executed; and will further the execution of justice according to the rule of God’s word; so help me God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The oath of the magistrate was substantially the same. Unlike Massachusetts, church membership was not required in order to be a voter. Persons became citizens by vote of the major part of the town where they lived, or the major part of such as should be then present and taking the “oath of fidelity.”
In 1637 a colony of Puritan immigrants with John Davenport as their pastor, arrived in Boston, and remained until the spring of 1638, then founded the town and colony of New Haven. In 1639 a colony from New Haven settled the town of Milford, and another company from England settled the town of Guilford. In the same year a form of government was established, and “by the influence of Davenport it was resolved that the Scriptures are the perfect rule of the commonwealth; that the purity and peace of the ordinances to themselves and their posterity were the great end of civil order; and that church members only should be free burgesses.” A committee of twelve was appointed to nominate seven men to become magistrates. In August the seven met together to put into working order the forms of the new government. “Abrogating every previous executive trust, they admitted to the court all church members; the character of civil magistrates was next expounded ‘from the sacred oracles;’ and the election followed. Then Davenport, in the words of Moses to Israel in the wilderness, gave a charge to the governor to judge righteously; ‘The cause that is too hard for you,’ such was part of the minister’s text, ‘bring it to me, and I will hear it.’ Annual elections were ordered; and God’s word established as the only rule in public affairs.” The other towns followed this example, and thus “the power of the clergy235reached its extreme point in New Haven, for each of the towns was governed by seven ecclesiastical officers known as ‘pillars of the church.’ These magistrates served as judges, and trial by jury was dispensed with, because no authority could be found for it in the laws of Moses.”
The Evil Precedent is Established.
[In the House of Representatives, on July 15 and 16, Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama, spoke on the sundry civil bill. His remarks upon the question of the governmental closing of the World's Fair, on Sunday, are reprinted here.]
Mr. CHAIRMAN, there are other things in this bill to which I am seriously opposed. I am opposed to the Congress of the United States legislating on the subject of the local affairs of the people of Illinois. Illinois already has, and for half a century has had, on her statute books possibly the most stringent Sunday law of any State in the Union, except Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania law and the Illinois law are, I believe, copies of each other.
The Illinois Sunday law of 1845 prescribes that—
Whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by labor (works of necessity and charity excepted), or by any amusement or diversion on Sunday, shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars, and whoever shall be guilty of any noise, rout, or amusement on the first day of the week, called Sunday, whereby the peace of any private family may be disturbed, shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
If the penalty is not sufficiently severe to preserve perfect order, the Legislature of Illinois and the municipal authorities of Chicago can increase its severity. I believe in Christianity; I believe in the holy Sabbath day, but I do not believe in the Congress of the United States violating its functions by legislating on that subject.
Mr. Chairman, there are very many reasons why Congress should not enact a law requiring the Exposition to close its gates on Sunday. If we take control of the Exposition by such legislation we can not avoid the responsibility of its success and we can not refuse appropriations for its maintenance, and I also think it much better for the people of Illinois to legislate upon this subject than for Congress to commence enacting laws of that character. I do not propose to criticise the amendment which the gentleman from Illinois has presented to the House. I desire to say that I am opposed to any legislation by Congress with regard to the morals or religion of the people of Illinois. Legislation upon religious subjects by Congress is strictly prohibited by the Constitution:—
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Mr. Livingston.—The gentleman does not consider the Sunday question as a religious question?
Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama.—Yes, sir; I consider the Sunday question as one of the utmost importance to the Christian religion. I regard the keeping of the fourth commandment as imperative, and I believe that all persons should “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” but I insist that it does not matter what plan is adopted in efforts which are made to inject religious legislation in Congress, the result is bound to be detrimental to Christianity.
When the Congress of the United States attempts to interfere with the religious rights or customs of the people of any State by undertaking to regulate their observance of Sunday, or in other religious matters, then Congress is trespassing—it is treading on unconstitutional ground, and trespassing on grounds that the history of the world shows has been the foundation of great harm to the cause of religion.
It does not make any difference whether we proceed directly or indirectly. Whether we approach the question by positive legislation or by proviso and conditions, as is done in this case, no possible good can result, and it is establishing a precedent which can be used for great evil to the cause of Christianity, and my judgment is sustained in this by many eminent divines and most devout Christians. Their views are that all laws regarding religion should be enacted by local law-making powers.
A law enacted by the Congress of a country so extended as ours, even though with the best intentions, very possibly might be very unsatisfactory to the religious views of all the people to be affected. In fact, it is more than probable that a law on this subject might be pleasing to the people of Maine and yet not at all pleasing to the religious views of the people of California, and a law pleasing to the people of one denomination might be very unsatisfactory to the people of another denomination. Therefore our forefathers felt that the best plan was to allow the States to make all laws upon this important and sacred subject.
The men who framed the article of our fundamental law, which I have read, remembered that the seizure and persecution of our Saviour Jesus Christ was under regularly enacted Roman laws. They remembered that in 1660 Bunyan was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment for “teaching men to worship contrary to law,” and for “upholding meetings contrary to the laws of the king.” They remembered that in the great State of Virginia, on the 4th day of June, 1768, John Waller, Louis Craig, and James Childs were sent to jail, the prosecuting attorney, in presenting the case to the court, said:—
May it please your courtship, these men are great disturbers of the peace; they can not meet a man upon the road but they must ram a passage of scripture down his throat.
They knew that in the State of Maryland a few years prior to the adoption of this amendment pious men were jailed for “preaching the gospel of the word of God.” It was the knowledge that laws upon religion enacted by law-making powers distant from and foreign to the people had caused wrongs and persecutions that suggested to our forefathers the propriety of incorporating in the very First Amendment, and first paragraph of that amendment, and first words of the paragraph, the provision prohibiting legislation of this character by Congress. I have great confidence in the people of Illinois and the people of Chicago, and do not deem it necessary for Congress to undertake to interfere in such matters.
I do not like the method adopted. Congress proposes to take $5,000,000 of the people's hard-earned money and give it to a rich corporation. This is a very wrong thing, and one they have no right to do. To palliate this great wrong inflicted upon the people who pay taxes, they couple this gift with what they claim is a very good proviso or condition—that is to say, Congress will give $5,000,000 of the public money to this rich corporation upon condition that the rich, soulless corporation will promise to not open their gates on Sunday.
The Church in Politics.
By E. J. HIBBARD
THE following, clipped from the Pittsburg Dispatch, of July 18, is an extract from a sermon delivered the evening before from one of the popular pulpits of the city, and shows how elated “the Church” is becoming over the committal of the United States Senate to religious legislation, and how ready they are to take advantage of this fact in order to extend the influence and power of the Church in other matters equally outside its province:—
“Let there be made a law for the suppression of strikes and compulsory arbitration,” remarked the Rev. J. D. Sands, during the course of his sermon last evening at the Seventh United Presbyterian Church, upon the subject of, “The Duty of the Church in the Labor Crisis.”
Continuing, the pastor said, “The duty of the Church in such a time is to advocate some measures of legislation that will reconcile the two great antagonistic parties—capital and labor. That the Church has weight with great political or governing bodies,” he continued, “has been demonstrated most effectually in the late World’s Fair matter, when the United States Senate, the highest body in the country, listened to the voice of religion and passed the World’s Fair $5,000,000 appropriation bill with the Church instituted proviso that the gates of the great Exposition should not be opened upon Sunday. That grand, good fact suggests to the Christian’s mind that if this may be done so may other equally needful measures. The Church is gaining power continually and its voice will be heard in the future much oftener than in the past.
War is based upon two great human frailties—selfishness and covetousness. When the Church eliminates these two dominating evils from the great mind of the public, then will such things as conflicts between capital and labor cease, but not until then. Conservatively and practically looking at this it is easy to perceive that the growth of the Church is much too slow for we who are now suffering from the dire effects to await. Therefore I say let the Church advocate some measures of legislation to reconcile the two great antagonistic bodies. Christ’s brief journey upon earth was to reconcile men to God, to reconcile man to himself, and to reconcile man to his brother men. He came to promulgate peace between the human and the divine, between individuals and between nations. That it is gradually attaining that point is evidenced by comparisons of the histories of the past with the histories of the present. Then war was of ordinary occurrence, now it is almost unknown except in a few isolated cases. The Church is gaining power, but not rapidly enough to scoff the idea of beseeching the high governing powers for intervention in such matters as we have just seen.”
So the Church says, “Let there be a law for the suppression of strikes.” Who shall introduce it?—The Church, for “the duty of the Church in such a time as this is to advocate some measure of legislation that will reconcile the two great antagonistic parties—capital and labor.” What lies between these two great bodies that must be eliminated before they can be reconciled?—“Selfishness and covetousness,” says Rev. Mr. Sands, and “when the Church eliminates these two dominating evils from the great mind of the public, then will such things as conflicts between capital and labor cease, but not until then.” That selfishness and covetousness lie at the bottom, and are the root of all difficulties between capital and labor, is readily acceded, but that a minister of Jesus Christ should think of eliminating these from the “public mind” instead of the individual mind, and by civil law instead of the spirit of Christ, through the gospel, is a problem upon which honest men should meditate with candor.
However, this is not the height of his236ambition, for he expects the time to come, when the Church, as such,—aside from, and without intervention by, the civil Government,—will pat these two contending parties on the head and say, “Be still; stop quarreling!” And they will immediately comply, because the law through which it will speak will have within itself the magic power to eliminate “selfishness and covetousness.” But will this be the “peace” which Jesus came to establish between God and man, and between man and his fellows?” The Church is gaining power, but not rapidly enough to scoff the idea of beseeching the high governing powers for intervention in such matters as we have just seen.” And all this anticipation of the future power of the Church comes of the fact “that the Church has weight with great political or governing bodies as has been demonstrated in the late World’s Fair matter.” Who will take warning?
E. J. HIBBARD.
“The American Sabbath.”
UNDER this head the Patriot, published at Lamoni, Iowa, gives forcible editorial expression to some plain facts as to the present assault upon patriotism and religion in the United States. The Patriot speaks thus:—
The leading spirits in the move to secure the recognition in the United States by some sort of legal action of what they call the “American Sabbath,” may not have become fully conscious of the fact, but it is nevertheless true, that they are perpetrating a fraud upon the people in the name of religion. This consists first in the name which they have assumed for the day of the week upon which they propose to legally compel all men within our borders to seem to rest, the “American Sabbath.” In order to warrant the use of this distinctive phrase, there must either be a formal recognition of a certain day as the Sabbath day by the voice of the whole American people at some properly designated time when their voice upon that question could be heard, and there must be all but a universal observance of that day by the American people without such a recognition by formal voice or vote. Up to the present time there has been neither one.
The rather unpleasant conviction is forced upon the independent investigator, that the gentlemen of the cloth in using the phrase, “American Sabbath,” are following about the same tactics which liquor men and politicians do when they declare in favor of temperance—attempting to secure recognition for one thing by a specious pretense of devotion to something else.
There is not, and necessarily can not be, any such thing as an American Sabbath. There can be an American Congress, because the people of the United States have the right and power to elect one; there can be an American President, an American Government, American laws pertaining to the conduct of people as American citizens, or the course of the Government toward its citizens, or the citizens or governments of other lands, because all these the people of the United States have the power to elect, enact, or establish; but there can be no such thing as an American Sabbath, because the people of the United States have no power to appoint any day which is to be observed with reference to God and heaven, nor compel its observance when it is appointed. To attempt such a thing is clearly rebellion against heaven and God; and to look with favor upon it is to look with favor upon such rebellion.
If the observance of a Sabbath day is primarily the result of a heavenly command, then the expression, an “American Sabbath,” justly and properly construed, implies the following things: General authority from heaven vested in the American Nation to promulgate and enforce the commands of God; second, the formal promulgation by the American people of the decree that the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord and shall be observed as such. We deny that either of these conditions has obtained. The American Nation has never been authorized to promulgate the decrees of heaven. On the contrary, the most authoritative and completely binding document which that people has ever adopted, formally and clearly forbids Congress, the highest power in the Government, making any attempt to exercise any religious authority whatever, even going so far as to forbid the application of any religious tests, which compels the equal recognition of infidel and Christian, Mohammedan and Buddhist. Having no authority to promulgate religious decrees or ordinances, and being specially forbidden to do so, the Government has not promulgated any decree authorizing or enjoining the observance of any day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, and therefore there is no such thing as the “American Sabbath.”
These are statements of truths which are patent. Congressmen do not even need to read them as they run, for they have both learned and relearned them from boyhood up, and their natural intelligence as American citizens, certainly, if of native birth, would, unassisted, teach them that these strictures are just. Why, then, will they permit their names to go on record as voting for legislation on religious subjects? Political religion already dominates Congress; how long before it will rule the country?
Look on This, and Then on This.
THE Pittsburg Times, of July 25, contains two finely contrasted items, the one descriptive of a “ratification meeting,” held to express gratification over the action of Congress as to the closing of the World’s Fair; and the other a paragraph of telegraphic news from Washington, showing how quickly Congress had forgotten its sudden respect for Sunday, when its committees were conferring for a good portion of that day upon the very bill containing the religious clause.
The account of the satisfaction over congressional error and hypocrisy reads thus:—
A ratification meeting of the Reform Bureau over the Sabbath closing action of Congress in connection with the World’s Fair, was held in Silver Lake grove last evening and it was well attended. After a few remarks by Peter Dick, the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, the speaker of the evening, was introduced.
Mr. Crafts first drew a vivid word painting of the Senate chamber during the discussion of the Sunday closing bill, and spoke of the great reverence of the members during the reading of the third commandment. He then spoke of this passage of the bill as one of the great decisive victories in the war of reform. He said: “Those who say that the holy Sabbath is gone have their answer in the decision of Congress and Senate, who merely echo the sentiments of 40,000,000 people.”
The speaker then pointed out the importance of following up this great victory, using as an illustration the fact that many generals were changed after some of the battles in the late civil war because they failed to follow the victories they had gained. He urged the people to keep the enemy on the run. He then spoke of the evils of the continental Sabbath, showing by statistics that its triumph in this country only meant more working days for the laborers. He stated that in foreign countries the monarch kept the people intoxicated by the pleasures of the continental Sabbath. He spoke of the great help to the good cause done by personal letters to the members of the Senate, and, in conclusion, urged the people to do all in their power to prevent the repeal of the Sunday laws of Pennsylvania at the next session of the Legislature, by using their influence and writing letters expressing their sentiments on the subject to the members of the House.
The contrasting paragraph is headed, “Working on the Sunday Bill,” and is as follows:—
The Senate and House conferees on the sundry civil bill spent six or seven hours of the warm Sabbath day in the cool chamber of the Senate committee on appropriations, endeavoring to reach an agreement on the sundry civil bill. Their efforts were partially successful, they having agreed on various items which were compromised, as well as to throw out some which were in the nature of appropriations based upon new legislation.
Such facts as this, and there are many—there will be many more also—are a sufficient criterion of the spirit in which this legislation has been passed. What can be the fruit of such as this? “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”
The “Civil Sabbath” vs. Religion.
It is easy to see that the law which exalts the “civil Sabbath,” works evil to religion, by placing the human authority in place of the divine. This is especially true of Sunday, since comparatively few, even among Christians, make the divine law the basis of its observance. This state of things destroys conscience, and hence religious regard for Sunday.
When men are at leisure at the same time on any grounds except religious obligation, the temptation to holidayism is much stronger than the invitation to Sabbathism. Irreligious men will drift to holidayism and dissipation if compelled to be idle.
The demands of business and the allurements of pleasure do not keep the masses from church so much as does lack of sympathy for the church services and for religious worship. If true Sabbathism is ever attained in connection with Sunday or any other day, there must be two radical departures from present methods.
1. Cease to depend on civil law, and turn the whole current of discussion into the religious channels where it belongs.
2. Separate all legislation against liquor selling from the Sunday laws against other forms of business, and so take from the Sunday saloon its most effective weapon. As it now is, the union of the anti-Sunday saloon laws, and the laws against ordinary labor, in the same general category furnishes the saloon with a sword ready sharpened, which they wield with deadly effect. The effort to close the saloons on Sunday only, is a mighty barrier against the full prohibition of the traffic on other days. Legislation against the saloon is always in order. It ought not to cease until that curse is put away, but when the main efforts of the temperance people are against Sunday selling,237Sunday closing becomes a sort of bribe to conscience and custom, against interference on other days. It is strange that temperance reformers can not see this fact.
The sooner the friends of Sunday take it out of “politics” the better will be the results for religion and for Sabbathism. This double-headed idea of the “civil, and the religious Sabbath,” is just now popular and furnishes a seeming relief from the charge of attempting the union of Church and State, or of Christianity and the State, under which the friends of Sunday legislation wince. But the combination is contradictory and meaningless unless the full theocratic ground be assumed. Sabbath and Sabbathism arise from religion alone, all else is mere civil rest-day, is practical holidayism. History has settled this question and the verdict will be repeated as often as men choose to try the experiment.—The Sabbath Outlook.
Great Is the American Sunday.
When Paul preached the gospel in Ephesus, the people, fearful that their goddess could not take care of herself, urged on by those who thought their craft in danger, raised a popular clamor to drive out the apostle, and to encourage themselves; and to try to make it appear so, they shouted for hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” There is a very similar sound in the following from Rev. J. A. Crugan, Congregationalist, in the San Francisco Examiner, of July 17, and from thousands of others also:—
My principal objection to the opening of the World’s Fair on Sunday is that the grandest thing that we have to show to the nations of the Old World is the American Sunday.
It is safe to say that among the great things of Sunday will be the contradictory creeds of Chicago’s churches, and the grand exhibition of drunkenness, debauchery, and licentiousness with which Chicago will that day abound. If Sunday is of God, it needs no legal support, and its adherents would never ask it. It is the conscious weakness of its moral and religious side which leads its adherents to demand for its support the aid of statute law.—Signs of the Times.